Is the story of Epiphany plausible?
The Feast of the Epiphany in the church building's liturgical calendar is based on the events of Matt 2.1–12, the visit of the 'wise men' from the East to the babe Jesus. In that location are plenty of things about the story which might brand the states instinctively treat it as only another part of the constellation of Christmas traditions, which does not accept very much connection with reality.
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 we are used to in modern literature. We are told little of the historical reality that might interest us, and the temptation is to fill up 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 usa. So these 'magoi' (which gives us our word 'magic') became 'three' (considering of the number of their gifts), so 'wise men' and then 'kings' (probably under the influence of Ps 72.x. By the time of this Roman mosaic from the church in Ravenna congenital in 547, they have even acquired names. Christopher Howse comments:
In response to this, critical scholarship has moved in the other direction, and by and big has pulled autonomously Matthew's story and confidently decided it that none of it actually happened. Instead, information technology was synthetic by Matthew out of a series of OT texts in society to tell us the existent significance of Jesus. Then Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan, inThe First Christmas: what the gospels really teach near Jesus' nativity, come to this decision:
In our judgement, in that location was no special star, no wise men and no plot by Herod to kill Jesus. So is the story factually true? No. Just as a parable, is information technology true? For us as Christians, the answer is a robust affirmative. Is Jesus lite shining in the darkness? Yes. Do the Herods of this world seek to extinguish the calorie-free? Yes, Does Jesus yet smoothen in the darkness? Yes. (p 184).
The arroyo presents problems of its ain. For 1, the stories are not presented as parables, but in continuity with the events Matthew relates in Jesus' life later in the gospel. For some other, if God in Jesus did non outwit Herod, on what grounds might nosotros recall he can outwit 'the Herods of this world'? More fundamentally, Matthew and his first readers appeared to believe that the claims near Jesus were 'parabolically true' because these things actually happened. If none of them did, what grounds do we now have? Fifty-fifty if the events nosotros read well-nigh are heavily interpreted, in that location is an irreducible facticity in testimony; if this has gone, nosotros ought to question the value of the testimony itself.
A good working example of this arroyo is found in Paul Davidson'due south blog. Davidson is a professional person translator, rather than a biblical studies academic, but he offers a good outline of what disquisitional scholarship has to say about Matthew'due south nativity.
His basic supposition is that Matthew is a 'multi-layered' certificate—Matthew is writing from the basis of other, differing sources. He takes over large parts of Mark'due south gospel, equally does Luke, and Matthew and Luke never agree in contradiction to Mark, a cardinal piece of the statement of 'Marcan priority', that Mark was earlier than either of the other 2. Whether or non you believe in the existence of the then-chosen Q, another early written source (and with Mark Goodacre, I don't), Matthew is clearly dealing with some pre-existing material, oral or written. It is striking, for example, that Joseph is a primal character in Matthew'southward account before and afterwards the story of the magi, and is the key histrion in contrast to Luke's nativity, where the women are central. Yet in this section (Matt ii.i–12) the focus is on 'the kid' or 'the child and his mother Mary' (Matt 2.9, 2.11; see also Matt ii.14, 20 and 21). Some scholars therefore argue that this story comes from a different source, then might be unhistorical.
This is where we demand to start existence critical of criticism. Treatment texts in this way requires the making of some assuming assumptions, not to the lowest degree that of writer invariants. If a change of way indicates a change of source, so this can only be seen if the writer is absolutely consistent in his (or her) own writing, and fails to make the source textile his or her own. In other words, we (at 20 centuries distant) demand to be a lot smarter than the writer him- or herself. Even a bones appreciation of writing suggests that authors are only non that consequent.
Davidson goes on in his exploration to explain the story of the star in terms of OT source texts.
The basis for the star and the magi comes from Numbers 22–24, a story in which Balaam, a soothsayer from the eastward (and a magus in Jewish tradition) foretells the coming of a great ruler "out of Jacob". Significantly, the Greek version of this passage has messianic overtones, as information technology replaces "sceptre" in 24:17 with "man."
He is quite correct to identify the connections here; any good commentary will point out these allusions, and it would exist surprising if Matthew, writing what almost would regard equally a 'Jewish' gospel, was not aware of this. But if he is using these texts every bit a 'source', he is not doing a very good task. The star points to Jesus, only Jesus is not described equally a 'star', and no gospels make use of this as a title. In fact, this is the simply place where the word 'star' occurs in the gospel. (It does occur as a title in Rev 22.16, and maybe in 2 Peter 1.xix, merely neither make any connection with this passage.)
Side by side, Davidson looks at the citation in Matt ii.v–6, which for many disquisitional scholars provides the rationale for a passage explaining that Jesus was built-in in Bethlehem when he is otherwise universally known every bit 'Jesus of Nazareth' (xix times in all four gospels and Acts). Only, as Davidson points out, Matthew has to work difficult to get these texts to assistance him. For one, he has to commodities together two texts which are otherwise completely unconnected, from Micah v.2 and ii Sam 5.two. Secondly, he has to alter the text of Micah 5.ii so that:
- Bethlehem, the 'least' of the cities of Judah, now becomes 'by no means the least';
- the well-known epithet 'Ephrathah' becomes 'Judah' to brand the geography articulate; and
- the 'clans' becomes 'association leader' i.eastward. 'ruler' to make the text relevant.
Moreover, Matthew is making use of a text which was not known equally 'messianic'; in the first century, the idea that messiah had to come up from Bethlehem as a son of David was known but non very widespread.
All this is rather bad news for those who would argue that Jesus' birth was carefully planned to be a literal fulfilment of OT prophecy. But it is every bit bad news for those who argue that Matthew made the story up to fit such texts, and for exactly the aforementioned reason. Of grade, Matthew is working in a context where midrashic reading of texts means that they are a good deal more flexible than we would consider them. Simply he is needing to brand maximum use of this flexibility, and the logical conclusion of this would exist that he was constrained past the other sources he is using—past the account he has of what actually happened.
Davidson now turns to consider the magi and the star. He notes a certain coherence up to the indicate where the magi arrive in Jerusalem.
So far, the story makes logical sense despite its theological problems (eastward.g. the fact that information technology encourages people to believe in the "deceptive science of astrology", as Strauss noted). The star is only that: a star.
And then everything changes. The star is transformed into an atmospheric light that guides the magi correct from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, where it hovers overa single business firm—the i where the child is. We are no longer dealing with a distant celestial torso, but something else entirely, like a pixie or will-o'-the-wisp.
Here again disquisitional assumptions demand some disquisitional reflection. Matthew's inclusion of magi is theologically very problematic indeed. Simon Magus and Elymas (Acts viii.9, xiii.8) hardly get a expert printing, non surprising in light of OT prohibitions on sorcery, magic and astrology. Western romanticism has embraced the Epiphany equally a suggestive mystery, merely earlier readings (similar that of Irenaeus) saw the betoken as the humiliation of paganism; the giving of the gifts was an act of submission and capitulation to a greater ability. For Matthew the Jew, they are an unlikely and risky feature to include, especially when Jesus is articulate he has come to the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel' (Matt 10.vi, 15.24).
There accept been many attempts to explain the advent of the star scientifically. The best contenders are a comet (for which there is no independence prove), a supernova (observed by the Chinese in four BC) or the conjunction of Jupiter with Saturn in the constellation Pisces. I think the latter is the best candidate; Jupiter signified 'leader', Saturn denoted 'the Westland', and Pisces stood for 'the end of the historic period'. Then this conjunction would communicate to astrologers 'A leader in the Westland [Palestine] in the stop days.' This highlights a central trouble with Davidson'south criticism; the consequence is not whether a star could in fact indicate a detail house in our, modern scientific terms. This is conspicuously impossible. The real issue is whether Matthew thought information technology could—or fifty-fifty whether Matthew thought the magi thought it could. As Dick French republic highlights in his NICNT commentary, this was actually a common understanding for which we accept documentary evidence. And any naturalistic explanations miss Matthew's central bespeak: this was something miraculous provided by God. If you don't think the miraculous is possible, y'all are leap to disbelieve Matthew's story—but on the footing of your own assumptions, not on any criteria of historical reliability or the nature of Matthew's 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's instructions to report back to him, Strauss notes that surely the magi would have seen through his programme at once. In that location were also less impuissant methods Herod might have used to find out where the child was; why did he non, for example, ship companions along with the magi to Bethlehem?
In fact, we know from Josephus that Herod had a fondness for using secret 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 washed, which is hardly a proficient ground for questioning Matthew's credibility.
Finally, we come to the arrival of the magiat the home of the family. Interestingly, Matthew talks of their 'firm' (Matt 2.11) which supports the thought that Jesus was non born in a stable—though from the historic period of children Herod has executed (less than 2 years) nosotros should call back of the magi arriving some time subsequently the birth. No shepherds and magi together here!
Davidson again sees (with critical scholars) this event synthetic from OT texts:
According to Brownish, Goulder (2004), and others, the Old Attestation provided the inspiration for the gifts of the magi. This passage is an implicit commendation of Isaiah 60.3, half dozen and Psalm 72.ten, 15, which depict the bringing of gifts in homage to the rex, God'southward royal son.
But again, the trouble here is that Matthew'due south account but doesn't fit very well. Given that these OT texts uniformly mention kings, not magi, if Matthew was constructing his business relationship from these, why cull the embarrassing astrologers? And why three gifts rather than ii? Where has the myrrh come from? Once again, it is Irenaeus who starting time interprets the gifts as indicators of kingship, priesthood and sacrificial expiry respectively, just Matthew does not appear to exercise so. In the narrative, they are only extravagant gifts fit for the true 'king of the Jews'. Subsequent tradition has to do the work that Matthew has here failed to exercise, and make the story fit the prophecies rather better than Matthew has managed to.
Davidson closes his assay of this section with a concluding 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 direct to Bethlehem in the starting time place? Many innocent lives would have been saved that way.
Conspicuously, God could have done a much improve task of the whole business organization. But it rather appears as though Matthew felt unable to improve on what happened by fitting it either to the OT texts or his sense of what ought to take happened.
The modern reader might struggle with aspects of Matthew's story. But information technology seems to me you can simply dismiss it by making a big number of other, unwarranted assumptions.
(Get-go published in 2015)
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance ground. If you have valued this post, would yous considerdonating £1.20 a month to support the production of this blog?
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/is-the-story-of-epiphany-plausible/
Post a Comment for "Is the story of Epiphany plausible?"