An excellent post, I had never heard of the Nabataean theory before. That being said, I have long been of the opinion that the reason the magi knew about charting the birth of the Jewish messiah was because they were Persian and that Daniel was the source of their knowledge.
In the book of Daniel, he is placed over all the other wisemen and functioned as a Jewish prophet, it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility that Daniel would have had some sort of effect on later Persian magi.
That’s certainly true as well. The educated among the Persians and various Semitic peoples around the Jews would have been aware of their religion and beliefs. I posit the Nabataeans because they’re the people most likely to care who the king of the Jews is, apart from the Jews themselves.
There's a book called "The Star That Astonished The World" by Ernest Martin. It goes into a bit regarding how much others would have cared. He talks about how the Romans would have been familiar with Jewish expectations of a messiah in the first century:
Josephus, the Jewish historian [from the end] of the 1st century, mentioned a conviction among the Jews that this prophecy of Daniel would have its fulfillment within the 1st century. [He] said that it was shown in the "sacred writings that about that time one from their country [Judea] should become governor of the habitable earth." (Josephus, War VI.313)
Suetonius in the early 2nd century said, "A firm belief had long prevailed through the east that it was destined for the empire of the world at that time to be given to someone who should go forth from Judea." (Suetonius, Vespasian, 4).
The Roman Emperor Nero was advised by one or two of his court astrologers: it was prudent for him to move his seat of empire to Jerusalem because that city was then destined to become the capital of the world. (Suetonius, Nero, 40)
Good essay. Merry Christmas. It's also worth noting that the gifts borne by the Magi deserve special mention. Gold, a gift fit for a King. Myrrh, a gift ideal for a Healer- but also used for anointing, embalming, and a symbol of sacrifice. Frankincense, also used in healing- but relevant in terms of anointing, a symbol of purity, and used in funeral rites. The gifts were deeply symbolic.
I made note of the significance of the gifts as outlined by Tertullian, though different exegetes have interpreted them in various ways over the centuries.
Bugger! I missed that bit :) Admittedly, my seasonal overindulgence began a little early this year- I’m booked as designated driver over Christmas proper.
A great piece. I have been fascinated by the Magi ever since reading Helena by Evelyn Waugh. He takes a different and more metaphorical approach to the Magi, but one which is not at all incompatible with what you have set out here.
Many thanks for this, and for your hard and unpaid labours all through the year. There are plenty of us who appreciate them (and I am about to send you a Christmas present!).
The documentary The Star of Bethlehem uses astronomy software to shed some light on this. You used to be able to find it on YouTube for free but I can’t find a link anymore. Anyway, it’s an interesting take from a Christian point of view.
To loosely quote Dr. Michael Heiser, if it's in the Bible and it's weird, it's probably important. Great post. Like other commenters, I'd heard the Daniel connection theory, but I've never heard this one.
Very much enjoying the unpredictable eclecticism of your writings, reminds me of 90s U2 if you'll pardon the comparison, always something surprising. Eliot's 'Journey of the Magi' was the first poem to hook me, age 17 at school, even though I could barely understand it; just loved the atmosphere, the bemused magi tramping about after something beyond their ken:
To be sure, there were various notions of magic in the day. The Romans had three.
*Goetia*, trafficking with daemons or the spirits of dead. Punishable as impiety.
*Theurgia*, trafficking with the gods. Punishable as impiety -- and even those who claimed to practice theurgy said that most people who tried were tricked by daemons.
*Magia*, using the occult properties of things. That is, hidden. Like strengthening blood with garnets -- or drinking willow-bark tea for headache. Or putting arsenic in your uncle's soup, there's nothing necessarily nice about this type.
The point of the story of the magi is to legitimate Jesus by showing that he was acknowledged by the high-prestige religion of the time: Persian Zoroastrianism.
Similarly, the point of John the Baptist acknowledging Jesus as superior was to show that even the Mandaeans respected Jesus. The Mandaeans thought that John was the supreme prophet, and still do. There are some Mandaeans left even now:
It’s never explicit in the narrative that Matthew means the Magi he mentions are Zoroastrian clergy; they might have been, but as I noted, no one else in the New Testament labeled as a Magus was such. Nor would it mean much to his Jewish audience that a group outside of Judaism thought much one way or the other about Jesus. In the literature relating to the Exilic period none of the Jewish characters seem to value the approbation of foreign religious figures. As to the Mandaeans, it’s not clear the sect existed during the actual life of John the Baptist, and outside of the Mandaeans themselves no one thinks he was anything other than a messianic Jewish preacher.
Merry Christmas and best wishes to you and yours throughout the coming year Lib.'Cenaeno!
Sitting up here atop the world, on the outskirts of North Pole, Alaska waiting for the sun to rise at 10:58 this morning, I quite enjoyed your Magi essay.
The important part is that it marks Christ as the Shayoshant, the Zoroastrian redeemer. This is in line with post-Exilic but pre-Talmudic Judaic thought, which absorbed much of Zoroastrianism's worldview and metaphysics (for example, Kabbalah [which is the Ladder of the Metals combined with Platonism] and Angelography) during the 'captivity' in Babylon.
Great article! I think the political implications of the Magi’s visit are indeed quite striking, as you explain towards the end. I read the recent book by historian Adrian Goldsworthy called “Rome and Persia: a 700 year rivalry” and it really highlights all the tensions between the Roman Empire and the empires of the east (sometimes including Nabatean). The constant intrigue and attempted coups between the two realms lasted for centuries. So for the Magi, as royal representatives of a decidedly non Roman kingdom, come to honor a new king, it’s not just a threat to Herod directly but potentially a plot to usurp the entire Roman Empire. No wonder all Jerusalem was in a stir, especially him!
Great piece, you are a brilliant writer. Do you believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God? Thus, all historical accounts being factual? Just curious your personal premise on the topic in beginning your research.
I do believe the accounts are factual, accepting that, due to the involvement of human agents, minor details of an incidental nature may be incorrect. As historical accounts, however, they are far superior to the general run of their day, being based on eyewitness testimony correlated by participants.
Ty. Appreciated you giving the reader a glimpse into your deductive reasoning in response to “Modern scholars tend to doubt the whole episode with the Magi ever happened.” Brilliantly written and well researched.
An excellent post, I had never heard of the Nabataean theory before. That being said, I have long been of the opinion that the reason the magi knew about charting the birth of the Jewish messiah was because they were Persian and that Daniel was the source of their knowledge.
In the book of Daniel, he is placed over all the other wisemen and functioned as a Jewish prophet, it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility that Daniel would have had some sort of effect on later Persian magi.
That’s certainly true as well. The educated among the Persians and various Semitic peoples around the Jews would have been aware of their religion and beliefs. I posit the Nabataeans because they’re the people most likely to care who the king of the Jews is, apart from the Jews themselves.
There's a book called "The Star That Astonished The World" by Ernest Martin. It goes into a bit regarding how much others would have cared. He talks about how the Romans would have been familiar with Jewish expectations of a messiah in the first century:
Josephus, the Jewish historian [from the end] of the 1st century, mentioned a conviction among the Jews that this prophecy of Daniel would have its fulfillment within the 1st century. [He] said that it was shown in the "sacred writings that about that time one from their country [Judea] should become governor of the habitable earth." (Josephus, War VI.313)
Suetonius in the early 2nd century said, "A firm belief had long prevailed through the east that it was destined for the empire of the world at that time to be given to someone who should go forth from Judea." (Suetonius, Vespasian, 4).
The Roman Emperor Nero was advised by one or two of his court astrologers: it was prudent for him to move his seat of empire to Jerusalem because that city was then destined to become the capital of the world. (Suetonius, Nero, 40)
Good essay. Merry Christmas. It's also worth noting that the gifts borne by the Magi deserve special mention. Gold, a gift fit for a King. Myrrh, a gift ideal for a Healer- but also used for anointing, embalming, and a symbol of sacrifice. Frankincense, also used in healing- but relevant in terms of anointing, a symbol of purity, and used in funeral rites. The gifts were deeply symbolic.
I made note of the significance of the gifts as outlined by Tertullian, though different exegetes have interpreted them in various ways over the centuries.
Bugger! I missed that bit :) Admittedly, my seasonal overindulgence began a little early this year- I’m booked as designated driver over Christmas proper.
A great piece. I have been fascinated by the Magi ever since reading Helena by Evelyn Waugh. He takes a different and more metaphorical approach to the Magi, but one which is not at all incompatible with what you have set out here.
Many thanks for this, and for your hard and unpaid labours all through the year. There are plenty of us who appreciate them (and I am about to send you a Christmas present!).
Happy Christmas!
Thank you very much.
The documentary The Star of Bethlehem uses astronomy software to shed some light on this. You used to be able to find it on YouTube for free but I can’t find a link anymore. Anyway, it’s an interesting take from a Christian point of view.
I tried looking for this years ago and couldn’t find it. Thanks for the reminder however I will try again…
Google says you can stream for free on Kanopy
To loosely quote Dr. Michael Heiser, if it's in the Bible and it's weird, it's probably important. Great post. Like other commenters, I'd heard the Daniel connection theory, but I've never heard this one.
Very much enjoying the unpredictable eclecticism of your writings, reminds me of 90s U2 if you'll pardon the comparison, always something surprising. Eliot's 'Journey of the Magi' was the first poem to hook me, age 17 at school, even though I could barely understand it; just loved the atmosphere, the bemused magi tramping about after something beyond their ken:
There were times we regretted
The summer palaces on slopes, the terraces,
And the silken girls bringing sherbet.
To be sure, there were various notions of magic in the day. The Romans had three.
*Goetia*, trafficking with daemons or the spirits of dead. Punishable as impiety.
*Theurgia*, trafficking with the gods. Punishable as impiety -- and even those who claimed to practice theurgy said that most people who tried were tricked by daemons.
*Magia*, using the occult properties of things. That is, hidden. Like strengthening blood with garnets -- or drinking willow-bark tea for headache. Or putting arsenic in your uncle's soup, there's nothing necessarily nice about this type.
The point of the story of the magi is to legitimate Jesus by showing that he was acknowledged by the high-prestige religion of the time: Persian Zoroastrianism.
Similarly, the point of John the Baptist acknowledging Jesus as superior was to show that even the Mandaeans respected Jesus. The Mandaeans thought that John was the supreme prophet, and still do. There are some Mandaeans left even now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeans
It’s never explicit in the narrative that Matthew means the Magi he mentions are Zoroastrian clergy; they might have been, but as I noted, no one else in the New Testament labeled as a Magus was such. Nor would it mean much to his Jewish audience that a group outside of Judaism thought much one way or the other about Jesus. In the literature relating to the Exilic period none of the Jewish characters seem to value the approbation of foreign religious figures. As to the Mandaeans, it’s not clear the sect existed during the actual life of John the Baptist, and outside of the Mandaeans themselves no one thinks he was anything other than a messianic Jewish preacher.
I was under the impression that Magi always refers to Zoroastrian priests. But I don't really know.
It makes sense to me that the earliest Christians, being heretical Jews, would have sought legitimacy by looking to foreign religious figures.
https://dwightlongenecker918309.substack.com
Thank you
Merry Christmas and best wishes to you and yours throughout the coming year Lib.'Cenaeno!
Sitting up here atop the world, on the outskirts of North Pole, Alaska waiting for the sun to rise at 10:58 this morning, I quite enjoyed your Magi essay.
Thank you, and say hi to Santa for me.
The important part is that it marks Christ as the Shayoshant, the Zoroastrian redeemer. This is in line with post-Exilic but pre-Talmudic Judaic thought, which absorbed much of Zoroastrianism's worldview and metaphysics (for example, Kabbalah [which is the Ladder of the Metals combined with Platonism] and Angelography) during the 'captivity' in Babylon.
Great article! I think the political implications of the Magi’s visit are indeed quite striking, as you explain towards the end. I read the recent book by historian Adrian Goldsworthy called “Rome and Persia: a 700 year rivalry” and it really highlights all the tensions between the Roman Empire and the empires of the east (sometimes including Nabatean). The constant intrigue and attempted coups between the two realms lasted for centuries. So for the Magi, as royal representatives of a decidedly non Roman kingdom, come to honor a new king, it’s not just a threat to Herod directly but potentially a plot to usurp the entire Roman Empire. No wonder all Jerusalem was in a stir, especially him!
Fascinating analysis, thank you. I’ve never heard this theory. A belated merry Christmas to you and yours.
Thank you, and to you as well.
Have you seen this? It seems like it would be up your alley. Happy holidays to you and your family.
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2022/02/24/a-curious-ancient-astrological-confluence/
It’s interesting.
Great piece, you are a brilliant writer. Do you believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God? Thus, all historical accounts being factual? Just curious your personal premise on the topic in beginning your research.
I do believe the accounts are factual, accepting that, due to the involvement of human agents, minor details of an incidental nature may be incorrect. As historical accounts, however, they are far superior to the general run of their day, being based on eyewitness testimony correlated by participants.
Ty. Appreciated you giving the reader a glimpse into your deductive reasoning in response to “Modern scholars tend to doubt the whole episode with the Magi ever happened.” Brilliantly written and well researched.
The magi’s visited Jesus when he was about 2. This is why King Herod executed all boys 2 and under.