|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Not so Wise Men
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
My sermon this morning was about the Wise Men. It occurred to me when I was preparing, and reading about the slaughter of the innocents that actually it was all the wise men's fault and that their visit to Herod was entirely unnecessary.
What were they thinking?? Telling a King that his rival had been born and "Where is he please?"! (Unless, of course, they assumed it was his heir!) But how could they not have known about Herod and the political situation? Fancy telling a despotic King that there was a new-born pretender to the throne!
Anyway, my thought was this: the scribes looked it up in their commentaries and confirmed that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, and lo, the star went and travelled over to Bethlehem and stood over the house. Did the star wait until the words were read out about Bethlehem Ephratah, and on discovering the venue, went and dutifully shone there? No! It was going there anyway and would have shown the Magi the way had they just waited.
Was the slaughter of the innocents then, the tragic result of the Wise men's failure to follow the God-given sign? And though the murders were entirely on Herod's hands, had the wise men followed the star it all could have been avoided.
What a tragedy.
[ 28. May 2016, 02:02: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Is it historically accurate or a literary device to parallel the Moses-Egyptian slaughter? And where indeed was God during it? Busy with miracles about one baby so as to ignore everyone else?
I know everyone knows those questions. Not necessary to answer in any significant way. It did give us the carol We Three Kings and the parody with cigars, though I think Jingle Bells and shepherds washing socks are better parodies. Persia figured significantly in the awareness as an unconquered and exotic one-god land. It is interesting to reflect on the place of Persia in our consciouness from the days of Alexander the Great to Iran today. How is it that wisdom in the form of wise kings was not coming from Rome but from the Zoarastrian Persians, and what does that mean for the zeitgeist the Jesus times?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Let's just assume the historicity and stick to the point. Personally, I see no reason or justification for these things not being historical. If the synoptic Gospels were written to teach new converts or persuade potential ones, I fail to see how false history could possibly be useful. If the Jesus of the Gospels was not an historical figure then I can't see how the new converts in a dangerous anti-Christian world would even bother putting their faith in him - especially people from a Jewish background (Matthew's readership) who lived amongst fellow Jews who were unlikely to put their trust in anyone that wasn't fitting the requirement for a warrior-Messiah. Anything that would smack of falsehood would be immediately pounced upon!
I do not see any reason whatever to doubt the historicity of the wise men.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Several thoughts come to mind in reply to the OP.
1. The Magi didn't know anything except their belief that a new king was to be born. They may have known nothing of Herod's character. So they naturally went to the "obvious" place, i.e. the Palace, in all innocence.
2. If they were coming a long way from the East, Bethlehem and Jerusalem would occupy almost the same vector in the sky. When you factor in the fact that the earth rotates, causing the sky to apparently move, it's not surprising if they got a bit muddled!
3. The passage implies that the star moved after the Magi visited Herod. That does sound implausible, unless it was a comet moving through the solar system.
There has been 2000 year's-worth of speculation on this matter ... as you say, the story raises real questions about the "goodness" or "favouritism" of God.
[ 27. December 2015, 14:40: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Several thoughts come to mind in reply to the OP.
1. The Magi didn't know anything except their belief that a new king was to be born. They may have known nothing of Herod's character. So they naturally went to the "obvious" place, i.e. the Palace, in all innocence.
2. If they were coming a long way from the East, Bethlehem and Jerusalem would occupy almost the same vector in the sky. When you factor in the fact that the earth rotates, causing the sky to apparently move, it's not surprising if they got a bit muddled!
3. The passage implies that the star moved after the Magi visited Herod. That does sound implausible, unless it was a comet moving through the solar system.
There has been 2000 year's-worth of speculation on this matter ... as you say, the story raises real questions about the "goodness" or "favouritism" of God.
Actually, I never suggested that the story raised any questions about the goodness or favouritism of God. I am suggesting that had they waited, they would have followed the star straight to Bethlehem where it was going anyway. To involve the King, unwittingly caused great hardship.
The lesson I draw out is that God provides perfect leadership and that sometimes, even though we veer off from his path, he gives a second chance to follow where he wants us to go.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Perhaps you misunderstand, I am only suggesting the Kings might be nonhistorical not Jesus in my reply, but if you want me to post no further because I don't clearly accept the historicity of the kings I will. I think they may be either. It isn't false history, it is about how we tell stories to eachother through the centuries.
[ 27. December 2015, 14:51: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I didn't misunderstand you at all. What I would want to do is to put myself into the shoes of a Jew in AD70 when all hell is breaking loose and you are trying to tell me that Jesus is the Messiah.
You then tell me that the stories surrounding his birth are not actual history, and then, how other things are not real history - maybe including the empty tomb, though the execution on the cross might be real...
...and I, as a Jew under a bit of pressure just for being Jewish, and not wanting the pressure of accepting as the Messiah some random bloke to whom and about whom nothing extraordinary happened and I might well ask you - Jesus who?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
You make the point, emphasized when you pick 70 AD. I think you do misunderstand: 'people telling stories', no gospels yet, most NT things yet to be written. Other things not in the NT also yet to be written. Lots of stuff being said. Christianity not formed much, are we done the Acts episodes at 70 AD?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My sermon this morning was about the Wise Men. It occurred to me when I was preparing, and reading about the slaughter of the innocents that actually it was all the wise men's fault and that their visit to Herod was entirely unnecessary.
This is bullcrap. It is not "all their fault." You absolve Herod, the murderer, of any responsibility for his actions. Madness.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There's no sense in blaming the wise men. Anybody would head for the palace, particularly if from out of town (country) and used to the idea of kings having many wives and children. Me, I would have figured it was a grandson or younger son of Herod. And regardless of the actual behavior/nature of the star, Bethlehem is only a couple of miles down the road... The star would have had to be a single object and very low indeed, to be able to distinguish the two locations. And there is this thing called "daytime"...
As it is, we are not told that the star was always physically visible to the wise men. They saw it in the East, good, but from then on it is possible, even likely, they were left to get on with what they knew already--that it pertained to a king of the Jews, therefore go to Judea. It appears to have become visible again only after they met Herod.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My sermon this morning was about the Wise Men. It occurred to me when I was preparing, and reading about the slaughter of the innocents that actually it was all the wise men's fault and that their visit to Herod was entirely unnecessary.
What were they thinking?? Telling a King that his rival had been born and "Where is he please?"! (Unless, of course, they assumed it was his heir!) But how could they not have known about Herod and the political situation? Fancy telling a despotic King that there was a new-born pretender to the throne!
Actually, the biblical account doesn't say the Wise Men went to Herod or his palace. It just says that they went to Jerusalem and asked where the King of the Jews was. It is entirely possible that they were simply asking around, perhaps very discreetly (or as discreetly as such exotic foreigners could be). But Herod with his spies everywhere got to hear of it anyway. Then he calls the priests and scribes, gleans what information he can from them, and then summons the Wise Men. And who knows how gentle that summons was? Might Herod have sent his heavies to drag them to the palace? And then Herod "found out from them the exact time the star had appeared." How did he get this information out of them at this "secret" meeting? Might torture have been involved?
Moreover, the story says that the Wise Men "saw his star when it rose". That first sighting of the star seems to have given them all the information they needed to set out on a journey: the King of the Jews has been born. It doesn't say that they literally followed the star all the way to Jerusalem, and nor would they need a star to follow, if they know already that they are looking for a King of the Jews. They are following not the actual star itself, but their understanding of the star. New King of the Jews? Just head for Judea! Capital city will do fine.
In fact, when "the star they had seen when it rose" comes back to guide them the very short distance from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, they are "overjoyed" - as if they have missed the thing, and here it is as confirmation that they are indeed on the right track. They don't actually need to star to guide them to Bethlehem, because Herod has already directed them there (though they do need it to guide them specifically to the stable). But on the whole, the star is not so much a kind of "This Way" sign, as a portent to be interpreted.
Much of the above is pure speculation, of course. But no more so than assuming the Wise Men were bumbling fools who failed to follow God's sign. And as this is a story that carries a whole lot of legendary baggage, it has to be read very carefully indeed, or we end up preaching the legend rather than what is actually said.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Actually the text does not say they went to the stable. It came to rest over the place where the paidion (KJV young child) was. (Mt 2:9) And they went into the oikia (KJV house; Strong defines it as "domicile"). (Mt 2:11)
Given that they told Herod when they had seen the star, and Herod in accordance killed all the babies 2 years and younger, it would appear that Jesus was about 2 when the Wise (or not) Men visited. Which makes sense if his family was in a house and not a barn. Generally portents in the heavens of auspicious births come at the time of the birth, not two years earlier.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My sermon this morning was about the Wise Men. It occurred to me when I was preparing, and reading about the slaughter of the innocents that actually it was all the wise men's fault and that their visit to Herod was entirely unnecessary.
What were they thinking?? Telling a King that his rival had been born and "Where is he please?"! (Unless, of course, they assumed it was his heir!) But how could they not have known about Herod and the political situation? Fancy telling a despotic King that there was a new-born pretender to the throne!
Actually, the biblical account doesn't say the Wise Men went to Herod or his palace. It just says that they went to Jerusalem and asked where the King of the Jews was.... And as this is a story that carries a whole lot of legendary baggage, it has to be read very carefully indeed, or we end up preaching the legend rather than what is actually said.
Exactly. It seems to me that there are quite a few assumptions built into the OP that rest more on the legendary baggage than on the text.
The text (in Greek) doesn't say they were wise men. It says they were magi, which is probably better translated something more like astrologers. They saw the rise of a star, which they interpreted to signal the birth of the King of the Jews. (I have read some speculation that they may have been descendants of Jewish exiles in Persia, and were familiar with the expectation of a Messiah. Who knows?)
As you note, the text does not say that they followed the star to Jerusalem; it simply says they saw the rise of the star and, as a result, arrived in Jerusalem. The way in which they asked everyone "where is the one who has been born King of the Jews?" suggests that they arrived expectating the birth to be a widely known, and perhaps widely celebrated, event. Perhaps, especially if they made the Messianic connection, they assumed that any Jew, Herod included, would be rejoicing about the birth. In any event, the text is clear that Herod sent for them, not that they sought Herod out. (My hunch is that Herod used little if any torture; the text suggests it was more like sweet-talk. Had torture or coercion been involved, I doubt the magi would need to have been warned in a dream to avoid Herod on the trip home.)
Matthew appears to have been writing for a readership of Jewish Christians after the siege of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple and the massacre of those around the Temple. That would for them have been a defining event as Jews, even if Jews who were also Christians and Greek-speakers living outside Judea or Galilee. They would have understood well Herod's complicity in the Roman occupation, as well as the brutality of the Romans that essentially brought an end to Jewishness as they had always known it. As Jews, their world had changed dramatically. As Christians, they were trying to make sense of how the Christ figured in this new reality.
I suspect that the echoes of the Moses story resonated strongly with them. I'd guess that that when they heard the story as told by Matthew, what they took from it was not that the magi somehow screwed up. They saw in the story God's provision for the safety of the One who came to deliver Israel and Gentile alike in the face of unspeakable cruelty by the rulers of this world.
That's my hunch at least.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
Good point, Mousethief. I got careless! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
There is other evidence to consider, which may or may not give weight to the Biblical accounts.
History does not tell us outside of Christian tradition and the Bible of the genocide in Bethlehem. It does tell us something about Herod's character, that he had one of his wives, said to be his favourite, and their son executed because they were seen a a threat to Herod's reign. Herod also decreed that some Jews be killed at his death so that there would be weeping in Jerusalem. Slaughter of people seen as a threat is within what we know of his character.
Archaeology tells us that Herod built a fortified palace, Herodium, near Bethlehem, which is now the Herodyun National Park. Herodium, and therefore Bethlehem, would have been a great place to mount a military coup.
Of Herodium, the Jewish historian Josephus said: quote:
"Two hundred steps of purest white marble led up to it. Its top was crowned with circular towers; its courtyard contained splendid structures."
So Herod finds out- that there is a rival to the throne born.
- the rival is near Herodium, a good place for a coup.
Given that ancient history from this period is sketchy at least, there is good reason to say that the events in Matthews Gospel are if not true, then at least based on fact.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Did the star wait until the words were read out about Bethlehem Ephratah, and on discovering the venue, went and dutifully shone there? No!
Actually, that seems to be just what the text says. Matt 2:9
quote:
οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπορεύθησαν καὶ ἰδοὺ ὁ ἀστήρ, ὃν εἶδον ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ, προῆγεν αὐτούς, ἕως ἐλθὼν ἐστάθη ἐπάνω οὗ ἦν τὸ παιδίον.
When they had heard the king, then went on and lo! the star, that they saw at its rising, went ahead of them, until it came and stood over the place where the boy was.
The Magoi, the best of Pagan wisdom (see the many Jewish texts, eg. Wis, that lift up astrology as the least silly form of Pagan worship) can't find the Messiah without the aid of (Jewish) revelation. Once they've got this, God provides a miracle, and they find the Christ.
It's a study in miniature of how Gentiles can find Christ: they need (Jewish) revelation.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My sermon this morning was about the Wise Men. It occurred to me when I was preparing, and reading about the slaughter of the innocents that actually it was all the wise men's fault and that their visit to Herod was entirely unnecessary.
This is bullcrap. It is not "all their fault." You absolve Herod, the murderer, of any responsibility for his actions. Madness.
A very 21st century way to look at things.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Mudfrog, given that your observation is raised in the context of Kerygma, I don't think your interpretation is that intended by the gospel writer.
ISTM that Matthew intended the Magi to be instruments in the necessary fulfilment of prophecy, which would have been avoided had they behaved as you suggest they ought to have done: namely: Hosea 11:1 (Out of Egypt have I called my servant) and Jeremiah 31:15 (Rachel weeping for her children.
Regarding the historicity of the events you might wish to consider the observations of St. John Chrysostom re the star <http://www.anastasis.org.uk/Star%20of%20Bethlehem.htm> .
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
The Magoi, the best of Pagan wisdom (see the many Jewish texts, eg. Wis, that lift up astrology as the least silly form of Pagan worship) can't find the Messiah without the aid of (Jewish) revelation. Once they've got this, God provides a miracle, and they find the Christ.
It's a study in miniature of how Gentiles can find Christ: they need (Jewish) revelation.
Very interesting point,
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My sermon this morning was about the Wise Men. It occurred to me when I was preparing, and reading about the slaughter of the innocents that actually it was all the wise men's fault and that their visit to Herod was entirely unnecessary.
This is bullcrap. It is not "all their fault." You absolve Herod, the murderer, of any responsibility for his actions. Madness.
A very 21st century way to look at things.
That the person who orders a murder is morally responsible for it? Really? This was never known before the 21st century? What books have you not been reading?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
The Magoi, the best of Pagan wisdom (see the many Jewish texts, eg. Wis, that lift up astrology as the least silly form of Pagan worship) can't find the Messiah without the aid of (Jewish) revelation. Once they've got this, God provides a miracle, and they find the Christ.
It's a study in miniature of how Gentiles can find Christ: they need (Jewish) revelation.
Very interesting point,
Seconded.
Jesus was worshipped by Gentiles at his birth for being the King of the Jews. Jesus was killed by the Gentiles for being the King of the Jews. Is there something to this, if only an inclusio?
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Jesus was worshipped by Gentiles at his birth for being the King of the Jews. Jesus was killed by the Gentiles for being the King of the Jews. Is there something to this, if only an inclusio?
I don't know what an "inclusio" is, but it is an interesting point to ponder!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
An inclusio (plural: inclusiones) is when the two pieces of bread in a sandwich have something in common, ie. the beginning and the end of a unit share features in common not shared by the middle.
There are a lot of inclusiones between the infancy narratives and the Passion in Matthew.
One that I reflected on today (preaching on the Holy Innocents), is the word ἐμπαίζω (empaizO, meaning 'mock' or 'deceive'). Herod is empaizoed in 2:16, and Jesus is empaizoed in 27:29, 31, 41 (and in a Passion prediction in 20:19). Different sense of the word, but what's so striking is the different reaction!
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
Sandwiches- an excellent explanation!
Gospel writers use this device a lot- things get bracketed together to make a theological point. It's worth keeping an eye open for them to see the theme the Gospeller is trying to get across (although it's usually easier when writers spot them for you).
Here's a page with some more examples for beginning and end of the Gospels- link . Another example is the double inclusio in John's signs section around the themes of glory and belief (2:11 through to 11:40).
All of which makes me wonder if there's intended significance to the response from Gentiles changing from bowing the knee (Magi) to killing (Romans). Or not.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My sermon this morning was about the Wise Men. It occurred to me when I was preparing, and reading about the slaughter of the innocents that actually it was all the wise men's fault and that their visit to Herod was entirely unnecessary.
This is bullcrap. It is not "all their fault." You absolve Herod, the murderer, of any responsibility for his actions. Madness.
A very 21st century way to look at things.
That the person who orders a murder is morally responsible for it? Really? This was never known before the 21st century? What books have you not been reading?
You misunderstood me - I was agreeing with you.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
You misunderstood me - I was agreeing with you.
My mistake then. Apologiae.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Adam quote:
It's a study in miniature of how Gentiles can find Christ: they need (Jewish) revelation.
I beg to disagree. What I find particularly striking about the story of the Magi is that their non-Jewish religion led them independently of it to Bethlehem i.e. their own Old Testament of God led them to Christ.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Adam quote:
It's a study in miniature of how Gentiles can find Christ: they need (Jewish) revelation.
I beg to disagree. What I find particularly striking about the story of the Magi is that their non-Jewish religion led them independently of it to Bethlehem i.e. their own Old Testament of God led them to Christ.
Except according the text, it didn't. They didn't know to go to Bethlehem until the scribes told them that was the prophecy, and the star didn't reappear to show them the exact spot until they had already been told that Bethlehem was the place to look. That's why they arrived in Jerusalem asking everyone "where is the child?" They didn't know where to go next.
According to the text, their own wisdom and their own religion showed them the significance of what was happening and brought them to Jerusalem. They needed guidance from the locals on what to do next.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Posted by Nick Tamen:
Matthew appears to have been writing for a readership of Jewish Christians after the siege of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple and the massacre of those around the Temple. That would for them have been a defining event as Jews, even if Jews who were also Christians and Greek-speakers living outside Judea or Galilee. They would have understood well Herod's complicity in the Roman occupation, as well as the brutality of the Romans that essentially brought an end to Jewishness as they had always known it. As Jews, their world had changed dramatically. As Christians, they were trying to make sense of how the Christ figured in this new reality.
Except that Herod had been dead for 70 or so years by then and the legacy of the tetrarchs and procurators would have been far closer. The stories of his crimes would probably have magnified over the decades so that the murder of all the children in a small town would have sounded quite plausible. But they would probably not have looked to blame Herod for the destruction of Jerusalem. In fact, a 'sensible' Jewish Christian, looking to live a quiet life in 60s/70s Palestine, might perhaps have blamed the Zealots for bringing the might of Vespasian's armies against them.
[ 29. December 2015, 18:30: Message edited by: Rev per Minute ]
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Nick Ramen quote:
According to the text, their own wisdom and their own religion showed them the significance of what was happening and brought them to Jerusalem.
Au contraire, my friend: as Mudfrog points out, it wasn't the failure of their wisdom that let them down them but their failure to stick to it by following the star. and when they did so it took them to Bethlehem. They did not need the wisdom of Judaism to help them.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Au contraire, my friend: as Mudfrog points out, it wasn't the failure of their wisdom that let them down them but their failure to stick to it by following the star. and when they did so it took them to Bethlehem. They did not need the wisdom of Judaism to help them.
I'll have to au contraire back, I fear. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
As pointed out earlier, the text does not say they followed the star in their journey from the East. That's later embellishment of the story. Nor does it say that the star could be followed before the magi actually set out for Bethlehem. The text (Matt. 2:1–2, 7 and 9–10, NRSV) says:
quote:
In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, “Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage." . . . Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. . . . When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy.
So what the text says is that they saw the star at its rising, they came to Jerusalem and asked where the child was, that they described to Herod when the star had first appeared, that they were told to look in Bethlehem and that when they set out for Bethlehem, the star, in most unstar-like fashion (but very much in Shekinah-like fashion) actually went before them and stopped directly over a specific building.
The text, then, does not say the star led them to Jerusalem, or even that the star could be "followed" at that point. The text would seem to say the opposite, for if that's what they had done or what could be done, why wouldn't they say "for we saw his star at its rising and have followed it here" instead of "we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay homage"? (And if they followed the star to Jerusalem, why does no one else seem to have noticed it?)
[ 29. December 2015, 22:00: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Not sure why I hadn't thought about this before but... why would the family still be in Bethlehem two years later? They only went there for the registration. Why didn't they go back to Nazareth?
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
It doesn't say the Holy Family was there two years later. It does say that Herod ordered the death of all boys under the age of two years old. One could imagine that, not knowing precisely when Jesus was born, Herod would allowed quite a bit of "leeway" to be sure of catching him. So Jesus may have been quite a bit younger than that ...
On a different line, I don't know how long "lying in" would have been for a first century Jewish mother. Also, I know families who have gone back to West Africa or the West Indies for a birth and stayed on for several months; perhaps the same sort of thing happened here.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
It seems to me that we are indeed meant to infer that the star moved and that the magi followed it. Why would it behave in a different way post-Jerusalem' than it did 'pre-Jerusalem'. Also, what justification is there to suggest any embellishments to the story?
[ 30. December 2015, 16:50: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that we are indeed meant to infer that the star moved and that the magi followed it. Why would it behave in a different way post-Jerusalem' than it did 'pre-Jerusalem'.
As was pointed out, the text says that they saw the star in the east, not that they followed it to Jerusalem.
It behaved differently "post-Jerusalem" because the author means us to understand that it is no ordinary star, but one that has a spiritual origin. So it responds to the new information that the wise men received from the scholars in Jerusalem. In a sense the information and the star are the same thing.
As to your other questions, though, it does seem like the wise men might have acted differently to prevent the slaughter. Hard to know, though, since we weren't there. The context indicates to me that the wise men expected that this new king would be in the royal house in Jerusalem.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that we are indeed meant to infer that the star moved and that the magi followed it. Why would it behave in a different way post-Jerusalem' than it did 'pre-Jerusalem'. Also, what justification is there to suggest any embellishments to the story?
But I would posit that inferring that the star moved in a guide-like fashion and that the magi followed it prior to the arrival in Jerusalem is the embellishment to the story. The magi tell the people of Jerusalem that they saw the star at its rising (or that they saw it "in the East"), not that they followed it. And the description of what happened when they set out for Bethlehem—"and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising"—suggests to me at least that the movement of the star was a new thing. The star that went ahead of them is described as the star that they had seen at its rising, not as the star they had previously followed.
Granted, it is something that one could assume or guess at. But I do not think it can be reasonably inferred from the text itself. I would argue that if we were meant to infer that they followed the star to Jerusalem, Matthew would have just come out and said it. As it is, what he wrote says nothing more than that they saw the star at its rising (which we are told twice) and that the star went before them when they set out for Bethlehem.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It behaved differently "post-Jerusalem" because the author means us to understand that it is no ordinary star, but one that has a spiritual origin.
What is this 'spiritual origin'? What does that mean?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I would still say that if there is only one star, and if it moved after the magi had been in Jerusalem, that it would have logically moved before that as well. I don't understand why the star that appeared in the sky 'in the East' but didn't move West, would suddenly appear over Jerusalem at te exact moment they were told the birth was in Bethlehem, and then start moving.
Why would it do that if it hadn't done it before?
As usual, trying to explain away the phenomenon only seeks to confuse matters.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Did anyone else watch this evening's excellent "Sky at Night" on the subject on the BBC? Well worth watching, and takes the details of the Bible story seriously even if you disagree with the final verdict (which does explain the apparent movement in a way I'd never thought of).
[ 30. December 2015, 21:30: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Did anyone else watch this evening's excellent "Sky at Night" on the subject on the BBC? Well worth watching, and takes the details of the Bible story seriously even if you disagree with the final verdict (which does explain the apparent movement in a way I'd never thought of).
Oooh no; I shall watch it on iPlayer
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It behaved differently "post-Jerusalem" because the author means us to understand that it is no ordinary star, but one that has a spiritual origin.
What is this 'spiritual origin'? What does that mean?
It seems clear that the author is describing the star as something magical or miraculous. Ordinary stars don't move around and guide people to specific places. This was a star sent from God to first signal somehow that the King of the Jews had been born. Then it appeared out of nowhere to lead the wise men to Jesus.
The story does not say this, but I would expect that this star would not have been visible to anyone but the wise men.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It behaved differently "post-Jerusalem" because the author means us to understand that it is no ordinary star, but one that has a spiritual origin.
What is this 'spiritual origin'? What does that mean?
It seems clear that the author is describing the star as something magical or miraculous. Ordinary stars don't move around and guide people to specific places.
Indeed, and this star seems to have moved from North to South rather than from East to West, like all other stars do. It seems to have more in common with the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire that led Isreal through the desert than with ordinary stars.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The star can also be thought of as the light of inner revelation - sort of a take on St Augustine's unravelling of "Let there be light" as the enlightenment of the angelic host. Perhaps more of a point for meditation though, rather than an explanation of the text.
Curiously enough, I was looking up a night or so ago at a couple of satellites: one low, bright and moving SSE to NNW, the other little more than a dot, very high and going NW to SE. Earlier this year, we had the conjunction of Mars, Jupiter and the space station. From our garden, Jupiter was moving N to S in the western sky, with the station crossing its path. Man-made satellites go in all sorts of directions.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
For the best opener to a discussion on the star of Bethlehem can I re-refer to the issues raised by St John Chrysostom? The reference I gave last time was problematic due to my ignorance in such matters, but if one googles St John Chrysostom Star of Bethlehem you should get there!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It doesn't say the Holy Family was there two years later. It does say that Herod ordered the death of all boys under the age of two years old. One could imagine that, not knowing precisely when Jesus was born, Herod would allowed quite a bit of "leeway" to be sure of catching him. So Jesus may have been quite a bit younger than that ...
quote:
When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.
Matt 2:16
That's a LOT of leeway considering the info he had from the Magi.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It doesn't say the Holy Family was there two years later. It does say that Herod ordered the death of all boys under the age of two years old. One could imagine that, not knowing precisely when Jesus was born, Herod would allowed quite a bit of "leeway" to be sure of catching him. So Jesus may have been quite a bit younger than that ...
quote:
When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.
Matt 2:16
That's a LOT of leeway considering the info he had from the Magi.
Indeed, especially when :
quote:
Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. . . . When they had heard the king, they set out;
I imagine that Herod got that information from the men - i.e. the date they saw the star 'rise'; then he asked them how long it took them to get to Jerusalem and deduced from that the presumed age of the child. He then had to wait until he realised that the Wise Men were not coming back - give it a week...
Thus the two years.
Bear in mind also that Jesus was a week old when he was circumcised and 40 days old when Mary and Joseph took him to the temple for her purification and his presentation.
So he was at least 2 months old, I guess when the Magi appeared.
I wonder what the population of Bethlehem was and how many children under two years old...
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So he was at least 2 months old, I guess when the Magi appeared.
I wonder what the population of Bethlehem was and how many children under two years old...
If the Magi were indeed from Persia, then the trip to Jerusalem would have been around 1,000–1,200 miles. I've read such a trip would have taken anywhere from a few months to a year or so, depending on the mode of travel.
As for the number, I don't know, but the Wiki article on the Holy Innicents says this:
quote:
[Raymond] Brown and others argue that, based on Bethlehem's estimated population of 1,000 at the time, the largest number of infants that could have been killed would have been about twenty, and R. T. France, addressing the story's absence in Antiquities of the Jews, argues that "the murder of a few infants in a small village [is] not on a scale to match the more spectacular assassinations recorded by Josephus".
FWIW.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Not sure why I hadn't thought about this before but... why would the family still be in Bethlehem two years later? They only went there for the registration. Why didn't they go back to Nazareth?
Several very mundane reasons come to mind.
a) They didn't want to travel with a very young baby. It was their first, you know? They were therefore even more likely to think of him as highly breakable. And once you decide to stay a while, well, you tend to go on staying...
b) They decided to stay longer because Joseph had located relatives to help in Bethlehem (as perhaps he had not yet, that night of Jesus' birth). Alternately: Joseph had been offered a good job and was feeling his fatherly responsibilities.
c) They stayed so that the birth date would not be obvious to all the busybodies counting on their fingers back home.
d) they were escaping some particular busybody (likely a relative) they knew would make their lives miserable with unwanted advice and interference if they ventured within her (sorry) range with a baby. (Plenty of those around too)
I tend to think it's c) with a bit of a) too.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The first appearance of the star did two things: it announced the coming of the King, and it provided them with a location where to look. Traditionally (but not Scripturally) it did that by moving, and they followed it; but it could equally well have done that by communicating information concerning the country to go to, i.e. Judea. For Magi, I expect it would do this by appearing in some relationship to a constellation etc. in such a way that their astrological system came up with "new king in Judea." I've heard astronomical explanations that make sense this way. It is also very likely that the Magi were familiar with the Septuagint and knew the prophecy about a star rising in Jacob (the one in Numbers) and put two and two together.
Once the Magi had the two concepts "new king" and Judea associated, the star might very well have disappeared. The fact that they greet it with such joyful surprise after their interview with Herod makes me think they hadn't seen it for a long while.
The fact that the second/later star appears to move and stand over the house makes me think that an obviously supernatural object. The first/earlier star might have been that, or it might have been God using a more ordinary astronomical object in a way the Magi would notice and understand.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
