The attempt to discredit Mt 2 by producing close
arallels is not successful. The scene at Plato’s
eath in Sen. Zp. 58 is more remarkable for its differences than its resemblances; the story of Moses, as given in Jos. Ant. Il. ix. 2, though more like Mt 2 than the parallel section in Ex, does not deserve the importance which some scholars attach to it (cf. Weiss, op. cit. i. 268) ; the looser illustra tions of Strauss carry no conviction. The expecta- tions of the Jews as to their Messiah do not appear to have been of such a kind as would account for the invention of the story in fulfilment of them (Edersheim, op. cit. i. 209). It is true that certain parts of OT (esp. Ps 72”, Is 60° 10) might lead to a modification of the tradition in the direction in- dicated by those passages, and the subsequent history of the story shows this to have been the case, but those very points are conspicuously absent from Mt’saccount. Again, the two places in which Mt adduces OT quotations (2° 18) certainly raise difficulties ot interpretation (Edersheim, 1. 206; Weiss, i. 270), but those very difliculties show that the story has not been invented to fulfil the pro- phecies. The utterance of Balaam (Nu 94}7) would necessarily be regarded as fulfilled in the star of the Magi, but it is hard to see how it could have given rise to the latter; that there should be signs in heaven at the advent of Messiah (Rey 12?) is as natural as that a pretender should subsequently call himself Bar-Cochba (‘son of the star’), but that Mt 2 should correspond in any sense to an expected star of Messiah is extremely unnatural. We should rather have to think of the evangelist as deliberately inventing a fulfilment, suggesting
_—
206 MAGI
a reason why it should not have caused more excitement at the time, and combining it with the gifts of Ps 68“ 72", and the worship of Is 497. But the connexion with the prophecies is too slight, the combination too inferential, and the style of the whole too simple, to make this supposition satisfactory. To suppose, further, that this very fact is due to the author’s ingenuity, is to credit him with almost superhuman cleverness. That Jerus. should be troubled at one moment and should have forgotten the cause at the next, is not inconsistent with the habits of an excitable populace. Nothing need be said of Keim’s objec- tion that Herod ‘would not have exalted the postion of the Sanhedrin’ (see Weiss, i. 269), of 1is somewhat simple suggestion that Herod would probably have put the Magi to death, or of the difficulty found by Holtzmann in the king’s secret interview with them. That so long a journey should be undertaken for such a cause is no doubt @ priori improbable, but it is not impossible. If the story is legendary, the explanation of the legend has certainly not been found yet, and critics ought carefully to consider whether the difficulties involved in rejecting the account are not greater than those of accepting it as historical. But it is impossible to arrive at any definite con- clusion, on critical grounds, with regard to the Magi’s visit, unless it is taken in connexion with the other incidents related in the Gospels about the childhood of Jesus (see JEsus CHRIST).
(6) Tradition has much to say in regard to the Magi’s visit. The influence of Ps 68-8! 721, Is 491 60%, makes itself felt in the belief that they were kings (perhaps already in Tert. Jud. 9, Marc. 3. 13; but see Patritius, de Evangel. ii. 320, where it is contended that there is no clear instance before the 6th cent.). Their number was fixed at three (in spite of an Eastern tradition that they were twelve: Drisler, Classical Studies, p. 31; Op. Imp. in Mt 2 ap. Chrysost. vi. 638), probably from the threefold nature of their gifts, though symbolical meanings were also attached (e.g. Orig. Hom. Gen. 14.3; Leo, Serm. 31.1; [Aug.] Serm. App. 136. 4; Bede, Collect. v. 542). The gifts ἀμ τάς were explained in Sven boical ways (Suicer, Thes. s.v. λίβανος), though it is perhaps worth notice that Christian art attached but little importance to the actual gold, frankincense, and myrrh, for which other offerings were generally substituted (Kraus, RE s.v. ‘Magier’). The star received miraculous additions (Ign. Eph. 19, see Lightfoot, ad loc. ; Chrysost. Hom. Mt. 6. 2), as did the whole story (Op. Imp. l.c. ; Hyde, Rel. Vet. Pers. ch. 31). The names of the Magi, and the traditional way of representing them, became fixed (Spanheim, Dud. Evang. i. 287 ; Moroni, Dizion. s.v. ‘Magi’; Kraus, l.c.). Their bodies were discovered in the East in the 4th cent. and removed to Constantinople; thence they travelled to Milan on the consecration of Eustorgius, and to Cologne on the conquest of Milan in 1162. Their festival, combined at first with a commemoration of Christ’s baptism, His first miracle, and the feeding of the 5000 (Max. Taur. Hom. ad Epiph. 7; [Aug.] Serm. App. 134. 1), appears in the 4th cent. (Amm. Mare. 21. 2, Julian; Greg. Naz. Orat. 43. 52; Valens); and though rejected by the Donatists as an innovation (Aug. Serm. 202. 2), was honoured by the Catholics (Const. Apost. 8. 33; ef. Cod. Theod. xv. t. 5. 5; Cod. Justin. ii. t. 12. 7). Though the ‘Epiphany’ always retained traces of its origin as a celebra- tion of Christ’s baptism (hence its special suita- bility for the administration of baptism; Augusti, Handb. d. Christl. Archiol. ii. 376), the Magi assumed a gradually increasing importance in its solemnities (cf. Binterim, Den. ire, d. chr. kath. Kirche, Vv. i. 310).