WERE THE WISE MEN REALLY WISE?

A reader of a Quora post responded that her favorite Bible contradiction was “the tale of wise kings' betrayal to the local king followed by the massacre of all the toddlers.” Actually, she never actually spells out what was the exact nature of the “contradiction” here. But reading between the lines, I assume that it consisted of the fact that they couldn't have been all that wise if their actions led to such a massacre.

But before answering this contradiction, it should be pointed out that the author of that problem above was a bit off-base in no less that four ways: the visitors were not said to be wise, they were not kings, any betrayal was strictly inadvertent, and the massacre amounted to no more than 20 boys (that last event paling in comparison to Herod's other atrocities – see my earlier post titled “Matthew 2:16”). With that introduction, we can proceed to elaborate and delve a little further into the exact identification of the “wise men” and who they represent in Matthew's Gospel.

One description of them offered above can be disposed of in a few words – their kingly status. “In fact, the Greek word from which 'magi' is derived does not refer to royalty...” (Showalter) Ellis explains where that mistaken idea arose: “Later Christian traditions regard the Magi as kings (because of Ps. lxxii. 10; Is xlix.7)...”

Next, let's deal with the critical issue as to whether they really are called “wise men” at all. A good start is to look at modern English translations to see how they read:

    wise men – RSV, Jerusalem Bible

    astrologers – NEB, JB Phillips, The Living Bible

    men who studied the stars – TEV

    scholars – The Message

    magi – NIV, NASB, AB

Regarding the first translation, Albright and Mann state: “The RSV perpetuates the unhappy translation of 'wise men,' ..We have consistently referred to the visitors as 'magi,' as being less liable to misunderstanding.”

Treating these visitors as astrologers (men who studied the stars for hidden meanings or oracles) is a definite possibility, as Showalter points out when he identifies them as “practitioners of eastern magical arts. The connection between magic and astrology is reflected in the visitors' fascination with the star that had led them to Bethlehem.”

The last option above is the most accurate since it is a simple transliteration of the original Greek word, magos. But, of course, that still begs the question as to what magos precisely means. One solution seems to jump out at us due to the similarity of the word to our English “magician.” And this is indeed part of its meaning, as demonstrated below.

Ellis says, “The term is used in Herodotus (I.10, 132) of a tribe of the Medes who had a priestly function in the Persian Empire; in other classical writers it is synonymous with priest. Complementing this, Daniel (i. 20, ii. 27, v. 15) [in the Greek Septuagint version] applies the word to a class of 'wise men' or astrologers who interpret dreams and messages of the gods. In the New Testament the usage broadens to include all who practice magic arts (cf. Acts viii 9, xiii, 6,8).”

Raymond Brown reviews competing arguments offered in favor of the magi coming from the following geographical areas – Persia, Babylon or Arabia– without arriving at any firm conclusion on the issue.

As far as their country of origin, Albright and Mann go against most other commentators when they state: “There is...no indication in the story that we were meant to identify the magi as Gentiles.”

That brings us to the vital question as to how magic was viewed by the Jews at the time. And here, scholars are in agreement:

Kee: “The gospel narratives are characterized by a virtual absence of the formulas and techniques of magic...Encounters with magic and magicians are explicitly mentioned [in the NT] only in Acts, where their work is denounced (Acts 8:9-24) and the perpetrator is struck blind (Acts 13:8-9).” One could also add the reference in II Timothy 3:8 to the OT magicians Jannes and Jambre who opposed Moses.

Showalter: “Elsewhere in the Bible the portrayal of magi is not so positive. Greek versions of the book of Daniel refer to magi who were ineffective advisors to King Nebuchadrezzar.”

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “In truth, for the inhabitants of the biblical world most confrontations between good and evil were simply the visible manifestations of a larger spiritual reality, which was the domain of magic.” Thus, the Old Testament regulations prescribed the death penalty for anyone who practiced magic.

So why were these magi chosen to be one of the first to visit the young Jesus from the outside? Hill feels the answer is obvious: “The evangelist is clearly hinting at the submission of the Gentiles to Christ.” Ellis adds, “For Matthew the Magi's visit represents the Messiah's relationship to the Gentile world and is also a fitting introduction to other prophetically significant events of Christ's infancy...”

But, as pointed out above, not everyone agrees that the magi were even Gentiles; and even if they were, that fact is not exactly stressed in the text.

There is another symbolic reason for the “wise men's” visit that meets with even greater approval among scholars, and that is based on the overwhelmingly negative biblical view on magic of all sorts.

Blomberg feels that “the magi may replace Balaam as unlikely Gentile witnesses to God's redemption...In the OT, faithful Israelites prove superior to foreign magicians (Gen. 41; Exod. 7-10; Dan. 2), but here in Matt. 2 the tables are turned.”

Brown cites Davies as thinking that “just as the sorcerers of Egypt were vanquished by Moses, so the power of the astrologers was broken at the advent of Christ. He sees the homage of the magi in vs. 11 as their being 'led to kneel at the feet of the greater Moses.'”

France goes even further in his assessment of the magi. “The story of the homage of the magi is...not only a demonstration of the fulfillment of the messianic prophecy of Mic.5:2 but also a multi-layered study of the fulfillment of scriptural models in the coming of Jesus, with royal, messianic motifs at the heart of these models.” He then cites examples of the “dubious reputation of magi in Jewish and Christian circles. If there were no historical basis for the narration, it is unlikely that a church which repudiated astrology and magic would have embarrassed itself by inventing such undesirable witnesses to the Messiah...M.A. Powell argues that the term magoi would predispose Matthew's readers to a negative evaluation, and that Matthew expects them to regard these visitors 'not as wise men but as fools'. The fact that God chooses such men to receive his revelation is a sign not of their wisdom but of their foolishness and ignorance, on the principle set out in 11:25.”

That passage reads, “At that time Jesus said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants.”

One could also cite Paul for the same idea: “Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God chose what is low and despised in the world...so that no one might boast in the presence of God.” (I Corinthians 26-28, NRSV)

Adding to that same concept, we could cite the presence of another despised group, shepherds, as key witnesses to Jesus' birth and early years. That group of people was considered so unreliable that their testimony in a court of law at the time was not even allowed. Or what about the first witnesses to the open tomb and the risen Savior? They were women, another group usually disqualified as a witness by the Jews.

In conclusion, the presence of magi in the birth story along with shepherds (although their visits were not at the same time) does not represent the extremes of Gentiles and Jews, wealthy and poor, educated and ignorant, or wise and foolish as much as it symbolizes two groups similarly despised by Jews at the time.