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)
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.
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 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.
Absolutely fascinating and thought provoking! Thank you. And may Jesus who is the reason for this season shine brightly in your life for a very Merry Christmas!🙏🏻🎄
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.
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.
It's an interesting theory. It makes sense to me that they would come from a neighboring state rather than a more distant country. I enjoyed reading the passages from the early fathers. Merry Christmas.
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)
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
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 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.
Thanks a lot and merry christmas to you!
To you as well.
https://dwightlongenecker918309.substack.com
Thank you
Absolutely fascinating and thought provoking! Thank you. And may Jesus who is the reason for this season shine brightly in your life for a very Merry Christmas!🙏🏻🎄
Merry Christmas to you as well.
A great Christmas piece, thank you!
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.
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.
Another famous source is the Judean bartender, complaining about those "three wise guys" who were looking for some baby.
Always brilliant and educational. Thank you.
Thank you kindly.
It's an interesting theory. It makes sense to me that they would come from a neighboring state rather than a more distant country. I enjoyed reading the passages from the early fathers. Merry Christmas.
Marvelous exposition, many thanks.
Merry Christmas!
Thank you so much!! Fascinating.