Matthew 2 - They came bearing gifts

[Waterfall]

The Gnostics believed in levels of being or enlightenment that depended on access to secret knowledge. Paul seemed to be part of this circle in his reference to reaching the seventh heaven; a woman clothed with the sun and the moon beneath her feet

Book of Revelation 12:1,2 and 5, speaks of the woman of the apocalypse "and there appeared a great wonder of heaven, a woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet, and a crown of 12 stars."
It sounds a bit along the lines of the zodiac and the moon is also mentioned in yhe Qumran scrolls, as being a bad oman or a good one if it coincides with the sound of thunder on certain days or in winter. This thunder can signify a King just as example.
It's called Brontologion ( brontos means thunder in greek and logion means omen) in the Jewish Zodiac calender at Qumran.
It was used well into the first century by the Babylonians and also relates to the Hebrew calender used today.
The brontologion could be used with this calender, to provide an archaic prediction when the sound of thunder was heard, based on the moons position in the zodiac on that day.
Its found in 4Q318 in the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran.

 

[Waterfall]

Book of Revelation 12:1,2 and 5, speaks of the woman of the apocalypse "and there appeared a great wonder of heaven, a woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet, and a crown of 12 stars."
It sounds a bit along the lines of the zodiac and the moon is also mentioned in yhe Qumran scrolls, as being a bad oman or a good one if it coincides with the sound of thunder on certain days or in winter. This thunder can signify a King just as example.
It's called Brontologion ( brontos means thunder in greek and logion means omen) in the Jewish Zodiac calender at Qumran.
It was used well into the first century by the Babylonians and also relates to the Hebrew calender used today.
The brontologion could be used with this calender, to provide an archaic prediction when the sound of thunder was heard, based on the moons position in the zodiac on that day.
Its found in 4Q318 in the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran.

One other thing I found surprising is that very prominent scientists in the past, held astrology in high esteem.
Tycho Brahe; Galileo Galilei;
Johannes Kepler and Pierre Gassendi. All best remembered for the development of modern physics and astronomy.
Astrology also led to modern tools to chart the heavens.

 

[Mystic]

In his massive magisterial book "The Birth of the Messiah," Raymond Brown points out that evidence for Egypt supports the view that the Romans conducted a census every 14 years. This would imply that there was an earlier census of Palestine in 7 BC, the year (as Brown points out) of the best scholarly candidate for the "Star" of Bethlehem. The triple conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars in that year would mean that a great world leader was born in the Palestinian region--a tradition independently supported by Josephus.

How would the shepherds and the Magi find baby Jesus? In his pre-Christian boyhood in Samaria (c. 100 AD), Justin Martyr learns the tradition that Joseph "took his quarters in a certain cave near the (Bethlehem) village (Dialogue 78)." The shepherds and the Magi would encounter the cave manger en route to Bethlehem (Luke 2:16). The ancient Church of the Nativity is built over this cave. Origen already reports Christian pilgrimages to this cave.
Matthew refers to "the house" (2:11) in which Joseph and Mary were staying. But ancient Jews often used caves as a "house." So if Joseph had relatives in Bethlehem, they would typically inhabit a small 1-2 room house and would hardly have room for a couple from Nazareth and their new baby! The Essene (or other Jewish) Magi would know from Micah 5:2 that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem would not need to follow a "star" to get to the cave birth site outside Bethlehem.

The myth of 3 Magi was created in response to the 3 gifts--gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Later tradition assumed there must be 1 Magus for each of the 3 gifts. In fact, frankincense and myrrh were standard ingredients of Magi occult arts. There may have been only 2 Magi offering 1 small gift of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, which they always kept on hand. In addition to the monastic Essene Qumran community, Essenes were located in various Palestinian towns. With widespread Essene apocalyptic expectation, it would be natural for some Essene Magi to go to Bethlehem, the prophesied birthplace of the Messiah.

A big question yet to be addressed is how Joseph and Mary from Nazareth wound up in Bethlehem for Jesus' birth. My next planned post will take up this question.

 

[jimkenney12]

Astrology started as astronomy, recording night sky observations and looking for patterns. Once patterns were discerned, then testing their ability to make predictions. At the same time existing theology would have added to their story telling.

A modern researcher decided to try to prove astrology was hokum by creating tables comparing the positions of the planets to events on earth. He discovered some alignments match closely to significant global events. He decided he had to do more research to either confirm that planetary alignments can have inexplicable at present correlations to patterns of events on earth or demonstrate the correlations he found were coincidences.

 

[Redbaron]

A big question yet to be addressed is how Joseph and Mary from Nazareth wound up in Bethlehem for Jesus' birth. My next planned post will take up this question.

Later in Chapter 2, Herod sends soldiers to Bethlehem to kill the boys 2 years old and younger. Not to Nazareth. In Matthew's telling of the story, Joseph, told of Herod's death by the angel, is afraid (because of the rulers who succeeded Herod) to return to his hometown, and only then located to Nazareth.

 

[Mystic]

Later in Chapter 2, Herod sends soldiers to Bethlehem to kill the boys 2 years old and younger. Not to Nazareth.

Why would they want to go to Nazareth? The soldiers had no specific knowledge of Joseph's residence in Nazareth.

In Matthew's telling of the story, Joseph, told of Herod's death by the angel, is afraid (because of the rulers who succeeded Herod) to return to his hometown, and only then located to Nazareth.

The point is that the feared Archelaus ruled over Judea, not Galilee. There is no implication in Matthew 2:23 that Nazareth was not Joseph's prior home. The text merely reports that Joseph "went and dwelt" in Nazareth, a locale that Matthew has not yet mentioned.

 

[Redbaron]

Why would they want to go to Nazareth? The soldiers had no specific knowledge of Joseph's residence in Nazareth.

Joseph moved to Nazareth after his return from Egypt. (Mt 2:19-23). The soldiers went to Bethlehem, because that is where the child was to be born, and presumably lived there. They wouldn't have known Joseph lived in Nazareth, because Joseph hadn't yet relocated there.

 

[Mystic]

Joseph moved to Nazareth after his return from Egypt. (Mt 2:19-23). The soldiers went to Bethlehem, because that is where the child was to be born, and presumably lived there. They wouldn't have known Joseph lived in Nazareth, because Joseph hadn't yet relocated there.

Where does the text claim Joseph hadn't previously lived in Nazareth? 2:23 just says Joseph "went and dwelt" there and has no interest in the history of Joseph's prior residences apart from that. There is no reason to claim Matthew would have identified Nazareth as Joseph's prior residence--a matter that need not suit Matthew's agenda.

 

[Redbaron]

Since Joseph was afraid to return to where he had been before, (Judea, under Herod's rule, and his successor's rule,) he went to Galilee, to Nazareth, outside the immediate sphere of Herod and co. Since he went to Nazareth, which was a different place from where he had lived before, it stands to simple reason he did not live in Nazareth before then. Otherwise Matthew 2:19-23 makes no sense whatsoever. Which seems to fit Matthew's agenda quite well.

 

[Redbaron]

Some of this information comes from Borg and Crossan, The First Christmas.

 

[Mystic]

Since he went to Nazareth, which was a different place from where he had lived before, it stands to simple reason he did not live in Nazareth before then. Otherwise Matthew 2:19-23 makes no sense whatsoever. Which seems to fit Matthew's agenda quite well.

On the contrary, it makes perfectly good sense that Matthew would suppress his awareness of Joseph's prior residence in Nazareth.
Matthew's agenda is to establish Jesus' descent through Joseph to David in fulfillment of Micah 5:2. This fulfillment is somewhat awkward (though still valid) if only members of Joseph's extended family resided in Bethlehem, the city of David. So it serves Matthew's purpose to withhold Joseph's prior Nazareth residence without clearly implying the truth that Joseph had previously lived there. The cogency of this point is greatly enhanced when we grasp the main reason why Joseph took his pregnant wife to Bethlehem, as my next planned post will demonstrate.

 

[Luce NDs]

Everything thus remains de visive ... like houses of god collected be de evil powers of reconciliation after the dust settles from the collapse from the depth of the great abstract! You cannot see it from within ... thus the urge to get out ... some do it without contribution for the time they had ... they will give nothing and grow into chimera ... what I've been told does not exist and thus some side has to be in the wrong as they were left without a care! These are the extreme rites of passage ... from there everything goes down causin' dissent!

Will there be eruptions? No doubt the cause of super Nova ... that gas out there!

Like fusion it is compressive ... leaves de tri tious! Pieces of ends ... exclusive exponentism? Exorcism! De source is a Black Hole Thingy ...

 

[Mystic]

Progressives forget that Joseph has 2 excellent reasons to move to Bethlehem, quite apart from the census debate:
(1) In Nazareth a "scandal" has been created by Mary's pregnancy out of wedlock, a scandal succinctly expressed by the locals' question, "Is this not the son of Mary (Mark 6:3)?" "Son of Joseph" would of course be expected in this patriarchal society. Mary was betrothed to Joseph and locals of course would dismiss a virgin birth story as a cover-up for adultery, the penalty for which could be death by stoning. (John 8:5-8). So if Joseph had family roots in Bethlehem, he might want at least temporarily to relocate there to escape scandal.
(2) Bethlehem is in Judea and Judean rabbis, unlike Galilean rabbis, allowed betrothed couples to have sex with impunity (So Raymond Brown, "The Birth of the Messiah."
(3) With the perceived threat to Bethlehem babies posed by Herod and later by Archelaus, Joseph might plausibly then consider a return to Nazareth the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[Luce NDs]

Progressives forget that Joseph has 2 excellent reasons to move to Bethlehem, quite apart from the census debate:
(1) In Nazareth a "scandal" has been created by Mary's pregnancy out of wedlock, a scandal succinctly expressed by the locals' question, "Is this not the son of Mary (Mark 6:3)?" "Son of Joseph" would of course be expected in this patriarchal society. Mary was betrothed to Joseph and locals of course would dismiss a virgin birth story as a cover-up for adultery, the penalty for which could be death by stoning. (John 8:5-8). So if Joseph had family roots in Bethlehem, he might want at least temporarily to relocate there to escape scandal.
(2) Bethlehem is in Judea and Judean rabbis, unlike Galilean rabbis, allowed betrothed couples to have sex with impunity (So Raymond Brown, "The Birth of the Messiah."
(3) With the perceived threat to Bethlehem babies posed by Herod and later by Archelaus, Joseph might plausibly then consider a return to Nazareth the lesser of 2 evils.

That'd be we eviling ...

 

[jimkenney12]

Assuming there is s Joseph.

 

[Mendalla]

Assuming there is s Joseph.

If there was not a Joseph, then there must have been someone. That's how it works unless you take the Virgin Birth literally. So even if it is just a placeholder, there is a person behind it.

 

[Luce NDs]

Such a Joey watching the subjective nonsense from within the insubstantial domain of the dream that is beyond mortal connection ... immortality is thus indeterminate from where we're at? MOG how can that be? Chi will not tell ...

That's the word ... dark and murky! it also flows across bright pages ... carriers! Delicate few noted ... gentiles ...

If word could kill ... only in essence ... can will descend to such depths of shadow intellect? Some wobble prerequisite like waves in the pool of reflection --- some frog or other amphibious aquarian!

The war goes on for overwhelming what thoughts bug yah ...

 

[GordW]

Since Joseph was afraid to return to where he had been before, (Judea, under Herod's rule, and his successor's rule,) he went to Galilee, to Nazareth, outside the immediate sphere of Herod and co. Since he went to Nazareth, which was a different place from where he had lived before, it stands to simple reason he did not live in Nazareth before then. Otherwise Matthew 2:19-23 makes no sense whatsoever. Which seems to fit Matthew's agenda quite well.

All of which assumes some remembered history about the birth story at all. The text of Matthew does not support prior residency in Galilee. HOwever there was obviously a lived memory that Jesus was from Nazareth, along with a tradition that the Messiah was to be from David's line and born in David's town (the latter part being openly named by Matthew, who really likes to show Jesus as fulfilling prophecy). Luke has them travel for the census, which is a strange tool since it makes much more sense to count people where they live, and then return to Nazareth presumably soon after the presentation at the temple on the 8th day. Matthew has this story where they were originally from Bethlehem but end up in Nazareth as refugees (with a fulfillment reference that is unclear at best).

Both may be narrative devices to account for the born in Bethlemeh but we know he was from Nazareth.

 

[Luce NDs]

Imagine binary citizenship ... diabolical!

It is like a governing power claiming they are doing something for the people ... when you know it is self-infused!

 

[Mystic]

"Assuming there is s Joseph."

A silly and unwarranted challenge, given that John twice identifies Jesus as "the son of Joseph" (1:45; 6:42), but never identifies Mary as Jesus' mother in his 3 references to Jesus' "mother" (2:3, 5; 19:26)! Does your church know you question whether Joseph was Jesus' father? The triple attestation of Joseph as Mary's husband in 3 Gospels offsets the fact that Mark refers to Mary as Jesus' mother once, but not to Joseph. Nor would we expect a reference to Joseph, since Joseph is apparently already deceased and Mark has no virgin birth narrative.


GordW: "All of which assumes some remembered history about the birth story at all."

My rebuttal is inspired by English scholar Richard Bauckham's excellent book, "Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church:"
Julius Africanus has ancient Jewish Christian sources that imply just such a "remembered history:

"From the Jewish villages of Nazareth and Kokhaba, they (Jesus' family members) traveled around the rest of the land and interpreted the genealogy they had [from family tradition]."

The reference to the obscure Galilean village "Kokhaba" just 16 kilometers from Nazareth lends credibility to this report.
Kokhaba was a main center of ancient Jewish Christianity (so Epiphanius, Pan. 29.7.7). Paul already attests the itinerant missionary work of Jesus' brothers:

"Do we not have a right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD and Cephas (Peter) (1 Cor. 9:5)?"

We don't know which genealogy Jesus' brothers interpreted, but that is irrelevant because the main purpose of both the Matthean and Lucan genealogies is to establish Joseph (and therefore Jesus) as a descendent of David and hence as the promised Davidic Messiah. Of course, the genealogies go with the virgin birth narratives, which are also intended to establish Jesus as the Davidic Messiah born in Bethlehem, the city of David. This likely means that Jesus' brothers originally circulated virgin birth stories, which they would have heard from their mother, Mary.

The text of Matthew does not support prior residency in Galilee."

But that does not mean that Matthew is unaware of Joseph's prior residence in Nazareth. Remember, Matthew's agenda is to establish Joseph as a descendent from David to facilitate Jesus' status as the expected Davidic Messiah. So it does not serve Matthew's purpose to admit that Joseph was fleeing to Bethlehem, the city of David, from Nazareth to protect Mary from her perceived adultery scandal (see Mark 6:3). And of course, Matthew never denies that Joseph originally lived in Nazareth.