and all its neighborhood, according to the date he had so carefully ascertained from the Magi. Then were these words, spoken by the Prophet Jeremiah, fulfilled,
“A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and bitter lamentation: it was Rachel bewailing her children, and she refused to be comforted because they were no more.”
But after Herod’s death, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, and said to him, “Rise from sleep, and take the child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead.” So he roused himself and took the child and His mother and came into the land of Israel. But hearing that Archelaus had succeeded his father Herod on the throne of Judaea, he was afraid to go there; and being instructed by God in a dream he withdrew into Galilee, and went and settled in a town called Nazareth, in order that these words spoken through the Prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
They read the familiar words and thought about Webster’s suggestion that the Virgin Birth narrative might have been a later addition to the text. “It almost looks as though some one slipped in an extra page and didn’t change anything else.” This gave rise to a debate about such a possibility. “Surely you wouldn’t get away with tampering with Holy Writ.” It was pointed out that in the early times, the writing wouldn’t have such stature and it could be done and copies of the new text circulated. They were now getting used to the idea that their discussions were going to be often inconclusive. As Webster said, “I am putting forward this idea but don’t have any evidence for it, so I will go on saying the Creed every Sunday!”
A new contribution was made by Andrew who had, up to this point, joined in the general discussion without saying anything particularly memorable. Andrew was a considerable reader of Bishop Spong, the controversial bishop of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. He wished to acquaint the group with the idea of midrash, a way of interpreting a text which had been developed by Jewish rabbis: to take a text and “fill in the details,” as he put it, using careful imagination. “Spong is entranced with the idea that midrashic interpretation is the key to understanding the Gospels,” Andrew reported. “He thinks that Matthew Chapter 2 is a midrash on Old Testament texts.” The argument went something like this: early Christians, still thinking of themselves as a part of Judaism, trawled the Jewish scriptures for predictions which might apply to their Leader. The four which are quoted in Matthew, Chapter 2, then provided a framework for imaginative story telling; since Jesus was the fulfillment of all these texts, his life must have been thus and so. It is then possible to build the midrash and get Chapter 2 as we have it today.
This line of thought was hotly contested in the group, with a majority finding it hard to believe that anyone could “get away with it.”
Melanie sensed that the evening had been rather successful and that her time as leader would have its moments. The group seemed inclined to continue after the appointed hour but she dismissed them and heard the discussions continuing as they left the room. She was about to leave when Webster, who had lingered behind the others, asked for “a quick word.” They sat down again and he began. “Melanie, things are going so well but I feel the need to apologize,” he said. “I am saying too much and I want you to keep me in check. Matty was good at that.”
Melanie smiled, partly with relief. She thought that perhaps she was going to hear something negative about her leadership. “Dear Webster,” she said. “You are so full of enthusiasm and when you spoke tonight, I watched the faces around the table. They were eating it up.” She paused and they exchanged affectionate glances before they, too, went on their way.
Chapter 2
It seemed only a short time before they were back at it again. They had all had time to re-read Chapter 2 and Melanie displayed the first part of the text on the screen.
Now after the birth of Jesus, which took place at Bethlehem in Judaea in the reign of King Herod, excitement was produced in Jerusalem by the arrival of certain Magi from the east, inquiring, “Where is the newly born king of the Jews? For we have seen his Star in the east, and have come here to do him homage.” Reports of this soon reached the king, and greatly agitated not only him but all the people of Jerusalem. So he assembled all the High Priests and Scribes of the people, and anxiously asked them where the Christ was to be born.
“At Bethlehem in Judaea,” they replied; “for so it stands written in the words of the Prophet, ‘And thou, Bethlehem in the land of Judah, by no means the least honorable among princely places in Judah! For from thee shall come a prince—one who shall be the Shepherd of my people Israel.’”
Thereupon Herod sent privately for the Magi and ascertained from them the exact time of the star’s appearing. He then directed them to go to Bethlehem, adding, “Go and make careful inquiry about the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and do him homage.” After hearing what the king said, they went to Bethlehem, while, strange to say, the star they had seen in the east led them on until it came and stood over the place where the babe was. When they saw the star, the sight filled them with intense joy. So they entered the house; and when they saw the babe with his mother Mary, they prostrated themselves and did him homage, and opening their treasure-chests offered gifts to him—gold, frankincense, and myrrh. But being forbidden by God in a dream to return to Herod, they went back to their own country by a different route.
“I suppose,” she said, “that this is the best known part of the whole Gospel. When we raise questions about its historicity, we’ll feel a bit like the Grinch who stole Christmas. But I have been thinking this week about Andrew’s comments on ‘midrash’, an idea that was completely new to me.” Andrew replied, “It isn’t so strange. After all it’s what preachers do to Biblical texts, filling in the details from their imagination. Sometimes they do it well, but not always.” Melanie confessed that she had steered clear of sermons most of her life!
Someone wondered why the full quote about Bethlehem wasn’t given since the original in Micah 5 goes on “. . . out of you will come a ruler . . . whose origins . . . are from days of eternity.”
There was some discussion about Magi, with Stephen recounting his childhood memory of being a sheep in the Christmas pageant, hoping one day to be a shepherd and seeing the Magi as almost divine. Melanie recalled the Menotti opera, Amahl and the Night Visitors. They were not all familiar with this piece so she explained that it had been a commissioned work and that the composer, Gian Carlo Menotti, had drawn inspiration from the Bosch masterpiece The Adoration of the Magi which he had seen in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. She outlined the plot: the Magi seek shelter in the hut of a poor widow whose crippled son, enchanted by the quest, offers to donate his crutch to the newborn, and thereby receives healing.
“Do you see?” said Andrew, more animated than they had ever seen him. “It’s a midrash on Matthew’s Magi text. A midrash on a midrash!” Al went even further. “It’s more,” he said. “It begins with Matthew’s text, then Bosch makes a visual midrash and Menotti makes a musical one on that!”
Webster moved the discussion along by reminding them that the “other half” of the Christmas story is in Luke’s Gospel with the census, “no room at the inn,” the shepherds and the angels. “Does it matter,” he wondered, “that we might have some doubts about the details, whether they actually happened that way? Perhaps it’s enough to enter into the story. After all, when we go to a performance of Hamlet, we don’t worry too much about historical origins of the story, even though there was probably a seventh century Danish prince of that name. And no one has dug up Elsinore to find his castle. We just enter into the story.” Then Al took that argument to its logical conclusion. “How would we feel if the whole Gospel was viewed in the same way? Could we ‘just enter into the story’?” There was a considerable pause; some were shocked at this idea
