This is the best book I'm aware of on the star of Bethlehem. But it has some significant shortcomings, which I'll address below.
It's based on a 2014 conference on the star. The book is largely a response to Michael Molnar, but the degree to which different contributors interact with Molnar varies widely. Their views of the star and related issues also vary a lot.
Of the twenty authors, a few argue for what's called a "maximalist" view of the star of Bethlehem (650), meaning that they affirm the basic historicity of the magi and the star. However, even those few scholars reject the historicity of some aspects of the Biblical account. None of the contributors to the book argue for the historicity of the view of the star that's been the most popular one among Christians and is the most popular interpretation of the passage among modern New Testament scholars, namely that the star was a supernatural entity. Some of the authors acknowledge that the supernatural view is the Biblical view and was the mainstream position in patristic Christianity and among Christians in later centuries. But they don't accept that view or argue for it themselves. In addition to the few maximalist contributors to the book, some are "fully skeptical", some are "minimalist" (649), and others don't advocate any view. (Some authors are addressing topics that don't require them to take a position.) The overall thrust of the book is in the liberal to moderate range. Some of the best arguments for more conservative views of Matthew's passage are either ignored or underestimated. I'll give several examples below.
First, though, I want to address the book's treatment of Molnar's work, since both the 2014 conference and the book put so much focus on that topic. I think Molnar's position is wrong on many levels. I found the most critical responses to his work, like Stephan Heilen and Aaron Adair's, the most convincing. Heilen's chapter is one of the best in the book and is devastating to Molnar's position.
But the low point of the book isn't Molnar's chapter. He's wrong on a narrower range of issues. The worst chapter of the book is Annette Merz's radically skeptical overview of the infancy narratives. The chapter is deeply inaccurate and highly misleading, often ignoring not only the counterarguments of conservative scholars, but even many of the most significant points made by liberal and moderate sources she herself cites. She absurdly claims that the infancy narratives have "totally different stories" that are "impossible" to reconcile (478), with "huge discrepancies" (487), that Nazareth is "far more" likely than Bethlehem to be Jesus' birthplace, that "no one among his family or fellow villagers expected anything special from him", that we have "no historically reliable traditions of Jesus' childhood" (491), etc. She seems to have some common misconceptions about the infancy narratives (referring to "the immaculate conception" on 478, suggesting on 482 that Mary was "heavily pregnant" when traveling to Bethlehem in Luke 2 and that Luke 2:7 is referring to an inn), and she seems unaware of how John 8:12 overturns her interpretation of John 7 and some of her other arguments. There are far too many problems with her chapter for me to do more than scratch the surface here.
However, the book is a goldmine of information on the star, the magi, and related issues, even if you disagree with many of the positions held by the authors. In that sense, it's reminiscent of Raymond Brown's The Birth Of The Messiah.
Unfortunately, it has some of the same weaknesses as Brown's book. It neglects some important issues, especially conservative arguments. Here are several examples:
- Some of the authors suggest that Matthew's account was written in a non-historical genre. That claim can be judged by examining the genre of the gospel of Matthew as a whole and the genre of the star account in particular. As far as I recall, the only author who offers any significant argument for the genre of Matthew as a whole is George van Kooten, in the last chapter of the book, who rightly identifies the genre as Greco-Roman biography (a historical genre). There are scattered references to how the star passage in particular is interpreted by the earliest sources (e.g., the reference to how Justin Martyr interpreted the passage as a historical narrative on page 424), but nobody addresses the patristic evidence as a whole (including how early non-Christians took the account) and its implications for the genre of the passage. Since many of the authors, including the most skeptical ones, appeal to patristic evidence on issues of linguistics, exegesis, etc. (e.g., 260, 344), they ought to be similarly concerned about the patristic evidence pertaining to genre.
- The corroboration of the Slaughter of the Innocents in two extrabiblical sources, the Assumption Of Moses and Macrobius, isn't addressed. (The brief reference to Macrobius on page 168 is irrelevant.) Antonio Panaino objects to the lack of corroboration of the Slaughter from a contemporary source (259), but doesn't address the Assumption Of Moses, which is often dated early enough to be a source that's contemporary. Even Geza Vermes, in a book highly critical of the historicity of the infancy narratives, acknowledged that the passage in the Assumption Of Moses is reminiscent of Matthew's passage on the Slaughter and cited it as part of the atmosphere in which Matthew's account arose (The Nativity [New York: Doubleday, 2006], 110). The late and garbled nature of Macrobius' comments means that he only offers a small amount of evidence for Matthew's account. But both the Macrobius passage and the more significant one in the Assumption Of Moses should have been addressed.
- From what I understand of the evidence, it seems likely that the magi were Arabian. Tony Maalouf makes some good arguments to that effect ("Were the Magi From Persia or Arabia?", Bibliotheca Sacra, 156 [October 1999], 423-42). Van Kooten cites Maalouf's article in a footnote and in his bibliography, but doesn't interact to any significant extent with Maalouf's case. All of the authors of the book who express a view on the subject maintain that the magi came from somewhere other than Arabia, but none of them interact much with the evidence for the Arabian view.
- Some of the authors suggest that the behavior of Herod portrayed in Matthew 2 is unrealistic. The objection takes a lot of forms, with different people doubting different aspects of Herod's behavior. But the argument doesn't work in any of its configurations. If you're interested, you can find some articles on the subject at my blog (Triablogue), including responses to Adair (in the context of reviewing his book on the star, not his chapter in the book presently under consideration). Panaino writes that a king as "able and intelligent" as Herod should have sent "a mass of spies on their [the magi's] footsteps. The way in which the magi later avoided coming back to Jerusalem while the king was behaving like an idiot is simply worthy of a fiction, not of a serious historical report." (243) He refers to how Herod was "able and intelligent", but he was also mentally unstable, overly suspicious, and short-tempered and often exercised poor judgment. In the circumstances of Matthew 2, Herod was faced with a highly unusual situation he didn't anticipate, without much time to decide how to act, and we're told that he was troubled (Matthew 2:3) and angry (Matthew 2:16). At my blog, I give some examples of how Herod acted irrationally at other times under such circumstances, including on occasions that are acknowledged to be historical by critics of Matthew 2 (the execution of his wife Mariamme, the planned execution of Jewish dignitaries at the time of his death). He was irrational, overly suspicious, short-tempered, and murderous even toward his closest relatives and people who were more respected in society than the people of Bethlehem were. But though Herod often acted so irrationally, are his actions in Matthew 2 as irrational as critics suggest? If Herod thought he could successfully manipulate the magi, as he had so far, why would he complicate matters by sending spies? The magi were already unknowingly acting as his agents. He could have the child executed covertly after getting further information from the magi, who had already been so cooperative with him. Why take the less efficient and more risky approach of sending spies to follow the magi? We don't know what the time of day was when the magi traveled to Bethlehem, but the reappearance of the star suggests that a nighttime setting is most likely. There wouldn't normally have been many people traveling from Jerusalem to Bethlehem at that time of day, so anybody traveling around the same time as the magi could easily arouse suspicion. Since the magi's journey to Bethlehem was occurring at night, how would spies follow them without being detected (by the magi or other individuals, like the people of Bethlehem)? They didn't know ahead of time that the star would reappear and provide light. If the spies brought torches or some other form of light, they'd be easy to notice. If they followed closely behind the magi and whatever light source the magi had, that might work, but would be risky. They could have waited until several hours or a day or two later to go to Bethlehem and ask around about what happened, but that sort of delay and sending somebody around to ask questions would also be risky. Spies would only be needed if the magi betrayed Herod in some manner. But if you wait hours or days to send spies, then you're giving the magi time to leave and to prepare the people of Bethlehem to be evasive about what had happened. Herod apparently didn't want to wait long, concluded that the magi had double-crossed him, was angry, probably didn't trust the people of Bethlehem at that point (and hadn't trusted them much to begin with), and wanted to put an end to the situation on his own terms. He didn't need a third option, especially one as problematic as sending spies. He had a second option that he carried out in Matthew 2:16. Much more could be said about the subject, and anybody who's interested can read the relevant posts at my blog.
- Van Kooten brings up some good points about internal evidence for the historicity of the magi account (e.g., 622). He also provides good reasons to doubt some common claims about how Matthew's material supposedly was fabricated on the basis of Old Testament passages. His argument could be expanded. The unpopular, typological, and evidentially weak nature of most of the prophecy fulfillments Matthew cites suggests that he wasn't making up events to fulfill those prophecies. Rather, he was looking for passages that had some relevance, often just a distant relevance, to events he thought had actually occurred. Critics make much of alleged Old Testament parallels to the events reported about Jesus' birth. But it's easy to think of many ways in which far closer parallels could have been made, if that had been Matthew's intent. His infancy material also has some elements that meet the criterion of embarrassment (e.g., the premarital timing of Mary's pregnancy, the early move to the disreputable Nazareth). There's a lot of internal evidence for the historical genre and historicity of Matthew's account of Jesus' childhood. Van Kooten and the other contributors to the book only address a small portion of it.
- Some of the authors, like Adair and Heilen, bring up some good arguments that Matthew intended to refer to a supernatural star. Matthew's descriptions of the star's movements are an important line of evidence to that effect. But another line of evidence is often underestimated, including in this book, namely the behavior of the people involved in the passage. Why does only one group of magi come looking for the child? Why does Herod continue relying on the information the magi gave him, even after he had concluded that they had double-crossed him (Matthew 2:16)? Most likely, the star was a supernatural entity that at least usually appeared much closer to the earth's surface than a star as we commonly define that term today would. The star was meant to guide only this one group of magi. Because of the star's highly local nature, Herod was dependent on the magi for information about the star, even when that dependence was so much against his interests.
- A lot of important sources and information on the infancy narratives either rarely or never come up in the book. Some of the contributors seem unaware of significant recent developments in New Testament studies, patristics, and other relevant fields. I'm thinking of Stephen Carlson's work on Luke 2, for example, such as his proposal for a new translation of Luke 2:2 and his important article on Luke 2:7 and related issues ("The Accommodations Of Joseph And Mary In Bethlehem: Kataluma In Luke 2:7", New Testament Studies 56 [2010], 326-42). There isn't much interaction with what Richard Bauckham, Craig Keener, and other more conservative scholars have published on issues like the genre and historicity of Matthew and Luke. Some of the authors repeat common misconceptions about the infancy narratives that have been corrected for a long time.
I'm going to be posting more about this book at Triablogue in the coming days. After that, as I have time, I'll be posting a lot of responses to Annette Merz's chapter in particular.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Discover the latest buzz-worthy books, from mysteries and romance to humor and nonfiction. Explore more
