A commenter suggested that the story in Matthew 2 might through some light to the birth of Jesus and to his mission, so I will briefly look at this problem again.
The Magi saw the star twice.
“After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magifrom the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
“After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was.”
Assuming that the Magi were from Babylon, they had to travel 1,145 km to Jerusalem. A camel caravan moves about 40 km in a day. Thus, the trip takes one month. The Magi probably stayed days or a week with Herod the Great in Jerusalem before again following the star. This means that the star was visible over one month, maybe two months. Chinese astrologers tracked Halley’s comet of 12 BC from August to October, that is, over one month, maybe two months. This apparation was especially impressive as the comet came close to the Earth.
Usually comets are bad signs, but there is every reason to assume that in 12 BC a comet in the Middle East and Rome was understood as a good sign, a king maker. Armenian king Tigranes had pictured Halley’s comet of 87 BC on a coin. It most probably was understood as a good omen of the New Era of the king of kings Tigranes the Great. Caesar’s comet of 44 BC was taken as a good omen, Octavianus declared Julius Caesar as a god because of the comet, and as an adopted son of Caesar, he become the son of god.
Cassius Dio tells that the comet of 12 BC stayed over Rome for several days to honor the death of Marcus Vispasianus Agrippa on that year. On the following year was born Herod Agrippa I, whose nape honors Marcus Vispasianus Agrippa. Thus, stopping of the comet for several days also honored Herod Agrippa I, who then also become the son of god and the future king of kings of the New Era. Matthew 2 tells of the star of Bethlehem stopping over the place where the son was.
It is unclear where Herod Agrippa was born. His father Aristobulus IV moved from Rome to Jerusalem in 12 BC with his brother Alexander, but nothing is said if Aristobulu’s wife Berenice also moved in 12 BC. As the trip was dangerous (Herod the Great had executed Aristobulu’s mother Mariamne I and was jealous of the popularity Aristoblulus and Alexander had) it is quite possible that Herod Agrippa I was born in Rome. If so, Cassius Dio states that the comet stopped over Rome where the king would be born.
Matthew 2 naturally claims that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem: “But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.”
But this is not what Mica 5:1 says. Mica says: “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.”
Mica does not talk of a place called Bethlehem, he talks of a clan, family, called Bethlehem. Bethlehem is where David was born, so the family is the new Davidic king family, Hasmoneans. There are many ways to translate Mica 5:1, but the one given above (English Standard Version) does not imply that the king family is of the tribe of Judah. (Hasmoneans were Levites.)
The child murder of Bethlehem clearly points to Hasmoneans as Herod the Great killed Hasmonean princes, while there is no information (in Josephus or elsewhere) that Herod the Great ever killed the boy children of the town of Bethlehem. Herod the Great killed Aristobulus IV and Alexander in 6 BC. Berenice married Theudion, who was killed accused of plotting against Herod the Great. This must be before 4 BC as Herod died in that year. Then Berenice returned to Rome, apparently with her children. In Matthew the holy family escapes to Egypt, but Rome can be called spiritually Egypt in this context.
Clearly, the Magi from Babylon might have been more willing to present gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh to a royal cild, Herod Agrippa I. If this happened in Rome, and the father Aristobulus IV was in a dangerous trip in Jerusalem, the Magi might well have been told to tell nothing of the child to Herod the Great. If this is what is intended, then the sentence: “And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route” gets a clearer meaning. Why should the Magi have returned to Jerusalem if the child was in Bethlehem and they were to return to Babylon? But if they had first gone to Jerusalem and from there to Rome, they would take a shorter route to Babylon.
Matthew still gives one additional fact: “When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.” This is rather odd. Did Herod realize that the Magi did not return to him only after two years? It seems that the Magi had concluded that they child may have been born one year before the star appeared, or one year after it. Thus, Herod would have to wait for one year before he could say that the Magi did not return, and the child could be two years old. Herod Agrippa I was born in 11 BC and the comet appeared 12 BC. Thus, these dates fit well to the words of Matthew. What does not fit so well is that the Magi arrive immediately at the time the child is born. If so, then there would not have been the uncertainty of two years.
I think Matthew 2 fits very well with the idea that Herod Agrippa I was to be the king Messiah and Jesus was the prophet Messiah, whose task was to redeem the sins by dying on the cross.
3 Comments
Robert Eisenman suggests in his monography ‘James, the brother of Jesus’ that there is a possibility that Jesus was crucified in 21 AD.
In that case Jesus’ year of birth would be 12 BC, assuming that he died at the age of 33.
As a matter of fact in chapter 24 of his book, Eisenman writes following passage:
“(…) In fact, Eusebius seems to be presenting the exchange of letters between Jesus and Agbarus, the King of the Osrhoeans, as an answer to some other materials that had recently appeared from Roman chancellery records, called the ‘Acti Pilati’ that he considered scurrilous. The presently extant Acts of Pilate – so-called because of their attribution to Pilate – are rather pro-Christian documents attesting to Pilate’s recognition of Jesus, but these other so-called ‘Acts’, which appear to have represented themselves as the actual administrative records of Pilate’s Governship, upset Eusebius so much because they claimed a different date for the crucifixion of Jesus – around 21 BC.
In truth the Romans did keep very careful administrative records, even in the provinces, and it would have been surprising if records such as these – called in fact ‘acts’ – had not once existed, but the ’Acti Pilate’ Eusebius so rails against were obviously being circulated by enemies of Christianity. They claimed that Jesus was crucified in the seventh year of the reign of Tiberius, which commenced in the year 14 CE. (…)“ (James, the brother of Jesus, Penguin ed., 1997, page 863-864)
correction: 21 BC should be 21 CE.
Eisenman has many good observations, especially that Paul was a Herodian, but this redating of Jesus I do not think is correct. There is a fixed date AD 51/52 when Paul was captive in Corinth (Gallius as procurator) and calculating from that back we hardly can get to another date to the Jerusalem Council than either the traditional 50 AD or the new dating 48 AD. From Paul’s letters we get 17 years before that Stephan was stoned, so 34 AD or 31 AD, and that was a year after Jesus was crucified. I actually am leaning on to the traditional dating of the crucifixion as 33 AD. Pilate was in Judea 27-36 AD.