Catholic Thought discussion
The Mystery of the Magi
>
Chapters 10 and 11
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
[W]hether it was a star by nature or a star in appearance only, we shall easily know the other things also. Whence then will these points be manifest? From the very things that are written. Thus, that this star was not of the common sort, or rather not a star at all, as it seems at least to me, but some invisible power transformed into this appearance, is in the first place evident from its very course. For there is not, there is not any star that moves by this way, but whether it be the sun you mention, or the moon, or all the other stars, we see them going from east to west; but this was wafted from north to south, for so is Palestine situated with respect to Persia.
Second he points out that no star could have been visible in the daytime.
In the second place, one may see this from the time also. For it appears not in the night, but in mid-day, while the sun is shining; and this is not within the power of a star, nay not of the moon; for the moon that so much surpasses all, when the beams of the sun appear, straightway hides herself, and vanishes away. But this by the excess of its own splendor overcame even the beams of the sun, appearing brighter than they, and in so much light shining out more illustriously.
Third he points out that it would be impossible for a star to come to rest above a single child, and concludes it had to be an angel.
For it did not, remaining on high, point out the place; it not being possible for them so to ascertain it, but it came down and performed this office. For you know that a spot of so small dimensions, being only as much as a shed would occupy, or rather as much as the body of a little infant would take up, could not possibly be marked out by a star…How then, tell me, did the star point out a spot so confined, just the space of a manger and shed, unless it left that height and came down, and stood over the very head of the young child? And at this the evangelist was hinting when he said, Lo, the star went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was ... Therefore after He has brought them, leading them by the hand, and has set them by the manger; it is no longer by a star, but by an angel that He now discourses unto them.
I do lean to Fr, Longenecker’s theory of an astrological prediction, but if I had to go with a supernatural theory, I do like Chrysostom’s angel theory. If angels individually visited Joseph and Mary then why not the Wise Men? For me none of the natural astronomical event theories make sense.
Aside from the topic itself, which was interesting, one thing I got from this book is that one can accept that all of the ingredients are in the cake without seeing the ingredients themselves and while accepting that the cake is more than its ingredients.It is certainly useful and interesting to work through the recipe of a story but at the same time, I'm not sure it is necessary. I fear we moderns have been so trained in literality that we have a hard time digesting the cake.
That said, I do feel that this book helped me refine my story palate.
Mod
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPLlV...
But I don't think the Magi were employing real scientific methodology.
Mod
This is true Casey but as Catherine said in another segment on this book, the story Fr. Longenecker uncovers is more magical (my word, not necessarily Catherine's) than the legend. Though rooted in reality there is as much wonder in it as the legend, maybe just because it is real, and we get the sense it is true. Meanwhile the legend is something we forced ourselves to believe.
I take your point but what I mean is that the story we know and the story in this book are the same story. We just aren't trained how to read/hear/think properly. When we're tested in school we are tested in comprehension and/or the facts. ie how much we remember.There's no harm - in fact there's great value - in a book like this. however, we simply can't consume life at this level of detail all the time. We need to trust our stories more and learn how to read them.
I'm just now understanding this myself. this book was helpful in that regard.
Mod
Manny wrote: "Oh I see Casey. I may have misunderstood your previous comment. Thanks for the clarification. I would say most of our Biblical stories are not this blurred over with legend. In fact I'm not sure I ..."Well, in a sense all stories are necessarily so. I try to keep a journal. When I write daily, I tend to fill a page. If time slips by me and I write a week or a month at one go, I also write a page. Details get culled and the most important things... the essences... rise to the top and make the cut to be written. From a distance we see patterns and meaning, not details. It's that meaning we are after.
Contrast that with an encyclopedia. A book full of facts and entirely without meaning. And our schooling kind of trains us to prefer/understand/trust encyclopedias. But facts are not truth.
Virgil's Aeneid contains no facts but all the truth one can handle.
To me, Longnecker's book revealed that the facts of this story support the truth of the story even though the story contains none of those facts.
I hear what everyone is saying. As a fan of history, I started off very intrigued by what Longenecker uncovers. But he does tend to repeat himself. And when I looked up Petra on Google Maps, I saw that it's south of Bethlehem, not east. Unless he's proposing the magi were traveling a trade or nomadic route, the location doesn't fit the location part of his theory - on which he leans heavily - or Matthew's words that they came from the east.I'm still enjoying the read, though. I wonder whether biblical scholars engaged in any debate over this book. I was working at the university where I finished my degree in midlife. Attending classes tuition-free was a perk of the job, which paid pitifully in actual money. My employee status gave me insights behind the scenes and I saw how academics automatically freeze out any non-scholar who has the temerity to put forth a controversial theory, or any theory that runs counter to whatever narrative is ascendant at the time. So I don't know if any scholarly rebuttals or additional research exist on his theory.
Knowing historical facts deepens my faith. I could hear a thousand times that the Star of Bethlehem was a supernova explosion but to me it was the hand of God guiding us through his angels or other supernatural means.
I put a small effort into searching for rebuttals but I didn't see anything.Historically speaking it is interesting but whether 3 men rode in on camels from Persia or 11 men from Pittsburgh on horses the reality is that someone likely came for something and it was deemed important enough to mention.
Mod
As to college professors, I have found quite a few absorbed in their own echo chamber and filled with unlimited hubris. It would not surprise me that they would not give Fr. Longenecker's book a reading. Fr. Longenecker says at the end this had been a passion of his for many years, and so he devoted quite a bit of time to researching this subject. I was not expecting to see this level of specificity when I picked up the book. I am surprised at how thorough and convincing to me he is. Yes it does get a little repetitive, but I see him as looking at the data from different angles. But I can see how it might feel repetitive.
This is such an absorbing subject. In the Roman catacombs there are many paintings of magi, or wise men, which suggests the story was grounded in a historical event. In the first century A.D., ‘’the East’’ probably referred to Persia and/or Assyria, today’s Iran and Iraq. I think it’s important to consider these components because, while part of the distant past to us, they mattered deeply to Matthew’s audiences who were learning how the birth and life of Jesus fulfilled prophecies such as Isaiah 60:6: ‘’Caravans of camels shall find you . . . All from Sheba shall come bearing gold and frankincense, and proclaiming the praises of the Lord.’’
Manny wrote: "Gerri, I'm not sure Fr. Longenecker said they came from Petra on the journey to Bethlehem. My recollection is that they came from the Nabetean Kingdom, which includes Petra but does not mean their ..."Thanks, Manny, that helps clarify things for me on the location. Will pay closer attention to what Longenecker says about the Nabatean Kingdom. I was unfamiliar with the Nabateans before picking up this book and I'm happy to be learning so much about them. I don't mind that Longenecker repeats himself. So much of what he proposes makes sense and is worthy of further study. We're the lucky recipients of his passion for the subject.
And I hear you about the professors.
Casey wrote: "I put a small effort into searching for rebuttals but I didn't see anything.I haven't looked yet but I'm not surprised you didn't find anything. It's a shame, though. Debate about the topic could uncover new depths of information. But I'm impressed by how deep Longenecker is probing.
Frances wrote: "This is such an absorbing subject. In the Roman catacombs there are many paintings of magi, or wise men..."Frances, that is really interesting about the catacombs paintings. The people of that time must have considered the magi visit extremely important. And that was before the story was embellished by the myths pointed out in the book.
Mod
https://dwightlongenecker.com/ten-rea...
I guess it's from he personal blog.
Chapter 10, “The Star of Belthlehem”
Next Fr. Longenecker takes on the legend of the Magi following the star to Jesus. Fr. Longenecker evaluates various theories: a supernatural phenomenon, a natural astronomical event, or an astrological reading of the night sky. Each of these generic theories have specific possibilities. First Longenecker attempts to understand how Matthew understood the star?
I’m not going to summarize each of the theories but some of them considered are a comet, a meteor, a supernova, an alignment of planets, celestial divination, the helical rising and falling of Jupiter, and astrological reading of the stars.
Chapter 11, “Wise Men from the East”
Here Longenecker explores the understanding of Matthew’s use of the term “wise men” for the Magi and what Matthew meant by “from the East.” In so doing Longenecker recapitulates the theory that the Magi were Nabateans star gazers, that the “East” referred to the land of the Nabateans, and how the legends of the Magi developed into what it has become. Longenecker then goes into some of the very earliest of Christian writings—when the legends had not developed yet—and located passages from the Church fathers substantiating his theory. Longenecker then proposes how the real knowledge of the Magi was lost as the Church center of gravity moved from the Middle East to the European continent.