In what sense, then, did the author of Mt 2 understand the term ? The majority of the Fathers affix tlie worst interpretation, and lay stress on the idea that magic was overthrown by the advent of Christ (Ign. Ephes. 19 ; Justin M. Dial. 78 ; Tertull. de Idol. 9 ; Origen, c. Cels. i. 60 ; Max. Taur. Honi. 21 ; Hilar, de Trin. iv. 38. Com. in Matt. 1 ; Aug. Serm. 200, § 3 ; Theophylact, in lac. ) ; and this was the common opinion even in the Middle Ages (Abelard, in Epiph. serm. 4 ; Aquinas, Sumirui, III. xxxvi. 3). But the con- sensus of later commentators rejects this view. There is no hint or .suggestion of I'eprobation in the Gospel narrative. On the other hand, there is no indication that the Evangelist is alluding to any particular class of magi. He appears, on the contrary, to use the term in the general sense of sages from the East, who busied themselves with astronomy (w.-- ''• ^- '") and perhaj^s with the inter- pretation of dreams (v. '2). There is certainly no attempt in the narrative to contrast Christianity A\ith Zoroastrian or Babylonian worship.
Closely connected with the above is the further question of the region whence the Magi are supposed to have come. Mt. calls them simply ixd-yoi atrb avaToKQv, i.e. ' Oriental magi.' The expression is quite indefinite (cf. Mt 8^^ 24^", Lk 13-^, Rev 21'^). Various attempts have been made, however, to identify the particular part of the East whence the Magi may have come (Patritius, de Evang. iii. p. 315 ff. ; Spanheim, Dub. Evang. ii. p. 291 fi'. ). The oldest ojiinion in- clines to Arabia (Justin M. Dial. 77, 78 ; Tertull. Jud. 9 ; Epiphan. Exp. Fid. 8, and most Roman commentators, e.g. Corn, a Lapide, in loc), partly on account of references such as Ps 72^*, Is 60^, partly on account of the character of the gifts, partly by reason of the close intercourse that sub- sisted between Arabia and Palestine (Edersheim, i. p. 203). On the other hand, Arabia is to the south rather than the east of Judsea (cf. Mt 12*^ ^aaiXiaaa votov), and in the NT it is usually speci- fied by its geographical name. Other places sug- gested are Persia (Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 15 ; Chry.sost. in Mt. Horn. 6. § 1, 2, 3, 4 ; 7. § 5 ; Op. Imp. in Mt. 2ap. Chrysost. vi. ; Diodorus Tars. ap. Phot. cod. 223 ; Theophylact, in loc. ; Juvencus, Evang. Hist. i. 276), Chalda-a (Max. Taur. Horn. 21 ; Origen, c. Cels. i. 58), Parthia (Wetstein, in loc. ; Hyde, Rel. Vet. Pers. c. 31), and Egypt (Moller, Neue Ansichten). But the language of the Evangelist is ' too indefinite, and perhajis in- tentionally too indefinite, to justify any decision' (Trench, Star of the Wise Men, p. 4), and it is unsafe to draw any inference from the nature of the presents (Weiss, Life of Christ, i. p. 266). One thing alone seems clear — the Magi were heathen and not Jews (see references in Meyer, Co7n. in loc. ). The form of their question (Mt 2-') would be suffi- cient to establish this, apart from the ecclesiastical tradition which represents their homage as the first-fruits of the Gentile world (Aquinas, Sumnw, III. xxxvi. 8).
The cause of the coming of the Magi is roughly
indicated in the words, ' we have seen his .-star in the rising' {ev rji dvaroXj). It. seems clear that they were induced to make the joumev by some sidei"eal .appearance ; but what exactly this appearance was is not conclusively determined (see ai't. Stak). From this phenomenon, however, whatever it may have been, the Magi infeiTed the birtli of a ^lessiah-king of tlie Jews. Vv'e cannot say precisely by what means they anived at this inference. It is milikelj', for chronological and other reasons, that their expectations had been ex- cited by the Zoroastrian preuiition of the coming of Soshyos (SHE iv. p. xxxvii) ; nor is it probable that an independent tradition of Balaam's pro- phecy (Nu '24'") had been preserved by their an- cestors and handed do\\Ti to them (Origen, c. Ccls. i. 60, Horn, in Xum. 13. 7 ; Op. Imp. in Mt. .2 ap. Chrysost. vi. ) ; nor is there any historical evidence that there was at this time among tlie nations any widespread expectation of the advent of a ^Messiali in Palestine (Tac. Hisi. v. 13 and Suet. Vcsp. 4 are derived from Jos. BJ vi. v. 4, and refer to the Flavian dynasty). On the other hand, the Jews themselves were undoubtedly expecting tlie Messiah (Charles, Eschatology, p. 304 ; Toy, Judaism and Christianity, p. 330), and a Rabbinical tradition, which may be previous to Christ's birth, declared that a star in the East Avas to ajjpear two years before the Messiahs advent (Edersheim, i. pp. 211, 212 ; Strauss, Life of Jesus, Eng. tr. p. 174 and references ; cf. the name Bar-Cochba). Hence the source whence the ilagi derived their inference that a king of the Jews was born may well have been the Jews of the Diaspora, wliose tenets would doubtless be known to the AA^se men of the lands in which they sojourned.
The time of the A'isit of the Magi is quite un- certain. By ancient wi-iters it was usually sup- posed that they anived at Betldehem on tlie 13th day inclusive after the birth of Christ, i.e. Jan. 6 (Aug. Senn. 203. 1). Most commentators, how- ever, place their coming after Christ's presenta- tion in the Temple ; and some, as an inference from Mt 2^^, delay it till Jesus had reached or nearly reached His second year (see Patritius, iii. 326 fF. ; Spanheim, ii. p. 299 ff. ; Trench, p. 109 ff. ; Kamsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? pp. 215-220). Here also the e\-idence is insufficient to wanant a definite conclusion.