Vinnie

There isn't any valid positive historical evidence which lends to support to the historicity of the Matthean Magi. On historical grounds there are good suspicions to be had which cast doubt on the story and make it very likely that it is a creation.

Jesu probably never went to Egpyt IMO. So yes, "out of Egypt I called my son" was plugged from the OT. The infants were probably never slaughtered. Read from the OT.

The infancy narrative material is unimportant to me in light of the overall thesis. As I mentioned the IN material is of a different variety than a lot of the other Gospel material.

Vinnie

Haran

Vinnie,

If we are to take Steven's OP to mean "Did the story of the Magi as appears in the gospel of Matthew really happen" rather than as stated "Did the Magi exist?" and "Is there any evidence these people existed?" then you are definitely adopting a common scholarly position.

One question...

What is the valid positive historical evidence that others knew Matthew's story of the Magi and slaughter of the innocents to be a lie, especially considering that they were not far removed from the supposed events?

Toto

One possible piece of evidence - even the author of Luke did not include it, after his or her careful review of all the sources.

Steven Carr is apparently not trained in cross examination, so his OP was not worded carefully enough to trap his witness.

Historically, all agree that there were Magi around. But it is even more certain that stars do not travel through the sky and come to rest pointing at a small town in the Middle East in violation of the laws of physics. If that essential part of the story is unbelievable, why should anyone believe that Magi visited Herod to ask about a king, or that the Magi visited Jesus and left valuable gifts that were invested at the First Bank of Nazareth so Jesus could live off the interest while he got his ministry going?

Layman

Which passages are you referring to here?

Haran

That is not positive evidence, however. It is an argument from silence. It is a silence that might among other possibilities be explained by the fact that Luke did not seem to like Magi, if we may judge by his references to Simon and Elymas, and simply did not tell this part of the story.

No comment...

This is one interpretation and not one I think that many would pick.

I realize that the mainstream position on the birth narratives is that they are a sort of theological fiction. However, I'm not completely sure I agree with them. Just as others seem to expect valid positive historical evidence if the event happened, I'd expect to see valid positive historical evidence that others believed Matthew to be historically incorrect. Surely this would have been an easy and obvious flaw to pick on so close in time to the alleged events.

Toto

Celsus apparently said something skeptical about the Magi, but it is hard to find exactly what he said in Origin's rebuttal:

http://www.gnosis.org/library/orig_cc1.htm

Steven Carr

Mark 3:21 'When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."

This was after 30 years of his family seeing literally Christ-like behaviour by Jesus, and after such a spectacular entrance into the world.

Haran

This is interesting, Toto, but somewhat later than I would expect in 178 AD and also comes from a pagan philosopher who seemed to get some basic facts wrong (e.g. the number of Jesus' disciples).

Slightly more early in 156 AD, Justin Martyr spoke much about the Magi to the Jew named Trypho. Justin seemed unaware of any problems and seemed to imply that Trypho should also be aware of these events.

Still, like Origen very quickly wrote a rebuttal to Celsus' work, it seems that someone would have answered Matthew's claims closer to the time the gospel was written if they were false. It also seems that someone like Trypho the Jew would have been able to respond to Justin Martyr about his use of the Magi.

It seems to me that there could be truth to the Matthean infancy narrative in light of the absence of serious ancient criticism about a seemingly significant historical event in their recent past and in spite of current scholarly consensus (which seems based on no more solid ground).

Steven Carr

Haran wrote
'That is not positive evidence, however. It is an argument from silence.'

CARR
I have taken this totally out of context. Does anybody seriously imagine that it was written in the context of Origen's and Justin Martyrs' silence on any attempt to show that no Magi visited Jesus?

Layman

Perhaps I was not clear. I was looking for support for this statement: not be as surprised as Mary was when Jesus started doing extraordinary things


Saying he has "lost his senses" suggests they did not understand what he was doing. Jesus had been performing miracles and teaching "at Home" for some time without the family intervening. It was only after 1) the authorities began conspiring against him and 2) he appointed the Twelve that they appear concerned. To claim that they were flabergasted by Jesus' being able to to miracles or some such seems unfounded.

In any event, I'm not sure that "his own people" means Mary. Darby , the KJV, the New KJV, the Revised Standard Version translate this as "friends", not family. I'll have to look into that.