godfry n. glad

This has probably been covered before, but I'm interested in whether anyone can tell me what the Greek term used for the "wise men" in Matthew 2. Is it "magi"? Or, some other descriptive term? The New English Bible uses "astrologer". I've heard "wise men", "wise kings", and "magi".

And... What is it about three "wise men" from somewhere else, and thus presumably non-Hebrew, that adds authority to their presence in the nativity story? Why are they deemed ncessary in the narrative? Is it that other sages recognize a new "power" in their midst? Why not have the Temple priests recognize the import of the birth? Or, why not some Judean prophet figure? Why aliens?

Is this some kind of recognition of the importance of Zoroastrianism in Christianity's founding?

Just curious.

godfry

Amaleq13

Young's Literal translation has them as "the mages".

contracycle

The mesopotamians had a tradition of "Anunaki" who were celestial helpers and corresponded to the position of an adviser, or vizier. These mystic beings were of course wise, and their human counterparts would necessarily have been schooled in deductive divination. So it seems to me that this is a claim to being endorsed by the most reputable authorities in the localities, the high ranking divination specialists of the local empire.

Mageth

Young's Literal translation has them as "the mages".

"The Mages" is just another way to say "the Magi", of course.

I heard some interesting speculation on the Wise Men/The Star of Bethlehem the other night on some show, I believe on the History Channel.

The Magi were obviously astrologers, or paid heed to astrology. Supposedly, upon observing some heavenly event, they interpreted it to mean that a great "King" would be born to Israel, and thus made their trek to pay homage to the King.

Now, Babylon was quite into astrology. Further, of all the surrounding nations, Babylon would be most familiar with the Jews' prophetic scriptures, and thus might link a significant astrological event to the Jewish Messianic prophecies. That indicates that it's quite possible the Magi were astrologers, or some other "wise guys" who paid heed to astrologers, from Babylon.

Further, some guy on the show (can't remember who) traced back and found a significant conjunction of Jupiter (astrologically, sometimes linked to the birth of a King) and the Moon, IIRC around 6 BCE, that occurred in the "sign" of Israel (Aries, supposedly). And I believe this event happened in the Eastern sky. This leads to the possibility that the "Star" was not really a star but an astrological event that was interpreted to indicate a great King would be born in Israel. The bit from Matthew 2 about the Star going before the wise men and standing over Bethlehem reads like a bit of poetic embellishment. (There have been many other speculations on what the famous Star might have been, but this one makes more sense than most).

Personally, I believe the account to be mythical, like most if not all of the rest of the tales about Jesus' birth and early life. A possible significance to the inclusion of the myth, pointed out on the program, is that Babylon was an arch-enemy of Israel, that not so long before had taken Israel and forced great numbers of Jews into captivity, where they were made to "bow before the King" of Babylon. Now, in the story of the Magi, turn about is fair play. Babylonian wise men come to pay homage to and "bow before the King" of Israel. A symbolic representation of the humbling of Israel's enemies.

ceb

Do the original writings actually specify that there were three wise men?

Celsus

No.

Joel

mike_decock

No. They just specify three different gifts: Gold for a King, Frankincense for a Prophet and Myrrh for a High Priest. It's a way of implying that the child will embody all those roles.

-Mike...

godfry n. glad

Babylonia? Babylon was still there, but it was under the control of the Parthans, the inheritors of the Persian empire and scourage to the Romans. I've always understood the "magi" to be a Greek term to describe the Persian (Zoroastrian) holy men, rather than the Mesopotamian. Plus, since in Judean tradition, the Second Temple was sponsored by, and it's building assisted by, the Persian empire, under the direction of Cyrus, whom the prophet Isaiah nominated as one of the "anointed of the Lord". Thus, I've always read the "wise men" story to be a shift of the support of the "enlightened ones" from the Temple to this new source of holiness.

And I agree... The nativity story is most probably a later interpolation into GMatthew, as is the nativity story in Luke, which varies considerably.

gng

Amaleq13

What do you consider to be the strongest evidence for considering these stories to be interpolations?

mike_decock

Hmmm... I've never considered them as interpolations because I just think of them as fabrications to expand on the character of Jesus. This still leaves the gap of Jesus' youth which an author would want to expand on if creating a backstory was the primary focus. It's more likely that Mt/Lk added an infancy narrative for a specific reason: to affirm the humanity of Jesus.

This Is something that the Gnostics denied. They believed that Jesus was never human and only gave the illusion of humanity. Just as Jn degrades Thomas in response to a Thomasine community (or even GThom itself), Mt and Mk add a birth narrative to counter the Gnostic claim that Jesus was never born.

The only problem with seeing the birth narrative being a response to Gnosticism is that Gnosticism isn't generally accepted as being so early (personally, I think Gnosticism evolved in parallel with Orthodoxy, right from the start). A later interpolation is also a possibility, but I've never heard any textual evidence or even any suggestion of this.

-Mike...