2:1-12 The Magi and their star

There is much going on in this section. Historical-critical questions are raised about the verisimilitude of the magi and their star, questions that can take us away from the goals of the narrative. As we have come to expect, these questions are most exhaustively dealt with by Raymond Brown. We will summarize Brown's discussion of some of these and put forward his suggestion that the story of Balaam generates the detail of the story at this point.

The reference to the birth of Jesus taking place “in the days of Herod the King,” here and in Luke’s birth narrative (Lk. 1:5), give us a latest possible date for the birth of Jesus (a “terminus ad quem”). Herod the King of Judea is Herod the Great, whose death is linked by Josephus to a year in which a lunar eclipse occured shortly before Passover; the concensus is that this year was 4 BCE. Jesus’ birth can be no later than this.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem at home. This means there is no journey, no pregnant mother on a donkey, no “Inn”, no manger no animals as well as no shepherds in the fields, no heavenly host. All this detail comes from Luke and is kept alive by the Christmas card industry. But all is not loss! We are in the world of the Magi, their Star and their Gifts.

Magi arrive in Jerusalem. In the first century CE, people know of magi from out East “as those engaged in occult arts and [the term] covers a wide range of astronomers, fortune tellers, priestly augurers, and magicians of varying plausibility” (Brown, 167). Matthew’s linking them to a star suggests astrologers. There is no suggestion at all that Matthew sees these characters as anything other than wholly admirable. They come from the East; this point of detail owes its origin to the Balaam story, as will be laid out later. Their coming provides a vehicle for the homage of the Gentiles to this new son of Abraham. As we would expect, these mysterious magi characters have provided occasion for endless speculation as to: where they came from, how many there were, what their names were. None of these questions are issues for the story. It is said that the genuine bones of the magi travelled further as objects of veneration than did the magi themselves.

The child “born king of the Jews” sets up a tragic rivalry, a threat, to the King of Judea, that in the story leads to the “slaughter of the innocents” in Bethlehem.

They have observed “his star at its rising”. This is the biggie for those who are interested in the questions of historical criticism. As an element in a story of the Messiah’s birth it would not, in itself, have occasioned surprise. But we are talking about the “what actually happened and how would we refer to it now” questions. Such speculation has clustered around three general possibilities: (i) It was a supernova explosion, such as are occurring all the time; (ii) It was a comet, observances of which have been noted for millennia; (iii) It was a planetary conjunction of, say, Jupiter and Saturn. (See Brown, 170 -173.)

They have come following their observation of the rising of the star. There is no implication that they have followed the star to Jerusalem; the five miles from Jerusalem to Bethlehem is a different story. Having seen the appearance of the “star” associated with the birth of the king of the Jews, let’s hoof it over to Jerusalem and check out what is happening.

Who knows where the king of the Jews is to be born? Certainly not Herod the Great! The Jerusalem leadership speak for Matthew: “in Bethlehem of Judea” Matthew gives us a compound quotation of Micah 5:2 and 2 Samuel 5:2 (that is about as convincing as saying that our apartment has a “sea view”). The changes that Matthew has made in the Micah text make Bethlehem in Judea to be significant, whereas Bethlehem in Ephrathah is insignificant.

We don’t need to point out the historical problems that arise when we take this story and confuse it with history, but we’ll do it anyway. (i) The historical and scientific oddity of a star that leads the Magi to Jerusalem, disappears for a while, then reappears and goes backwards to Bethlehem where it lights up one house; this unique event receives no notice from the records of the time. (ii) The depicted relationship between Herod and the Sanhedrin is totally at odds with what we know – they were not at his beck and call. (iii) Herod’s intelligence system is not able to find out which house in the small town of Bethlehem received the exotic Magi from the East, nor did they attempt to follow them. (iv)The slaughter of all the boys under the age of two in Bethlehem receives no mention in Josephus’ detailed history. (v) The story, on this level, is irreconcilable with Luke’s nativity story. (vi) The Gospel stories of Jesus’ ministry do not know about this extraordinary association of Jesus with Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

Whereas the story of Matthew 2:13-23 draws heavily on the story of the birth of Moses in Egypt and the threat to his life, the background to the story of the Magi and their star (2:1-12) had been found in the story of the prophet Balaam and the threats made against him by Balak, King of Moab (Numbers 22-24). Balaam is a non-Israelite, an occult visionary, a practitioner of enchantment. Philo of Alexandria calls him a magos (singular of magoi/magi). He comes from the East, accompanied by two servants and their coming is accompanied by the rising of a star (Num 24:17). In both stories “the wicked king sought to use the foreign magus to destroy his enemy, but the magus actually honored his enemy” (Brown, 190 -196).

The proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah is given to the learned Gentile magi gained through “general revelation”. The specific location of the new Messiah can only be gained through “special revelation”, given through Scripture, the preserve of the learned Jewish sages. In the light of the Star and Scripture, the Gentile magi arrive and pay homage whereas the leaders of Jerusalem stay away and do not believe. This paradox reflects the contemporary experience of Matthew’s community and their telling of the passion story.