The Historicity Of The Star Of Bethlehem (Part 4)

(Previous posts in the series: part 1, part 2, part 3.)

Adair wants to know why "Zoroastrians from Persia" would "want to become Jews because of a Star" (1553). He goes on to argue that Zoroastrians at the time of Jesus' birth would have been uninterested in or opposed to the sort of astrology relevant to Matthew 2, that it wasn't until centuries later that they developed a more positive view of such astrology. In third-century inscriptions, "we have the leader of the magi conducting persecutions of Jews and Christians" (1593). Adair argues that if the events of Matthew 2 had occurred, then later groups affiliated with Matthew's magi should have held a higher view of Christianity.

There's some merit to his view that the magi were Persian. For example, references to magi in antiquity are frequently about figures from Persia.

But a better case can be made that Matthew's magi were from Arabia. See Tony Maalouf, "Were the Magi From Persia or Arabia?", Bibliotheca Sacra, 156 (October 1999), 423-42. (For a small fee, you can read the article online here.) I don't agree with Maalouf on every issue he discusses, but he makes some good points. The term "the East" in Matthew 2:1 aligns better with Arabia than Persia. The gifts the magi give are associated more with Arabia. The magi's interest in a Jewish king makes more sense in a context that's geographically closer to Israel, and Arabia is closer than Persia. The earliest report of the magi's place of origin is found in Justin Martyr, and he identifies them as Arabians (e.g., Dialogue With Trypho, 77). Clement of Rome, writing shortly after the composition of Matthew's gospel, refers to Arabia as "the East", and associates the region with frankincense and myrrh, while addressing a context other than Matthew 2 (First Clement, 25).

There are some weaknesses to the Arabian identification of the magi. Ancient references to magi associate them with Persia far more often, for instance. If the term "magi" were all we had to go by, the Persian view would be preferable.

But we have more than the term to go by. The balance of evidence favors Arabia.

And how relevant would ancient Zoroastrian astrological views be if we thought the magi were Persian Zoroastrians? It's doubtful that Matthew wanted his readers to think that the magi were led to their interpretation of the star by their astrological beliefs alone.

For one thing, ancient Judaism and Christianity were generally opposed to astrology. While an ancient Jew or Christian could oppose astrology, yet think that God used people's belief in it to accomplish his ends, avoidance of it would be more likely in a context like Matthew 2. And if astrology played a role in motivating the magi's journey, it probably would have been accompanied by something of a better nature. Astrology wouldn't be the only factor. It's unlikely, upfront, that an ancient Jewish or Christian account would have the magi being guided by nothing but astrological motivations.

Secondly, if, as Adair and I believe, the star Matthew refers to isn't what we'd normally identify as a star today, if it was some sort of supernatural object located much closer to the earth's surface, for example, then to what extent would any ancient astrological beliefs apply? If Matthew's star was somewhat similar to astronomical phenomena, but also different to some extent, then how Zoroastrians or any other group involved viewed astrology would be only partially relevant at most. Magi were often associated with astrology, but they were associated with other paranormal phenomena as well. The star may have been accompanied by communication in dreams, as in Matthew 2:12, beliefs derived from the Jewish scriptures, or beliefs derived from extra-scriptural Jewish tradition, for example. If there was something like what I just mentioned accompanying the star, then the star wouldn't have been interpreted solely, if at all, in the context of astrology. Persian Zoroastrians could have been opposed to something like a moving star, as Adair mentions, yet have been interested in the Bethlehem star because of other factors involved, like the ones I've referred to above.

The magi probably weren't Persian Zoroastrians. Even if they were, Adair's conclusion doesn't follow.

Adair writes:

So now imagine that you have people coming from the group that declares kings in Persia all the way to a land that is under the thumb of Rome, the most powerful rival to the Persians, and declare a toddler is the true ruler of Israel. Those Magi are in fact not only overriding the authority of King Herod, an infamously paranoid tyrant, they are overriding the authority of Caesar Augustus. This is not an idle incident but a declaration of war by the most powerful nation Rome knew. It would be similar if, during the Cold War era, the Soviet Union sent delegates to set up a new governor of Puerto Rico; this would be Cuba's communist takeover squared in the international community….

When the Persians appointed a new ruler to this region [Armenia] undesirable to the Romans, Emperor Nero sent in the troops; this led to a long war and was noted by several historians. Decades earlier, there was a significant diplomatic showdown over the same region and as to who was to appoint its ruler; this did not lead to a war, in part thanks to the negotiating skills of the Roman governor of Syria, but again it made it into several histories from antiquity, including the Jewish historian Josephus.

So if something like this had happened in c. 6 BCE concerning Israel, the response by Rome should have been sending, at the very least, strong condemnations, if not soldiers, and all of Jerusalem should have been afraid (Matt 2:3). Instead, silence, as if nothing happened….It is impossible to imagine that Josephus, who had eye-witness records to the life of Herod the Great, would have not mentioned the major diplomatic nightmare the coming of the Magi would have brought….One must also wonder how the Gospel of Luke, which styles itself as a historical work, provides no mention of this incredible story. (1619)

Here's a passage from Tacitus, one of the sources Adair cites in a footnote to support his claim that the Matthew 2 events should have created an international incident:

Meanwhile deputies arrived from the Parthian king, Artabanus. They had been sent to mention the friendship and the treaty between the nations, and to add that "the king desired a fresh exchange of pledges; and, in compliment to Germanicus, would meet him on the bank of the Euphrates. In the interval, he asked that Vonones should not be kept in Syria to lure the tribal chieftains into discord by agents from over the border." As to the alliance between Rome and Parthia, Germanicus replied in florid terms; of the king's coming and his courtesy to himself he spoke with dignity and modesty: Vonones was removed to Pompeiopolis, a maritime town of Cilicia. The concession was not simply a compliance with Artabanus' request but also an affront to Piso; to whom the pretender was highly acceptable in consequence of the numerous civilities and presents for which Plancina was indebted to him. (Annals, 2:58)

Notice that the passage above and Adair's Soviet Union analogy involve government representatives and actions they took representing the states they were affiliated with. Does Matthew 2 suggest that the magi were acting on behalf of a foreign government or were perceived as doing so? No. To the contrary, Matthew suggests otherwise.

The magi refer to how the star appeared to them and how they had come to find the newborn king of the Jews (2:2). They don't refer to how the star had appeared to other people or how they were representing the government of the land where the star appeared. Any suggestion that the magi were acting on behalf of a foreign government goes beyond what we're told in Matthew 2. Furthermore, the magi say that they've come to honor a newborn king, not appoint one, in contrast to Adair's Soviet Union analogy involving "setting up a new governor". A small child is involved, not an adult. Herod is portrayed as being concerned about matters like where the Messiah was to be born (2:4) and when the star appeared (2:7), but Matthew says nothing of any concern on Herod's part about a foreign government that sent the magi. Herod's willingness to execute the child without consulting any Roman or foreign authorities suggests that he didn't think any international incident was at stake. There's no suggestion of the "major diplomatic nightmare" Adair refers to. And the magi's naivete in wanting to return to Herod in 2:12 suggests that they weren't operating on behalf of a government that would have better informed them about what to expect in Israel. Matthew's later references to the initial smallness of the kingdom of God (7:13-4, 9:37), like a mustard seed (13:31-2), which begins in Israel and spreads from there (10:5-7, 10:18, 15:24, 15:26-8, 28:18-20), make it unlikely that he thought that an entire large Gentile nation or its government had already believed in Jesus decades earlier. Rather, Matthew seems to think the magi were a small Gentile remnant, much like the small Jewish remnant that initially followed Jesus. The idea that some prominent Gentile group, like the Persians or their government in particular, had been followers of Jesus when he was a child runs contrary to some of the major themes of Matthew's gospel.

And even if events like those recorded in Matthew 2 usually would have been reported by the historians of that era, we'd have reason to think they'd do otherwise in Matthew 2's context. The Matthew 2 events were being used by Christians to promote their religion. And how would a non-Christian go about narrating the events in question without thereby lending credence to Christianity? Ancient historians were highly selective in what they reported, and they would have had motivation to pass over events that were so favorable to a movement they didn't want to promote.

(As they become available, future segments in this series will be linked here: part 5, part 6.)