Year A–Epiphany of the Lord
This upcoming Sunday is the feast of the Epiphany of the Lord. Consequently, the readings are selected to match this feast. In this episode, we’re going to focus solely on some challenges that pertain to the Gospel reading taken from Matthew 2:1-12, where Matthew narrates the story of the Magi and the star. Of the two challenges that we will consider, one of them pertains to the star itself and the other to the journey that the Magi make.
The Readings: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/010823.cfm
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further!
Hey everyone,
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
This upcoming Sunday is the feast of the Epiphany of the Lord. Consequently, the readings are selected to match this feast. In this episode, we’re going to focus solely on some challenges that pertain to the Gospel reading taken from Matthew 2:1-12, were Matthew narrates the story of the Magi and the star.
Of the two challenges that we will consider, one of them pertains to the star itself and the other to the journey that the Magi make. Now, I have to say at the outset that the information that I will be sharing with you is taken from several resources, most of which comes from a few resources published by my colleague Jimmy Akin. If you go to catholic.com, and search “the star of Bethlehem,” or “Magi,” then you’ll find the relevant resources from Jimmy.
For this episode, I’m going to skip over reading the passage and let you do that on your own.
Let’s take the challenge that’s directed at the journey first.
A skeptic might challenge Matthew’s narrative as to whether these men from the East really would have taken an international journey (from the Medo Persian Empire, or Babylon, to Jerusalem) to greet a newborn king of the Jews. It doesn’t seem reasonable to think that ancient peoples would have taken such long journeys as Matthew says they did.
But the historical records suggest otherwise. Take, for example, the first-century magus named Tiridates, who also was the Roman client king of Armenia. Multiple sources confirm that in A.D. 66 he journeyed with other magi for nine-months to pay homage to Nero in Rome. These sources include, Pliny the Elder (Natural History 30:6), Cassius Dio (Roman History 63), and Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, “Nero” 13).
Now, as Jimmy Akin points out, if the magi traveled from their eastern homeland to the far away land of Rome, then surely, they could have traveled to an eastern district, like Judea, given that Judea is much closer than Rome.
So much for the journey challenge.
The next challenge concerns the star, and in particular Matthew’s description of it. Recall, Matthew reports that the Magi say, “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star at its rising [or in the East] (v.2), and then later says that “the star which they had seen at its rising [or in the East] preceded them . . . came and stopped over the place where the child was” (v.9).
The implication here, as many have interpreted it, seems to be that the star first led the magi westward to Jerusalem from their eastern homeland and then to Bethlehem, which is just south of Jerusalem. The star then rested on top of the house where the child Jesus was staying.
But for a skeptic, this is problematic because stars don’t move like that. Therefore, it’s concluded, this narrative must be either a legendary development or a theological embellishment of the Jesus story—something made up.
Now, there are different ways that one might respond to the challenge. And what I’m going to explain here, again, is a summary of what is explained in greater detail by my colleague and friend Jimmy Akin in a variety of resources that we have at Catholic Answers.
Someone might say that this is simply a legendary development and is not something that is part of the original source material that Matthew was working with.
One problem with this is that it calls into question the historical trustworthiness of Matthew’s Gospel. We don’t have time here to get into the evidence for Matthew’s historical reliability but suffice to say that if Matthew wrote his Gospel early, which some say was around A.D. 63, then there would have been no time for such a legend to develop. He is writing within living memory of the family of Jesus. The presence of such censorship excludes any legendary developments.
Another problem here is that Matthew was a Jewish-Christian. And his source material was Jewish as well. Jews, at least for the most part, disliked eastern astrology and didn’t have much to do with it. If any Jews did dabble in eastern astrology, they would have been considered as being on the fringe. This being the case, it’s unlikely a legend would have developed within the Jewish community that could only be appreciated and understood if you’re steeped in eastern astrological beliefs, which, again, most Jews were not. Moreover, it’s unlikely that Matthew would have included such a legend in his Gospel that is directed primarily to a Jewish audience. Why would Matthew try and persuade a Jewish audience about Jesus with some legend that’s intrinsically connected to eastern astrology? That doesn’t make sense!
Another possible answer to the challenge might be, “Perhaps Matthew didn’t naively adopt this as a legendary development. Maybe it’s meant to be a theological embellishment, something that he, or at least his source, made up—something that is more of a symbolic narrative as opposed to a historical narrative.”
Matthew’s Jewish background creates the same problem for this response as it did for the previous one. It’s unreasonable to think that Matthew would engage in such theological embellishments that only can be appreciated and understood if you’re steeped in eastern astrological beliefs, which, as mentioned before, most of his Jewish audience was not.
The answer to the challenge that most Christians will offer is that this is a supernatural (preternatural) phenomenon that’s miraculous in nature. God, by a special act of creation, created a miraculous light in the sky that moved through the sky to guide the magi. And the magi, given the predictions concerning heavenly luminaries in their belief system, interpreted the phenomenon as a sign of a newborn king.
From a Christian perspective this is a perfectly reasonable answer. Given that God exists, and that He is all-powerful, He can do such a thing. And such a miraculous effect would not entail a falsification of the laws of nature. In other words, it wouldn’t falsify any scientific knowledge that we have about stars. A skeptic might not accept this answer, but that’s because of the more fundamental issue that he can’t accept miracles.
Now, there’s another answer that also fits within a Christian framework but is miraculous in a different sense. Rather than the light being some preternatural event that God miraculously brings about, this answer suggests that it’s a natural celestial phenomenon that God wills to occur providentially in tandem with Jesus’ birth.
Let’s start with Matthew’s text itself. There is nothing in the text that demands we interpret it as a supernatural light that God moves about in the sky.
First, Matthew simply reports that they made their way to Jerusalem because they saw the star in the East. He never says that the star moved through the sky leading them to Jerusalem. The Magi saw the celestial phenomenon and interpreted it as a sign of a newborn Jewish king. This is consistent with Babylonian astrological systems and would have been based on the various predictions within their belief system concerning celestial phenomenon and the destruction of their oppressive king. Since the Herodian dynasty was the current ruling family of Judea at the time, they naturally thought that such a new Jewish King would be a child born into that family. This being the case, they went to the palace of Herod the Great in Jerusalem.
Second, that Matthew records the magi going straight to Jerusalem instead of Bethlehem gives good reason to think that the star was in fact not moving through the sky as a guide. Why would the star lead them to Herod in Jerusalem and not straight to Bethlehem where the child was? The Magi didn’t set out to Bethlehem until they heard about the prophecy from the Jewish experts.
Now, someone might counter, “Well, Matthew does say in verse 9 that the star ‘went before them til it came to rest over the place where the child was.’ Doesn’t that reveal that the star miraculously moved through the sky?”
Not necessarily. Although the phrase “went before them” is a good translation, since the Greek verb proagō means, among other things, “precede,” it need not be interpreted as anything other than the well-known phenomenon of distant astronomical objects, like the moon, apparently staying in the same place behind, beside, or before us as we travel. As the Magi went south to Bethlehem from Jerusalem, the distant astronomical object, “the star,” remained in the southern half of the sky—it “went before them.”
What about the second part of the statement, “it came to rest over the place where the child was”?
The Greek verb for “to rest,” histēmi, can simply mean “to stand there,” which fits with the Magi seeing, from their perspective, the star in the sky over the place where the child was as they approached.
So, there’s nothing within Matthew’s narrative that demands we interpret it as a miraculous light moving through the sky that guides the magi. A Christian is perfectly free to believe that, but it’s not necessary.
The question now becomes, “What was the nature of the celestial phenomenon that the Magi saw and interpreted as a sign of a newborn Jewish King?” Matthew says that it was a “star.” But is that what it was?
Well, the term “star” meant a variety of different things at that time. For us, it means a collection of gases in which nuclear fusion is taking place and that generates light. For the ancients, however, it meant any light in the sky: the moon, planets, meteors, comets, and what we normally think of stars, whether that be “fixed stars” or “constellations.”
It’s unlikely that it was “fixed stars,” stars that maintain their position relative to each other, like the Big Dipper, and go through their cycle once a year. If this is what the Magi saw and interpreted as a sign of a newborn Jewish King, then they would have been seeing the same sign each year, and thus thinking that a newborn Jewish King was born every year. But this is highly unlikely.
It’s also not likely that they saw a “constellation,” the sun, or the moon, and all for the same reason why it’s unlikely they saw “fixed stars.” Constellations cycle every year, and, as is evident from our experience, the sun and the moon do the same thing all the time.
What about a meteor? The problem here is that meteors are too transitory. Often, they only last for a second and then they’re gone. So, it’s unlikely that they would have saw the meteor in the east, and then after traveling the long journey to Jerusalem, come to see the same meteor as they headed south to Bethlehem.
Okay, what about the comet option? My colleague Jimmy Akin gives two persuasive reasons why it’s probably not a comet, although it’s not impossible. One is that there is no record of a comet in the right year of Jesus’ birth, which, as Jimmy argues, is 3 or 2 B.C. There are some comets on record occurring in 7 or 6 B.C., which is the time that many think Jesus’ birth took place, but there is evidence against this view.
Another problem with the comet option that Jimmy points out is that comets were considered as bad omens rather than good ones. The Magi interpreted the celestial phenomenon as a good omen. Therefore, it’s not likely that the sign was a comet.
What about the sign being a new star, which are sometimes found in some records of ancient astronomers? It’s hard to see how it would have any significance for the Magi. Prior to its occurrence, the celestial phenomenon would not have been part of the Magi’s astrological system. This being the case, they would not have been able to assign any meaning to such a star, like it being a sign of the birth of a newborn Jewish king. A new star would entail a new meaning. But for the Magi, they already had a meaning—a newborn Jewish King. Therefore, they already had the star in their astrological system.
The last option is that of an astrological conjunction of planets, or a planet and a star. And this option seems to fit with what is known in Babylonian predictions concerning Jupiter and the star Regulus. Now, I’m not an expert on this, so, again, I can only give a summary here of the research done by others.
The idea is this: there was a series of predictions in the Babylonian text, referred to as Jupiter omens, that historically came to pass. I’ll list the relevant ones here.
First, it was believed that if Jupiter reached a halting point in the morning and not some other time during the day, enemy kings would be reconciled.
Second, it was believed by the Babylonians that if Jupiter passes the head of Venus, Akkad, the chief city of Mesopotamia, would be conquered with a strong weapon.
There was also a prediction, summarized by Dag Kihlman [in his book The Star of Bethlehem and Babylonian Astrology, that “If Jupiter passes Regulus and gets ahead of it, and afterwards, Regulus, which it had passed and got ahead of it, stays within its setting, someone will rise and kill the king and seize the throne.”
Such predictions would have been considered good news for the people of Babylon, and thus the Magi, because at the time the Parthians were ruling them. They were being ruled by an enemy king.
Did such a phenomenon occur in 3 or 2 B.C., the time of Christ’s birth? It did. In September of 3 B.C., in the course of Jupiter encountering the Regulus star three times, it lined up with Regulus and Venus in such a way that it would have appeared as a single star in the sky.
The details involved go far beyond this episode, and frankly beyond my expertise. But Rick Larson, an evangelical pastor, explains it all in his The Star of Bethlehem. As Jimmy explains, Larson gets it right when it comes to identifying the phenomenon, he just interprets it in the wrong way: through a Jewish lens rather than through a Babylonian lens.
But why go to Jerusalem? Scholars point out that along with the predictions about the destruction of the enemy king of Akkad, there is mention of a king who will bring about that destruction as being from “Amurru,” which is the Babylonian word for the region west of Babylon.
This region would have included Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Western Syria. And among these regions, Herod was the only powerful king. The west region of Babylon would not have included the Romans because there were no kings within the Roman Empire, only governors. Thus, the Magi go to visit who they know as the Jewish king in response to seeing the heavenly phenomenon of Jupiter, Venus, and Regulus lining up in conjunction with each other, appearing as a single star, which the Magi interpret as a sign that their enemy king is going to be destroyed by a king from “Amurru.”
Now, it’s likely that after the Magi meet with Herod and begin to make their way to Bethlehem, they did so early in the morning. Travelling at night over the mountains would have been too dangerous. Upon leaving in the early morning, Jupiter would have been in the southern sky.
Moreover, it would have continued to be in front of them as they traveled from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. The road from Jerusalem to Bethlehem turns west. The stars rotate in such a way that Jupiter moves slowly to the west in the sky relative to someone standing still on earth. So, Jupiter moves westward slowly as the Magi travel down a westward curving road. Consequently, Jupiter would have remained in front of them the whole 6 miles to Bethlehem and upon arriving at the house where the child is, Jupiter would have been seen overhead. Remember, one of the Jupiter Omens was that when Jupiter is steady in the morning, the enemy king will be destroyed. This explains why the Magi “were overjoyed at seeing the star,” as Matthew records in verse 10.
Again, a Christian doesn’t have to accept this theory as an answer to the challenge considered in this episode. But it is a promising theory in that it makes sense of the text given the historical astronomical record and a plausible astrological system that makes sense of why the Magi would interpret the celestial phenomenon as a sign of a newborn Jewish King.
The bottom line is that the skeptic’s challenge of the “moving star” is not a persuasive argument to dismiss Matthew’s narrative.
Well, that does it for this episode of The Sunday Catholic Word.
Thank you for subscribing to the podcast. Please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well. I hope that you have a great feast of the Epiphany of the Lord.