Myth and history in the Epiphany of Matthew 2
The lectionary gospel reading for this Sun is either the Ephiphany in Matt 2.i–12, or the readings for Christmas 2 in Year C, which is John 1.1–18 or John 1.10–18. If you are using the readings for Christmas 2, I commented on nigh of this text earlier in the yr, since John 1.1–14 was the reading for the Second Dominicus before Lent in Year B. If y'all are preaching on Epiphany, then I repost here my almanac discussion of Matt 2; it is non quite a commentary on the text in the usual style, only does in fact bargain with the main issues, and includes a fascinating historical comment from a friend which was posted in response to previous discussion. Relish!
The Feast of the Epiphany in the church'southward liturgical calendar is based on the events of Matt 2.1–12, the visit of the 'wise men' from the Due east to the baby Jesus. There are plenty of things near the story which might brand us instinctively care for it equally just some other part of the constellation of Christmas traditions, which does not have very much connection with reality—and these questions are raised each yr at this feast.
The first is the sparseness of the story. As with other parts of the gospels, the details are given to us in bare outline compared with what nosotros are used to in modern literature. We are told petty of the historical reality that might involvement us, and the temptation is to fill in details for ourselves. This leads to the second issue—the development of sometimes quite elaborate traditions which do the work of filling in for u.s.. So these 'magoi' (which gives united states our word 'magic') became 'iii' (because of the number of their gifts), then 'wise men' and and so 'kings' (probably under the influence of Ps 72.x. By the time of this Roman mosaic from the church in Ravenna built in 547, they have even acquired names. Christopher Howse comments:
[T]hink how deeply these three men have entered our imagination as part of the Christmas story. "A cold coming they had of it at this time of the year, but the worst time of the year to take a journey, and specially a long journey, in. The ways deep, the weather condition precipitous, the days curt, the sun uttermost off, in solstitio brumali, the very expressionless of winter."
Those words, in a tremendous sermon past Lancelot Andrewes that Rex James I heard on Christmas Day 1622, were brilliantly stolen by TS Eliot and incorporated into his poem The Journeying of the Magi. And we can see it all: the camels' breath steaming in the night air as the kings, in their gorgeous robes of silk and cloth-of-aureate and clutching their precious gifts, kneel to admire the babe in the manger.
Yet, that is not entirely what the Gospel says…
Just for any careful readers of the gospels, at that place is a third question: how does the visit of the magi fit in with the overall birth narrative, and in particular tin can Matthew's account be reconciled with Luke'south? Andreas Köstenberger and Alexander Stewart address this question in The First Days of Jesus pp 164–167, in dialogue with Raymond Dark-brown'southwardThe Birth of the Messiah (1993). Brown notes the points that Matthew and Luke share in common:
- The parents are named as Mary and Joseph, who are legally engaged or married only have not still come to live together or have sexual relations (Matt 1.18, Luke 1.27, 34)
- Joseph is of Davidic descent (Matt 1.16, 20, Luke ane.27, 32, 2.4)
- An angel announces the forthcoming nativity of the child (Matt 1.20–23 Luke 1.30–35)
- The conception of the child is non through intercourse with her husband (Matt 1.20, 23, 25, Luke 1.34)
- The formulation is through the Holy Spirit (Matt 1.18, twenty, Luke 1.35)
- The affections directs them to name the child Jesus (Matt 1.21, Luke 2.11)
- An angel states that Jesus is to be Saviour (Matt ane.21, Luke 2.11)
- The birth of the child takes identify after the parents take come up to live together (Matt one.24–25, Luke 2.five–6)
- The nascence takes place in Bethlehem (Matt 2.i, Luke ii.four–6).
This is a surprisingly long listing, and Brown's careful examination produces a longer list of points of understanding than is usual noted. But fifty-fifty a cursory reading highlights the differences, not only in way and concern in the narrative, simply in fabric content. Luke includes the angelic announcements to Zechariah and Mary, Mary'southward visit to Elizabeth and the 'Magnificat', the birth of John the Baptist, Zechariah's song (the 'Benedictus'), the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, Jesus beingness laid in the nutrient-trough, the lack of space in the invitee room, the angelic announcement to the shepherds, and the presentation in the temple with Simeon and Anna—all omitted from Matthew. On the other hand, Matthew includes the visit of the magi, Herod's plot, the escape to Egypt, the slaughter of the 'innocents', and Joseph's decision almost where to settle—all omitted from Luke. Every bit Richard Bauckham notes, Luke'south is a largely 'gynocentric' narrative, focussing on the experiences, decisions and faithfulness of the women, whilst Matthew's is largely an 'androcentric' narrative, focussing much more on the roles, decisions and actions of the men involved.
Brown sees these differences as fatal to the possible harmony of the ii accounts, stating that they are irreconcilable at several points. But Köstenberger and Stewart disagree:
Nothing that Matthew says actually contradicts Luke'south account about Mary and Joseph existence in Nazareth prior to the birth. Matthew is silent on the matter…[which] simply indicates his ignorance of or lack of involvement in these details for the purpose of his narrative…Narrators usually shrink fourth dimension and omit details (either from ignorance or conscious choice). Luke'south reference to the family's return to Nazareth later the presentation of the temple does not contradict the events recorded in Matthew 2; he just doesn't comment on them. Once more, silence does not equal contradiction (pp 166–167).
Luke'southward determination, in Luke 2.39, is sometimes seen as creating a difficulty; the well-nigh natural mode to read the English 'When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their ain town of Nazareth' (TNIV) is as a temporal marking, suggesting an immediate return. But the Greek phrasekai hostin can have a range of meanings; the emphasis for Luke hither is that,since they had washed everything, they were able to get out, contributing to Luke'southward consistent theme throughout the early chapters that Joseph and Mary, along with other characters in the story, are obedient, Torah-observant, pious Jews.
What is interesting here is that we have two quite dissimilar accounts, working from different sources, with dissimilar aims—and yet in understanding on all the main details. Normally in scholarly discussion, this double testimony would be counted asevidence of reliability and historicity, rather than a contradiction to it.
In response to this, critical scholarship has moved in the other direction, and by and large has pulled apart Matthew's story and confidently decided that none of it actually happened—in role because of the supposed contradictions with Luke, but in even larger office because of Matthew's use of Old Testament citations. Thus it is read as having been synthetic by Matthew out of a serial of OT texts in order to tell us the real significance of Jesus. So Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan, inThe Get-go Christmas: what the gospels actually teach about Jesus' nascence, come up to this decision:
In our sentence, at that place was no special star, no wise men and no plot by Herod to impale Jesus. Then is the story factually truthful? No. But as a parable, is information technology true? For united states as Christians, the reply is a robust affirmative. Is Jesus light shining in the darkness? Yes. Practise the Herods of this world seek to extinguish the low-cal? Yes. Does Jesus still smoothen in the darkness? Yeah (p 184).
The arroyo presents problems of its own. For i, the stories are not presented as parables, but in continuity with the events Matthew relates in Jesus' life later in the gospel. For another, if God in Jesus did not outwit Herod, on what grounds might nosotros think he tin can outwit 'the Herods of this world'? More fundamentally, Matthew and his first readers appeared to believe that the claims almost Jesus were 'parabolically truthful' because these things actually happened. If none of them did, what grounds do we now take? Even if the events nosotros read about are heavily interpreted, there is an irreducible facticity in testimony; if this has gone, we ought to question the value of the testimony itself.
A practiced working instance of this approach is found in Paul Davidson's weblog. Davidson is a professional translator, rather than a biblical studies academic, only he offers a good outline of what disquisitional scholarship has to say well-nigh Matthew's nativity.
His basic assumption is that Matthew is a 'multi-layered' document—Matthew is writing from the basis of other, differing sources. He takes over big parts of Marker'southward gospel, as does Luke, and Matthew and Luke never agree in contradiction to Mark, a key piece of the argument of 'Marcan priority', that Marking was earlier than either of the other two. Whether or not y'all believe in the existence of the so-called Q, another early written source (and with Mark Goodacre, I don't), Matthew is clearly dealing with some pre-existing cloth, oral or written. It is striking, for example, that Joseph is a cardinal graphic symbol in Matthew's account before and after the story of the magi, and is the fundamental actor in contrast to Luke's nascence, where the women are key. Still in this department (Matt ii.1–12) the focus is on 'the child' or 'the child and his mother Mary' (Matt 2.9, two.xi; see also Matt 2.14, 20 and 21). Some scholars therefore argue that this story comes from a dissimilar source, and then might exist unhistorical.
This is where we need to start being critical of criticism. Handling texts in this mode requires the making of some bold assumptions, not least that of writer invariants. If a change of style indicates a change of source, and so this can only exist seen if the writer is absolutely consistent in his (or her) ain writing, and fails to make the source material his or her own. In other words, we (at twenty centuries distant) need to exist a lot smarter than the writer him- or herself. Even a bones appreciation of writing suggests that authors are only not that consistent.
Davidson goes on in his exploration to explain the story of the star in terms of OT source texts.
The ground for the star and the magi comes from Numbers 22–24, a story in which Balaam, a soothsayer from the east (and a magus in Jewish tradition) foretells the coming of a nifty ruler "out of Jacob". Significantly, the Greek version of this passage has messianic overtones, every bit it replaces "sceptre" in 24:17 with "human being."
He is quite right to place the connections hither; any good commentary will bespeak out these allusions, and it would be surprising if Matthew, writing what most would regard every bit a 'Jewish' gospel, was non aware of this. But if he is using these texts equally a 'source', he is non doing a very good job. The star points to Jesus, but Jesus is not described every bit a 'star', and no gospels make utilize of this as a championship. In fact, this is the only place where the word 'star' occurs in the gospel. (It does occur as a title in Rev 22.16, and possibly in ii Peter 1.19, merely neither text makes any connexion with this passage.)
Side by side, Davidson looks at the citation in Matt 2.5–half dozen, which for many critical scholars provides the rationale for a passage explaining that Jesus was born in Bethlehem when he is otherwise universally known equally 'Jesus of Nazareth' (19 times in all 4 gospels and Acts). But, as Davidson points out, Matthew has to work hard to get these texts to aid him. For one, he has to bolt together two texts which are otherwise completely unconnected, from Micah 5.2 and 2 Sam v.ii. Secondly, he has to change the text of Micah 5.ii and so that:
- Bethlehem, the 'least' of the cities of Judah, now becomes 'by no ways the least';
- the well-known epithet 'Ephrathah' becomes 'Judah' to make the geography clear; and
- the 'clans' becomes 'clan leader' i.e. 'ruler' to make the text relevant.
Moreover, Matthew is making utilise of a text which was non known as 'messianic'; in the get-go century, the idea that messiah had to come from Bethlehem every bit a son of David was known merely not very widespread.
All this is rather bad news for those who would fence that Jesus' birth was carefully planned to be a literal fulfilment of OT prophecy. But it is equally bad news for those who argue that Matthew made the story up to fit such texts, and for exactly the same reason. Of course, Matthew is working in a context where midrashic reading of texts ways that they are a good deal more than flexible than we would consider them. But he is needing to brand maximum use of this flexibility, and the logical decision of this would be that he was constrained by the other sources he is using—past the business relationship he has of what actually happened.
Davidson now turns to consider the magi and the star. He notes a certain coherence up to the point where the magi arrive in Jerusalem.
And so far, the story makes logical sense despite its theological issues (e.m. the fact that it encourages people to believe in the "deceptive scientific discipline of astrology", equally Strauss noted). The star is merely that: a star.
And so everything changes. The star is transformed into an atmospheric light that guides the magi right from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, where it hovers overa unmarried house—the i where the kid is. Nosotros are no longer dealing with a afar angelic body, just something else entirely, like a pixie or will-o'-the-wisp.
Here over again critical assumptions need some critical reflection. Matthew's inclusion of magi is theologically very problematic indeed. Simon Magus and Elymas (Acts 8.9, 13.8) inappreciably get a good press, not surprising in light of OT prohibitions on sorcery, magic and astrology. Western romanticism has embraced the Epiphany as a suggestive mystery, only earlier readings (like that of Irenaeus) saw the bespeak as the humiliation of paganism; the giving of the gifts was an act of submission and capitulation to a greater power. For Matthew the Jew, they are an unlikely and risky feature to include, especially when Jesus is clear he has come to the 'lost sheep of the house of State of israel' (Matt ten.six, 15.24).
There take been many attempts to explain the appearance of the star scientifically. The best contenders are a comet (for which there is no contained evidence), a supernova (observed past the Chinese in 4 BC) or the conjunction of Jupiter with Saturn in the constellation Pisces—something that recently recurred to headline coverage. I retrieve the latter is the best candidate; Jupiter signified 'leader', Saturn denoted 'the Westland', and Pisces stood for 'the end of the age'. So this conjunction would communicate to astrologers 'A leader in the Westland [Palestine] in the end days.' This highlights a cardinal trouble with Davidson's criticism; the effect is not whether a star could in fact indicate a particular house in our, modern scientific terms. This is conspicuously incommunicable. The real issue is whether Matthew idea it could—or fifty-fifty whether Matthew thought the magi idea it could. Equally Dick France highlights in his NICNT commentary, this was really a common understanding for which we have documentary evidence. And any naturalistic explanations miss Matthew's cardinal point: this was something miraculous provided by God. If you lot don't think the miraculous is possible, you are bound to disbelieve Matthew's story—but on the basis of your own assumptions, not on any criteria of historical reliability or the nature of Matthew'south text.
Davidson cites the 19th-century rationalist critic David Friedrich Strauss in his objection to the plausibility of Herod'due south action:
With regard to Herod'due south instructions to study back to him, Strauss notes that surely the magi would accept seen through his plan at once. There were besides less impuissant methods Herod might have used to observe out where the child was; why did he not, for example, send companions along with the magi to Bethlehem?
In fact, we know from Josephus that Herod had a fondness for using clandestine spies. And in terms of the story, the magi are unaware of Herod's motives; we are deploying our prior knowledge of the outcome to decide what we think Herod ought to have done, which is hardly a skillful basis for questioning Matthew'south credibility.
Finally, nosotros come to the inflow of the magiat the dwelling house of the family. Interestingly, Matthew talks of their 'house' (Matt ii.eleven) which supports the idea that Jesus was non born in a stable—though from the age of children Herod has executed (less than 2 years) we should think of the magi arriving some time after the birth. No shepherds and magi together hither! (It is worth noting, though, that forming a 'tableau' of different elements of a narrative, all compressed together, is a common feature of creative depictions of stories. We just need to be enlightened of what is going in here in the compression of narrative time.)
Davidson again sees (with critical scholars) this outcome constructed from OT texts:
According to Dark-brown, Goulder (2004), and others, the Former Attestation provided the inspiration for the gifts of the magi. This passage is an implicit citation of Isaiah lx.3, 6 and Psalm 72.10, 15, which describe the bringing of gifts in homage to the king, God'south majestic son.
But again, the trouble here is that Matthew's account only doesn't fit very well. Given that these OT texts uniformly mention kings, not magi, if Matthew was amalgam his account from these, why choose the embarrassing astrologers? And why three gifts rather than two? Where has the myrrh come from? Again, it is Irenaeus who starting time interprets the gifts every bit indicators of kingship, priesthood and sacrificial death respectively, but Matthew does non announced to do so. In the narrative, they are only improvident gifts fit for the true 'male monarch of the Jews'. Subsequent tradition has to do the work that Matthew has hither failed to exercise, and brand the story fit the prophecies rather better than Matthew has managed to.
Davidson closes his analysis of this department with a final observation from Strauss:
If the magi can receive divine guidance in dreams, why are they not told in a dream to avoid Jerusalem and go straight to Bethlehem in the first place? Many innocent lives would accept been saved that way.
Clearly, God could accept done a much better task of the whole concern. But it rather appears as though Matthew felt unable to improve on what happened by plumbing equipment it either to the OT texts or his sense of what ought to have happened.
The modern reader might struggle with aspects of Matthew's story. But information technology seems to me you can only dismiss it by making a large number of other, unwarranted assumptions. (The principal parts of this mail service were kickoff published in 2015—but they clearly bear repeating.)
Additional note: when I mail service some of this material last year, my friend John Hudghton posted this fascinating comment offer a broader historical context:
I have to acknowledge at one time I thought that the birth narratives, particularly this one in Matthew were literary constructs which while they were metaphorically truthful as myth did not contain reliable historical content. Well that was what some of the scholars and commentators said. It was all a bit airy fairy, mysterious men from the East…who were they, what were they doing there? How likely was this at all – would these wandering fortune tellers have been received by Herod, his courtroom and had an affect which would throw Jerusalem into panic? What kind of interest would THEY have had in announcing a future Male monarch of the Jews? Well I used to call up that – but that was a event of very sloppy critical scholarship. Having continued in my reading and studying in the field of ancient history every bit well as biblical studies I take grown to understand that the story in Matthew is credible and likely and quite bluntly I believe information technology thoroughly, from the coming of the Magi to the flight and render from Egypt. To understand the story of the Magi y'all demand a good appreciation of the geo-politics of the fourth dimension, as well as the religious situation. Without this y'all will flounder and make wild stabs in the dark as to the historical anchor of Matthew 2 and may well end up, similar I did consigning information technology to the category of "myth" – a story constructed to teach truths but not necessarily being true in itself. While this may be ok in some holy literature, as far as the Gospels are concerned this sits uncomfortably with me, specially if it is poorly done.
Let's talk near the political situation in Israel at the time. Herod is in ability as an ethnarc – ruling over the Jews. How did he get there? The Roman general, Pompey had invaded and in 63BC put an terminate to Jewish independence and carved upwards the state of Israel. Herod, the son of an advisor to Julius Ceasar was appointed governor of Galilee in 47BC and and then in 41 BC promoted to tetrarch past Marking Anthony and in 39BC the senate exclusively proclaims him "King of the Jews" considering his reign of terror brought in enough of taxes to the coffers of Rome. Nonetheless during this fourth dimension he had to contend with the Parthians – who were in essence Persians.
The Parthian empire was 2nd only to Rome. The Parthians ruled from 247 BC to 224 Advert creating a vast empire that stretched from the Mediterranean in the w to Republic of india and China in the east. East of the Caspian Sea there emerged from the steppe of Central Asia a nomadic Scythian tribe called the Parni. Later called the Parthians and taking over the Seleucid Empire and fending off the Romans, they established themselves as a superpower in their ain correct. They were especially expert in cavalry fighting using calorie-free cavalry horse archers and heavily armoured cataphracts. It was an equine culture, the Parthians simply had a relatively small standing ground forces but could call upon militia whose culture equipped them for this means of gainsay. Camels were used for baggage merely….
The Parthians took reward of the Roman infighting of the after years of the 1st century BC. They intervened in the region sending 500 warriors and in 40BC placed Antigonus II on the throne of Judea and made him High Priest while the unpopular Herod retreated to his fortress in Masada. Nevertheless as the Romans reorganised and re-established their influence in the area they defeated the Parthians in Syria who pulled their expeditionary forcefulness dorsum to their quondam borders. Herod so fought a war with the assist of Mark Anthony to regain control of Judea, culminating with the defeat of Antigonus in 37BC and his subsequent vicious execution by Mark Antony. At various times there was peace and at other times disputes betwixt Rome and Parthia. The Parthians were always watchful of their borders and like the Romans persisted in trying to influence the buffer states along their borders. The traffic though was two mode, as Herod attempted to influence the Jewish population within the Parthian empire past deposing the local priests and instead appointing priests to the Jerusalem temple from this Jewish diaspora.
Now what is of primary importance is the term Magi. Yep the term has been used of some individuals using supernatural powers "magic" as a means of making a living – but the main usage and common understanding of the term Magi is related to the "tribe" of priests who acted well-nigh similar a religious civil service to the various empires of the area, from the Babylonian through to the Medo-Western farsi era and then to the Parthians. Josephus tells usa that no ane could exist King in Parthia unless they knew the ways of the Magi and were supported by the Magi who some understood to operate in a non dissimilar way to a Usa senate. They were indeed not the Kings merely they were the power behind the throne – the Male monarch makers. Yous may remember in the volume of Daniel that Daniel is appointed chief of the Magi. They had a reputation throughout the region for being educated, wise, learned, religious priests with knowledge of organized religion from previous empires to that of Zoroastrianism, the prevalent religion of the Parthian empire. Conventional learning was interlaced with astrology, abracadabra and other esoteric knowledge.
As Herod's life was drawing to a close there was plenty of public debate concerning his succession – Herod had 11 Sons (and five daughters) but was subject to Roman support. In seven BC he executed his own sons Alexander and Aristobulos because he believed they were plotting regicide and a insurrection and again in 4 BC he had his favourite son, his eldest, Antipater executed for the same reason causing Augustus Ceasar (who was no pussycat) to remark "Improve to be Herod's hog (hus) than his son (huios)". Many other members of the family were besides casualties including his favourite wife, Mariamne as were diverse members of his staff. At that place was much uncertainty every bit to his succession equally Herod's will changed more than one time and on top of this the population were ready for revolt – which did in fact come up to pass at Herod'due south death in 4BC. Herod used undercover police, spies and brutality to achieve his ends. He suffered depression and paranoia throughout his life and was now according to Josephus was suffering gangrene, astringent itching, convulsions and ulcers. His feet were covered with tumours and he had constant fevers.
It is to this scenario that the Magi (king makers) came from Parthia (the neighbouring empire with a track tape) seeking "he who is to be born Rex of the Jews" causing a huge amount of anguish to both Herod'southward courtroom and the establishment in Jerusalem. The Herodian-appointed Priests who depended on his patronage would have been as disturbed as Herod himself at the news of a new Male monarch. Had these strangers been wandering Gypsylike fortune tellers they would neither have gained admission to Herod's court or been given whatsoever credibility. Withal as they were the respected Magi – the Parthian religious civil service they received a hearing. Nosotros don't know how many Magi there were, there is no record, only it is likely they arrived with an escort and would have been protected both physically and diplomatically from any action that Herod may accept desired to bring against them.
It was not uncommon for astronomical events to exist interpreted through astrology and significant potents such equally comets or conjunctions of stars could signify a shift in the order of events on earth. This is what has alerted the Magi in Matthew'due south story and they become seeking the new King of the Jews as information technology is in their involvement to laurels him as future good relations with this new King will stand them (the Parthians) in good stead. Herod (as may exist expected) sees this as a threat and seeks to eliminate the new King. The Magi are warned in a dream to return past another road – and equally we know from Daniel, this sort of thing was the bread and butter of Magi.
In so many mod day depictions of Magi they are riding camels. If, equally I believe the extremely persuasive bear witness indicates that they were Parthians, there is as much hope of them arriving on a camel as there would be of a chapter of bikers opting to travel in a van rather than on a wheel. Camels were for luggage and yes they would take had some of this, but horses were for personal ship and the few depictions there are in the history of fine art of Magi on horseback have got it right.
So I now practise believe the story of the Magi in Matthew 2 to be apparent and likely. As was the flying of the Holy Family unit to Egypt – who in the light of the rebellion against Herod's family in 4BC (and the subsequent brutal massacre, rape and enslavement of Jews following Varrus' punitive recapture of the country when he sent in Iv whole legions, laid waste product to the land and crucified 2000 Galileans alone for rebellion) would have not been the only refugees fleeing the middle Due east in bloody and uncertain times.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/myth-and-history-in-the-epiphany-of-matthew-2/
Post a Comment for "Myth and history in the Epiphany of Matthew 2"