Matthew 2:1 – ‘Magi from the east’
Matthew 2:1f After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, in the time of King Herod, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem saying, “Where is the one who is born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
Separating tradition from (biblical) text
Tradition says that the magi were three in number and that they were kings, but this is not indicated in the text. The names Caspar, Balthasar, and Melchior were not attached to the Magi until 700 years later. It is often assumed that they made a hazardous journey over a great distance, but the text only says that they came ‘from the East.’
Historicity doubted
For sceptical scholars such as Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan, the story of the visit of the Magi is a ‘parable’, constructed out of OT texts in order to convey the true significance of Jesus:-
‘In our judgement, there was no special star, no wise men and no plot by Herod to kill Jesus. So is the story factually true? No. But as a parable, is it true? For us as Christians, the answer is a robust affirmative. Is Jesus light shining in the darkness? Yes. Do the Herods of this world seek to extinguish the light? Yes, Does Jesus still shine in the darkness? Yes.’ (The First Christmas: what the gospels really teach about Jesus’ birth)
The contributor to Harper’s Bible Commentary asserts that
‘the story of the Wise Men is like a “haggadah,” i.e., a story made up from biblical materials to make a theological point.’
The OT texts would have included Num 24:17, Ps 72:10–11, and Isa 60:1–7. The same kind of process continued to elaborate the tradition beyond the NT period, adding details such the visitors being not merely wise men, but kings (and, we might add, giving them names).
Robert H. Gundry, although claiming to be an evangelical who believes in inerrancy, thinks that Matthew has altered Luke’s story about the shepherds (which he thinks is historical) to this very different story about the Magi. The Magi are then made to come to a ‘house’, not a ‘stable’ (as if Luke had specified that it was a stable!) because it would fit better with their distinguished status:
‘Matthew selects them [the Magi] as his substitute for the shepherds in order to lead up to the star, which replaces the angel and heavenly host in the tradition…That Herod’s statement consists almost entirely of Mattheanisms supports our understanding Matthew himself to be forming this episode out of the shepherd’s visit, with use of collateral materials. The description of the star derives from v. 2. The shepherds’ coming at night lies behind the starry journey of the magi’
‘turns the visit of the local Jewish shepherds (Luke 2:8-20) into the adoration by Gentile magi from foreign parts. Just as the four women (besides Mary) in the genealogy pointed forward to the bringing of Gentiles into the church, so also the coming of the magi previews the entrance of disciples from all nations into the circle of those who acknowledge Jesus as the king of the Jews and worship him as God.’
Specifically, Gundry thinks that Matthew gets the magi from the OT (Dan 2:2,10, LXX), that they were astrologers, and that they were selected as substitutes for the shepherds in order to introduce the star, which replaces Luke’s angels (Lk 2:8-15). The magi also recall the Gentile prophet Balaam, who also came from the East (Num 23:7 LXX), and observes the rising of a royal star (Num 24:17-19).
To have such insight into the Matthew’s fertile imagination is a truly wonderful thing. See Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, p135, and this article in Christianity Today.
But the various objections to the historicity of this account overlook
‘the well-documented intense interest by ancient astrologers in Persia and elsewhere in the connection between astral phenomena and political events and the fact that in A.D. 66 the eastern astrologer Tiridates and other Magi visited Rome (cf. Dio Cassius 63.7; Suetonius, Nero 13). It was also widely believed during this era that stars heralded the birth of human beings destined for greatness (Brown, 1977), and in fact both Suetonius and Tacitus tell us that at the turn of the era there was an expectation of a world-ruler who would come from Judea (Suetonius, Vesp. 4; Tacitus, Ann. 5.13). Further more, the gifts brought by the Magi are regularly mentioned in ancient sources as valuable products of Arabia and other eastern countries. There is nothing inherently improbable about the story itself, though doubtless the First Evangelist has shaped his source material to bring out the points he wishes to stress.’ (DJG)
As Ian Paul remarks,
‘The approach presents problems of its own. For one, the stories are not presented as parables, but in continuity with the events Matthew relates in Jesus’ life later in the gospel. For another, if God in Jesus did not outwit Herod, on what grounds might we think he can outwit ‘the Herods of this world’? More fundamentally, Matthew and his first readers appeared to believe that the claims about Jesus were ‘parabolically true’ because these things actually happened. If none of them did, what grounds do we now have?’
Historicity affirmed
Regarding the general plausibility of this account, Nicholl (The Great Christ Comet) remarks that
- the massacre of the innocents matches what we know about Herod’s suspicious and cruel nature
- the long journey of the Magi to greet a new king is in keeping with what other magi did, some 70 years later in the time of Nero
- most devout Jews and Christians despised astrology; it is most unlikely that they would have fabricated this story
- the fact that the star appeared about a year before the massacre of the innocents (Herod determining the age of those to be killed based on this information) is hard to account for otherwise
On the other hand, arguments against historicity (Herod would not have called the Sanhedrin together, he would have sent a spy along, the Magi already knew the way to Bethlehem, and didn’t need the star to show them the way, the slaughter of the innocents is not mentioned in other ancient sources) are weak.
France adds a further argument in favour of the historicity of this event, stating that:
‘it is unlikely that a church which repudiated astrology and magic would have embarrassed itself by inventing such undesirable witnesses to the Messiah.’
Who were they?
‘Originally a religious class in Media and the Persian Empire, but the word magi came to describe any student of astrology and lore.’ (Holman Apologetics Commentary)
‘Magi’ are mentioned in two other places – Acts 8:9-11; 13:6. In each of these cases they are presented as deceiving charlatans. Matthew’s magi are, however introduced favourably, in that they ‘worshiped’ the newborn Jesus, presented him with gifts, and responded to a (God-given) dream by outwitting Herod.
John Hughton says that although the term ‘magi’ was sometimes used of individuals who used magic as a means of making a living, its primary reference was to
‘the “tribe” of priests who acted almost like a religious civil service to the various empires of the area, from the Babylonian through to the Medo-Persian era and then to the Parthians. Josephus tells us that no one could be King in Parthia unless they knew the ways of the Magi and were supported by the Magi who some understood to operate in a not dissimilar way to a US senate. They were indeed not the Kings but they were the power behind the throne – the King makers. You may remember in the book of Daniel that Daniel is appointed chief of the Magi. They had a reputation throughout the region for being educated, wise, learned, religious priests with knowledge of religion from previous empires to that of Zoroastrianism, the prevalent religion of the Parthian empire. Conventional learning was interlaced with astrology, alchemy and other esoteric knowledge.’
How many?
If they came from a great distance (Persia, say), then, considering the length and hazardous nature of their journey, they probably travelled in a fairly sizeable convoy. The preparation and undertaking of such a journey would probably have taken several months.
But, as Dwight Longenecker observes, Matthew does not say that they travelled a great distance; only that they ‘came from the east’.
So, where did they come from?
They could have come from Persia, Babylon or Arabia.
(a) Persia?
Among recent scholars, this is favoured by Blomberg. It is in the east and was at some time a centre for astrology and astronomy. The term ‘magi’ originated in this area, although by NT times it had expanded to cover a range of meanings and connotations.
In his comprehensive study, The Mystery of the Magi, Dwight Longenecker concludes that:
‘while the Persian magi seem at first glance to be the obvious candidates for Matthew’s wise men, an examination of the history makes it clear that they were in fact unlikely to have been the mysterious visitors to Bethlehem. Their influence at a low point, hedged in by Roman military might, they did not have the motive or the means to make such a journey.’
(b) Babylon?
There was a large Jewish population there from whom the could have learned about OT promises of a coming king. If they came from Babylon, it would have been a journey of about 550 miles, and might have taken a month or so by camel train.
Babylon is certainly to the east of Judea. There was a sizeable Jewish diaspora in Babylon. Dan 2:2,10 make it clear that magi had been associated with Babylon for a long time. Josephus and Philo both attest to there being a sizeable Jewish population there. The Babylonian Talmud has frequent references to the Jewish population being visited rabbis. Babylon was a renowned of astronomy. Putting these facts together, we might well expect magi from Babylon to be skilled in astronomical observation, and familiar with OT prophecies concerning the Jewish Messiah. Important figures in the early church, including Origen, Jerome and Augustine, associated the magi with Babylon.
Mounce:
‘The astrologers probably came from Babylonia, where they would have had contact with the Jewish exiles and the opportunity to develop an interest in the coming Messiah.’
Kerry Magruder (Dictionary of Christianity and Science, art. ‘Star of Bethlehem’) states:
‘Babylon at this time was the leading center for magi who were not only astrologers but also proficient astronomers. Babylonian magi were historical, not legendary, and their astronomical knowledge was sophisticated, not trivial. These magi, the “scribes of Enuma Anu Enlil,” pioneered quantitative methods in ancient astronomy and could predict planetary cycles hundreds of years into the future (Swerdlow 1998). Few discussions of the Bethlehem star appreciate the capability of mathematical astronomy in this cuneiform tradition or delve deeply into the historical question of the magi’s astrology, that is, how they interpreted celestial events.’
This location is also favoured by Nicholl, France, Hagner and others. The last-named writes:
‘Since the magi in Matthew’s narrative have some knowledge of Jewish messianic expectation, they must have had some contact with Jewish thinking. While this could have occurred in Persia or Arabia, Babylon had a settled Jewish community and seems the most likely candidate cf. Dan 2:48; 5:11. (WBC)
(c) Arabia?
Kenneth E. Bailey (Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes) says that to someone living in Rome ‘the east’ would suggest Persia, whereas from the perspective of the Holy Land, ‘the east’ would be the other side of the Jordan river. The expression ‘would naturally refer to the Jordanian deserts that connect with the deserts of Arabia.’ The same writer adds that gold was mined in Arabia (cf. 1 Kings 9:28; 10:2; Job 28:16), and that frankincense and myrrh are harvested from trees ‘that only grow in southern Arabia.’ Early Christian writers, including Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Clement of Rome all attest to an Arabian origin from the Magi.
This region is described as being in the ‘East’ in Gen 10.30; Judges 6.3; Ezek 25.4,10.
Bailey reports that:
‘In the 1920s a British scholar, E. F. F. Bishop, visited a Bedouin tribe in Jordan. This Muslim tribe bore the Arabic name al-Kokabani. The word kokab means “planet” and al-Kaokabani means “Those who study/follow the planets.” Bishop asked the elders of the tribe why they called themselves by such a name. They replied that it was because their ancestors followed the planets and traveled west to Palestine to show honor to the great prophet Jesus when he was born.’
The reference to Arabia in Isa 60:6 might also support this suggestion.
The most detailed advocacy of this view that I have seen is by Dwight Longenecker, who thinks that:
‘the wise men were Nabatean courtiers on horseback traveling a few hundred miles to Jerusalem on their own well-travelled trade routes.’
Specifically, Longenecker points to the Nabatean kingdom (capital, Petra) as a possible origin for the magi. This area had a rich Jewish heritage, and its people would have had a deep interest in the birth of a new Jewish king. Both Jews and Babylonian magi would have fled to Arabia about 550 BC, and found refuge in Petra and other Arabian colonies.
This reviewer helpfully summarises Longenecker’s main thesis:
‘Deep in the red rock city of Petra, the Nabateans built a small kingdom that was a trading hub for the region. Jews, Parthians, Persians, Edomites, Greeks and Romans were all drawn to this well-watered city of wonders.
‘The Nabateans had deep ancestral ties with the Abrahamic tribes. Furthermore, they were involved in political intrigue between Herod and Roman Emperor Augustus.
‘The central chapters of Mystery of the Magi lay out the regional history and politics, all leading to the book’s main claims: The Magi were Nabateans. They rode swift horses on the Nabatean trade route from Petra to the port at Gaza, a trip that would have only taken a few days.
‘They visited Jerusalem on a diplomatic mission from King Aretas IV to see who might be the heir of Herod, also taking note of astrological signs that indicated the potential appearance of the Messiah.
‘They followed these signs and information from Herod’s court to do homage to Jesus with valuable gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh from Petra.’
Although it might be argued that Arabia is to the south, rather than to the east, of Palestine, Dwight Longenecker provides evidence that suggests that ‘the east’ might well refer to those parts of Arabia that lie east of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea.
Dwight Longenecker summarises his understanding of this journey:
‘Matthew uses the word “magi” in a general way, meaning any kind of shaman, astrologer, prophet, soothsayer, or wise man. Sapient courtiers were commonplace in the ancient world, and magi of Babylonian origin were known to be dispersed across Asia Minor, Syria, Arabia, and Egypt.
‘“The East” in the Old Testament and among the Jews in Judea and Syria (to whom Matthew was writing) was understood to be Arabia. The Nabatean kingdom of Aretas IV was the Arabian power at the time, therefore Matthew’s Magi were Nabateans.
‘The capital of the Nabatean kingdom was Petra—about three hundred miles southeast of Jerusalem. The Nabatean’s trade route to the port of Gaza ran about ninety miles south of Jerusalem. Their route north ran east of the Dead Sea to Damascus.
‘There is no mention in the gospel of a long desert trek. For Nabatean diplomats riding swift Arabian horses (not camels), the journey to Jerusalem would have been relatively short. It takes about twenty-four hours to travel one hundred miles on horseback, so it was a three- to five-day journey.’
Their witness to Jesus
The magi have occasionally be made out to be sinister characters. But Mark Edward is along the right lines when he writes that:
‘The author of Matthew intended the μάγοι to represent ‘the best wisdom of the Gentile world’. They stand in stark contrast to the Judean ‘chief priests’ and ‘scribes’ (2.4), who are painted in an extremely unflattering light throughout Matthew (5.20; 7.29; 9.3; 12.38; 15.1; 21.15, 23, 45). Jesus twice identifies the ‘chief priests’ and ‘scribes’ as the ones who will kill him (16.21; 20.18), his final public discourse entirely consists of him denouncing their leadership (Matt 23), they lead the crowds in demanding Jesus’ crucifixion (27.20–26), and they mock him on the cross (27.41).’