I think this is the preferred translation.  It also resolves in my 
opinion the question of whether the star was preceeding the Magoi from 
"the east" to Jerusalem-this translation suggests that it was seen at its 
rising, and seen a second time after the Magoi left Jerusalem-2 
appearances, not a continuous movement.

-Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library

On Tue, 4 Oct 1994 Dvdmoore@aol.com wrote:

> 	Allow me to raise a somewhat different question about the visit of the Magi.
> 	In Mat. 2:2 and 2:9, we have the phrase EN TH ANATOLH which has
> traditionally been translated "in the east."  The points of the compass,
> however, are normally presented with a preposition and as anarthrous; at
> least, in the NT all other instances are so presented. (See, for instance,
> 2:1, APO ANATOLWN, where the usage is also plural.)  So the expression in
> 2:2,9 is sometimes translated "in its [the star's] rising" (So Weymouth, NIV
> margin, NEB "the rising of his star").  This appears to be a better
> translation.
> 	Both BAGD (s.v.) and Moulton & Milligan (s.v.) cite instances in which
> ANATOLH is used of the rising of a planet, of the sun, or of stars (the
> latter in BAGD only).  So there does seem to be support from both literary
> and non-literary sources for "in its rising."  L&S also give an instance of
> ANATOLH as an astrological technical term (s.v., I:3,b) "the _ascendant_,
> i.e. the point where the eastern horizon cuts the zodiac" (in Ptolemaeus
> Mathematicus, _Tetrabiblos_, 20, [ii A.D.]).  This latter may well be the
> usage we have here if the Magi were, in fact, astrologers and the writer of
> Matthew is quoting here.
> 	There are two factors that set the use of ANATOLH in 2:2 and 9 apart from
> its use in v.1.  First is the substitution of the singular in vv. 2 and 9 for
> the plural in v. 1.  This change within one context would be difficult to
> explain without supposing some change in meaning.  Second, the use of the
> article probably sets the usage in vv. 2 and 9 apart from that of v. 1.
>  Since, as mentioned above, all other instances of ANATOLH in the NT are
> anarthrous when referring to geographical direction (See Moulton [Turner]
> III:p.172).  
> 	Blass suggests that we have here a reference to a specific place (Bl-DeB,
> #253,5), but I find no reference to Anatolia or to any other such place by TH
> David Moore