The story of the MagiMatthew 2,1-23 In the study of New Testament historicity the episode of the Magi constitutes a chapter of its own. It may truly be considered a test case. We can to some extent measure by it the validity of any conception of New Testament literary forms. We will first rapidly survey the present position of research on the episode, paying special attention to the kind of historicity attributed to it. We will then try to give a new exposition of the midrash theory. Finally we will discuss the place of this midrash in Christian “kerygma”, both past and present. | ||
First ObservationScholars raise many questions about the historicity of the story of the Magi.During the closing decades of the nineteenth century, the new rationalistic approach to scripture did not fail to affect also the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke. Scholars such as Holzmann, Hilgenfeld, Dieterich, Usener and Wellhausen subjected the story of the Magi to a rigorous historical examination. Their verdict proved to be a negative one. Impressed by the parallelism of birth stories in the Greco-Roman world, by the contradictions with Luke, by the unlikely details and apologetic tendencies in this narrative of the Magi, they pronounced against its historicity. Dieterich sums up with the statement that the episode of the Magi developed as a legend from two sources: belief in birth-announcing stars and the expectation of persons who according to prophecy were to bring gold and incense to the Messiah. To these German scholars then the narrative of the Magi, grown as a legend without any factual foundation in history, deserved no historical credit. In reaction to this position many a Christian scholar asserted his acceptance of the factual historicity of the narrative. These gallant defenders count among their ranks renowned commentators and writers of the early twentieth century: Knabenbauer, Lagrange, Plummer, Allen, Benning, Klostermann, Baldi and Fonck. But also more recent authors break a lance for the historical reliability of the facts narrated, among whom we reckon: Houdous, Simon-Dorado, Fuller, Richards, Schmid, Gaechter and Bonnard. The arguments adduced in favour of this position vary much in range and quality. An appeal is made to the interest Babylonian astrologers took in Canaan, to an expectation of a saviour even in the non-Jewish world. To the historically attested visit of Parthian Magi to Nero and to Flavius Josephus’ testimony regarding Herod’s cruelty. More than one author explains the star as a natural phenomenon, such as Halley’s comet or a specially bright conjunction of stars. The Magi are said to have realised the significance of the astronomical phenomenon because of Balaam’s prophecy regarding the star that was to rise from Jacob, or because of Daniel’s prophecy regarding the time of the Messiah’s coming, or again on account of a prophetic utterance attributed to Zarathustra. However much these authors may differ in explaining various details, they would certainly subscribe to Allen’s careful formulation of the episode’s historicity:
The rationalistic rejection of the episode has, on the other hand, also been met by a more tolerant approach. Many students of St. Matthew’s Gospel have come to admit that the visit of the Magi and the accompanying events are possibly unhistorical. At the same time, however, these scholars contend that the narrative has a truly historical message to bring. This paradoxical contention rests on the assumption that in the second chapter of Matthew the literary form of historical midrash was employed, in which form a kernel of teaching from the Old Testament is clothed in narrative explanations. In various shades this theory is found with Zahn, Loisy, McNeile, Levertoff-Goudge, Lohmeyer-Schmauch, Daube, Bloch and Bourke. It is my conviction that this theory, if correctly understood, combines the advantages of a solid critical foundation and true insight in New Testament historicity. | ||
Second ObservationThe story of the Magi as it stands cannot be fully historical.Let us begin our analysis with a critical look at the facts narrated. From a historical point of view they appear to be highly problematic. The story abounds with interior contradictions.
Instead of relying on historical witness, the author would rather seem to draw his material from contemporary legend:
Add to this the undeniable apologetic tendencies of providing a plausible explanation for Jesus’ dwelling in If the actual adoration by the Magi, the actual slaughter of the infants and the actual flight to Egypt were to be taken as the norm of historicity, the story might certainly have to be qualified as un-historical. But is this the case? Does the author of this chapter want to teach the actual, objective, historical occurrence of these events, or is there another historical truth that he has in mind? Only a careful analysis of the text itself can decide this question. | ||
Third ObservationThe story of the Magi is theological reflection, a midrash, that reflects on whcih place the new Messiah belongs to.Reading the second chapter of St Matthew’s Gospel attentively, one is struck by the prominence of what we might call the theme of place, the theme of locality.
The whole passage is dominated by the theme of place. It will further be noticed that locality is of interest to the author in as far as that locality belongs to the newly-born Messiah.
Other Gospel passages underline the weight of this problem in early Christian apologetics.
All this presupposes that Jesus’ provenance from Keeping all this in mind, we may reconstruct the origin of chapter two in St Matthew’s Gospel in the following manner. In the course of discussions with Jewish Rabbis, the author had singled out a number of Old Testament passages which could be said to refer to the birthplace of the Messiah:
The early Christian apologete who composed the chapter may have listed all those texts with the localities connected with the Messiah’s birth: Bethlehem (Micah 5,2), He may have seen it to be his main task to illustrate that it was in harmony with prophecy that Christ was born in Bethlehem, yet took up his dwelling in Nazareth. With this in mind he reconstructed the history of Jesus’ childhood in the form of a historical midrash which would effectively link up all these biblical quotations. To compose the story he may have drawn from existing traditions, historical or legendary, about the star and the adoration of the Magi, about Herod’s persecution and the flight to Egypt. It may also be that he inferred these events from the Old Testament texts themselves. Whatever his sources, he skilfully elaborated a story which would do justice to the theological implications of Jesus being the saviour of the whole world and also to the prophetic expectations of his origins. | ||
Fourth ObservationThe midrash of the Magi revolves round the messianic prophecy of Isaiah chapter 60.All through the narrative the author seems to build round chapter 60 in Isaiah. He recounts how the light shining over Jerusalem (vv. 1-2) is fulfilled in the star. Delegates come from distant nations to adore the newborn Messiah and, as foretold (vv. 3-7), they flock to Jerusalem. The Jewish Sanhedrin voices a slight correction: ‘No, it is not in Jerusalem, but in Bethlehem that the Messiah is to be born.’
Chapter 60 in Isaiah formed the prophetical background against which the infancy story is painted.
It is my conviction that a midrashic commentary of this kind may already have been in existence when it was taken up and inserted into the Gospel by its composer. The theme of Christ as ‘the persecuted Son of Man’, the theme of the Pharisees’ wilful rejection of Christ, the theme of salvation for the whole world, the theme of Christ as second Moses, perhaps even the theme of Christ’s relation to political power: all such themes could well be integrated with some modification into Matthew’s Gospel. It is the final redactor of the Gospel of Matthew who may also have introduced his own stylistic touch, such as the quotation formulas employed all through the Gospel, and the schematic arrangement of the pericopes. In brief, St Matthew or whoever composed the Gospel, found this midrash on Christ’s birth and, modifying it, inserted it into his Gospel. | ||
Fifth ObservationThe midrash of the Magi should be understood as a commentary on Jesus’ mission as the Messiah announced by the prophets.The literary form of midrash, or as in the case at hand of haggadah [= narrative midrash], is at times viewed with suspicion. To some critics this refined form of exegesis has become almost synonymous with indulging in legends. Against such prejudice it should be stressed that midrash is a beautiful form of biblical commentary which does not want to create legends, but which often explains biblical passages by integrating them into a story. Examples may illustrate this point. A Rabbi finds four scripture passages on the creation of human beings: ‘after God’s image’ (Genesis 1,26); ‘God repented of having made man’ (Genesis 6,6); ‘what is man that Thou art mindful of him’ (Psalm 8,5); and ‘even to your old age I am He . . . I have made and I will bear’ (Isaiah 64,4). In order to combine them in a harmonious explanation, he recounts how God discussed with his angels how he was to create human beings, and in the form of question and answer these biblical quotations are introduced.
In a similar way many scriptural passages are interwoven in such historical haggadahs: concerning The midrash on Christ’s birthplace (Matthew 2) should be interpreted in the same light. Employing this literary form early Christian teachers did not want to teach the arrival of the Magi, the murder of the innocent children and the flight to Egypt as historical facts. But they did want to show that Christ’s withdrawal from Bethlehem to Nazareth is in harmony with Old Testament prophecy. They also wanted to teach the theological implications of his birth. Far from being a mere legend, this midrash made its hearers appreciate the reality of Christ’s birth far more profoundly than by a meagre statement of the few physical facts known. In this way haggadah can become a genuine literary form that teaches historical truths, even if it does so – paradoxically – by an imagined reconstruction of events. | ||
Sixth ObservationThe evangelist who inserted the midrash of the Magi into the Gospel of Matthew understood the nature of this kind of literary form.How did St Matthew himself, or whoever inserted this midrash into the Gospel, understand the passage? Did he, perhaps, take all the events described as historical facts? Many authors say ‘yes’ to this question. They say ‘yes’ because they think that the historicity of the rest of the Gospel is put by the author on one line with the historicity of the Magi narrative.
All such argumentation rests on the assumption that the evangelist could have employed only one and the same kind of literary form throughout his Gospel. Old Testament parallels would sufflce to put us on our guard: the historical books from Genesis to Esdras blend anecdotes, tribal traditions, legends, historical events, hero sagas and accurate reports into the one history of salvation. But, restricting ourselves to Matthew, does his Gospel really present that homogeneous historical treatise that it is thought to be?
Throughout his Gospel Matthew reveals great familiarity with Jewish and Rabbinical ways of thinking. He is addressing a Jewish audience. How could he fail to understand the literay form of midrash? Matthew certainly wanted to teach the historical fact of Jesus’ redemptive activity: in this aspect all parts of his Gospel are historical; but he taught this truth through a variety of literary forms. The precise historical value of details cannot be deduced from the general character of the Gospel, but only from the literary form of the passage in question. In my opinion it is only when St Matthew’s Gospel entered Hellenistic Christianity that it began to be understood as literally historical in all its details. The Greeks did not know the force and value of midrash. They would naturally come to regard the events narrated as genuine facts. The Magi are now considered historical figures, whose origin, whose number, whose names, whose past histories become the subject of popular curiosity as well as of theological discussion. | ||
Pastoral ReflectionThe story of the Magi important teaching on Jesus’ birth and mission that can be easily appreciated by people today – without us having to stress the historicity of its details.Supposing that the episode of the Magi were eventually to be universally accepted by scholars as a historical midrash, would it not create doubt and uncertainty among the ordinary faithful who so far held the story to be historical in all its details? What attitude should the modern scholar take when exposing or explaining this scriptural passage to the faithful?
First and foremost, the object of kerygma, the object of Matthew’s teaching regarding Christ’s birth, remains the same, whether he teaches through haggadah or by means of an accurate narration of facts. It is not the actual coming of the Magi, the actual murder of the innocents, the actual flight to Secondly, the very disagreement among scholars warns us not to impose our views on others, whatever it may be. Even if we personally are convinced of the midrash theory, we have no right to proclaim it as if our interpretation were the only valid one. When referring to this narrative in pastoral situations, we may prudently abstain from discussing modern explanations when these would cause confusion. Instead of upsetting our faithful by interpretations that will only be half understood, we should stress the positive teaching contained in the chapter. Rather then emphasize the actual historicity of the details, we should bring out the theological themes dear to the evangelist. In the further future the midrashic character of the story may cause as little difficulty to our lay people as the current explanation of Genesis, chapter one! Father McKenzie’s example is much to the point here: a Christmas crib may represent the Holy Family in a way that is far removed from the historical situation. Yet no one would regard such artistic treatment as a distortion of the historical reality. A prudent pastor when explaining such a crib to children will stress its positive sides, passing over in silence whatever may not agree with Palestinian conditions. Pointing out historical shortcomings to children would unnecessarily upset them, unless they be grown up, and sufficiently mature to see the distinction between the unhistorical form and the historical contents ! | ||
|
Credits |  |  |  |  |  |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facts |
 |  |  |  | |||