The Great Christ Comet (5 page)

All in all, we should therefore approach the Gospel narratives, including Matthew, with due sympathy and respect, aware of their
theological agenda but not disregarding their implicit claim to be historically trustworthy. The testimony presented is simultaneously both theological and historical. This indeed is one major aspect of their magnificence—theology and history do not vie against but rather complement each other.
22
For example, Matthew wrote to demonstrate that Jesus was the messianic King promised by the Prophets, and to unveil the nature of the kingdom that he inaugurated during his ministry. Matthew accomplished this not by freely mixing the unhistorical with the historical, but by basing his narrative on historically reliable records and reports.

3

“They Looked Up and Saw a Star”

The Story of the Star

We turn now to devote our attention to Matthew's account of the Magi and the Star, which is found in Matthew 2:1–18.

The Historical Reliability of Matthew's Account of the Star

Matthew's Belief

Can we trust Matthew's narrative concerning the Star, which purports to document an event that occurred some three decades before Jesus began his ministry? Clearly, Matthew believed that his source for this episode was reliable, and he was convinced that the account was historically accurate.
1
The very fact that he includes the episode and suggests that what happened fulfilled the Scriptures demonstrates this.

Historical Plausibility

But was Matthew right to judge that the story was historically accurate? There are a number of elements in the story that are striking for their historical plausibility.

For one thing, we know from Josephus that Herod the Great in his final years was extraordinarily cruel and capable of the most terrible atrocities.
2
Therefore the Massacre of the Innocents recorded by Matthew in this passage fits perfectly into the framework of the historical period.

Second, what the Magi did in undertaking a long journey westward to greet a king is not implausible, but, as we shall see, is very similar to what other magi did about seven decades later, in the time of Nero.

Third, most devout Jews and Christians despised astrologers and would not normally have been inclined to trust their testimony. Therefore you would not have expected someone fabricating a nativity narrative to choose astrologers as among the first to welcome the newborn Messiah into the world. A fabricator would most likely have stayed away from any elements that seemed theologically suspect and risked offending the intended readership.

Fourth, the fact that the Star is said to have first appeared at least a year before the Massacre of the Innocents, and that Herod determined the age of the infants to be killed based on this information, speaks strongly for historicity, since it is difficult to explain otherwise.
3

“The main outline of the story” is, as W. C. Allen put it, “noteworthy for its historical probability.”
4

In addition, key features of the Matthean account are corroborated by another first-century writer, Luke, who makes much of his credentials as a historian (Luke 1:1–4). In particular, Luke authenticates Jesus's birth to Mary in Bethlehem (2:1–7) and the unusual circumstances surrounding his conception (2:26–38). Luke may also quietly attest to the historicity of the Star (
1:78–79
).

Moreover, if the story of the Star is not rooted in history, then in what is it rooted? No plausible alternative explanation of the story's origin has ever been offered.
5

Furthermore, recent psychology of memory research supports the claim of Matthew 2 to be considered historical. A natural source for much of Matthew 2 is the family of Jesus, in particular Mary. Joseph was probably deceased by the time Jesus began his ministry, whereas Mary lived to witness Jesus's crucifixion and evidently for some considerable time afterwards, looked after by John (John 19:25–27). It would have been surprising if the early Christians, including Matthew, did not inquire of her concerning the circumstances of Jesus's conception and birth. Therefore, when we read the account of the Magi and the Star in Matthew 2, we are almost certainly coming into close contact with the precious memories of the historical Mary. Consequently, as we read the story, we are put in the position of having to respond to her indirect testimony about the extraordinary events that surrounded the birth of Jesus. According to recent studies in the psychology of memory to which we have already referred,
6
the Magi's visit was for Mary the kind of event that tends to be remembered accurately by eyewitnesses. It was a very memorable and vivid unique occasion, an important and deeply emotional moment, relating to the birth of her special eldest son, and it would undoubtedly have been something she would have frequently rehearsed mentally and orally, beginning immediately afterwards and continuing on until her death. Luke appears to confirm that Mary did indeed frequently mentally rehearse unusual events relating to Jesus: speaking of what happened in the wake of Passover when Jesus was twelve years old, Luke says that Mary “treasured up all these things in her heart” (Luke 2:51).

The Magi's story could simply have been mediated to Matthew through Mary, but it is also possible that (and would hardly be surprising if) some of the early Christians tracked down and interviewed the Magi themselves (or other members of their traveling party) about what had happened, and that Matthew made use of this material as well. Needless to say, for the Magi (and their fellow travelers) this was a once-in-a-lifetime, profoundly emotional, and indeed life-changing event which they would have discussed often, beginning as soon as they left the holy family. In addition, written astronomical records would have reinforced the memories of the Magi. There is every reason to believe that, four or five decades later, any of the Magi (or their fellow travelers) who remained alive
would have accurately remembered what had happened.

Finally, if what Matthew records concerning the Star is found to be in accord with astronomical knowledge, that would constitute further powerful evidence in favor of the account's historical credentials. Indeed, since scarcely any episode in the Gospel of Matthew is more commonly rejected as unhistorical than the story of the Magi's visit to baby Jesus, authenticating the historicity of the Star would be an important validation of the historical reliability of the Gospel as a whole.

Countering Objections to Historicity

Those who have been unwilling to accept the historical basis of the Star narrative have resorted to rather feeble arguments to justify their cynicism. For example, J. N. M. Wijngaards questions whether Herod would have convoked the Sanhedrin, highlights the redundancy of the Star leading the Magi to Bethlehem (since they already would have known the way),
7
suggests that Herod would have sent a spy along, and wonders why an episode such as the slaughter of the infants went unmentioned by other sources.
8

However, when Herod was in urgent need of religious instruction, he would, of course, have arranged for a gathering of the top theologians in the land (Matt. 2:4: “all the chief priests and scribes of the people”). Knowing that within Judaism and indeed even within individual movements like Pharisaism there was a variety of interpretive traditions, Herod would have been eager to be exposed to the full range of exegetical opinion on the question of the Messiah's birthplace. Too much was at stake for Herod to restrict his theological counsel to one or two religious leaders.

Moreover, the appearance of the Star on the final stage of the Magi's journey was not entirely devoid of purpose, since the Star did pinpoint the precise location within Bethlehem where the messianic child was. To the extent that the Star's role in guiding the Magi from Jerusalem to Bethlehem was redundant, since the Magi presumably had been informed as to where Bethlehem was, this actually speaks for the authenticity of the story rather than against it. Historically accurate narrative is full of redundancies, whereas fiction prefers to avoid them. At the same time, historically, the Star's presence when the Magi were traveling from Jerusalem to Bethlehem may have had various functions: to confirm the Magi in their mission, to heighten their sense of anticipation, and to engender in them the feeling that they were being ushered into the presence of the Messiah.

The claim that Herod would have sent a spy along with the Magi fails to take due account of the dynamics of the story as told by Matthew: The Magi were obviously extremely naive, gullibly believing that Herod really did want to make a personal journey to worship the Messiah. They had willingly become his agents and promised to report back to him.
9
There was, quite simply, no reason for Herod to doubt that they would return to the palace in due course, and hence there was no need to send a spy along.

As regards the lack of explicit references to the massacre elsewhere, this is hardly surprising—the incident, while horrific, was confined to a small area around Bethlehem and may have involved the deaths of no more than 20–40 infants. No historian records every event, as a reading of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio on any given period makes clear. Josephus naturally focused his account on the many events that seemed to him of greater
immediate political significance to Herod's reign and his succession.
10

However, strikingly, an implicit reference to the incident may be found in the pseudepigraphal
Assumption of Moses
(6:4), which very probably dates to early in the first century AD (AD 6–30). It reports in prophetic form what Herod did during his reign: “And he will cut off their chief men with the sword, and will destroy (them) in secret places, so that no one may know where their bodies are. He will slay the old and the young, and he shall not spare. Then the fear of him shall be bitter unto them in their land. And he shall execute judgments on them as the Egyptians executed upon them, during thirty and four years, and he shall punish them.”
11
Historically, we know of no other event during Herod's reign that would explain the peculiar reference to his merciless slaying of the young than the Massacre of the Innocents.
12
C. E. B. Cranfield rightly wonders if this is remarkably early evidence of Herod's atrocity from an independent source.
13

Furthermore, the incident is mentioned in the
Protevangelium of James
(22:1: “When Herod perceived that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was enraged, and sent murderers, instructing them to slay the children in their second year or under”
14
), which dates to around AD 150.

In conclusion, it would seem that the case against the historicity of the Star narrative is contrived and weak. The evidence is strongly in favor of the account's historical au­th­enticity.

Matthew 1–2: The Nativity and the Star

We must now consider the relevant section of Matthew's Gospel.

Immediately after setting out Jesus's genealogy (Matt. 1:1–17), Matthew relates the story of the Nativity (vv. 18–25) and the visit of the Magi to Jesus (2:1–12). The focus in 1:18–2:12 is clearly on Jesus's birth, as highlighted by the introductory summary in 1:18a: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way.” The emphasis on the birth of Jesus is apparent in 1:21, 23, 25; 2:1, 2, and 4–6. The Star seen by the Magi in the east was evidently interpreted by them as heralding his birth (note 2:2: “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star at its rising . . .”). Matthew claims that the prophets Isaiah (Isa. 7:14) and Micah (5:2) had prophesied about the circumstances of the Messiah's birth, and that these prophecies were fulfilled in connection with the birth of Jesus.

Before turning to Matthew 2:1–18, we must consider briefly 1:18–25.

Matthew 1:18–25: A Brief Overview

Joseph the Descendant of David

Matthew's focus in this brief account of the nativity story is on Joseph as Jesus's legal father. That Joseph has this role is emphasized in verse 25b, where we read that he “called [the child's] name Jesus.” In the words of Hare, “Joseph's naming of Mary's baby constituted in this instance an acknowledgment that, by God's will and act, the boy is authentically his son.”
15
Because of this, it is Jesus's
family tree through Joseph that is set out in verses 1–17. This is important because Joseph is in the line of David.

Joseph the Legal Father of Jesus

According to Matthew, Mary was already betrothed to Joseph when she conceived by the Holy Spirit. Naturally, when Joseph learned of Mary's conception, he, knowing for certain that he was not the father of the child in Mary's womb, assumed that Mary had been sexually promiscuous. However, Matthew informs us that, although some men might in these circumstances have acted ruthlessly and rashly, publicly shaming their betrothed, Joseph was “a just man and [was] unwilling to put her to shame” and therefore “resolved to divorce her quietly” (1:19). Of course, such an action, even though well-intentioned, would have derailed the work of God, for Joseph was the Messiah's God-ordained legal father from the line of David. For this reason, according to Matthew's account, God intervened to ensure that his plan remained on track: an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, assuring him that the child in Mary's womb was not the product of immorality, but of a miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit, and calling on him not to be afraid to carry on with his original plan to marry her. The angel explained that Mary would “bear a son” and that he, Joseph, would call “his name Jesus” (v. 21). Joseph responded to the divine instruction with obedience, taking Mary as his wife, avoiding sexual relations with her until after she had given birth, and naming the child Jesus.

Fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14

Of particular importance to Matthew is that what transpired—the virginal conception and birth and Joseph's formal acceptance of Jesus as his son—fulfilled a key prophecy in the Hebrew Scriptures, Isaiah 7:14. In this prophecy Isaiah declared to the eighth-century BC Davidic king Ahaz, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall be with child
16
and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Matthew clearly regarded this prophecy as in some sense awaiting fulfillment until the virgin birth of Jesus the Messiah. This interpretation of Isaiah's prophecy may well have set Matthew apart from most contemporary non-Christian Jewish interpreters, who did not believe that the Messiah would be born without a biological father.
17