Do You Believe The Magi Were Real?

[Theologian in Training]

I was obviously doing research for the Q&A about Epiphany, and so many times, and I was taught, that the Magi were merely symbolic figures, but not real in any sense of the word. I, of course, disagree with this, but wanted to see what the general consensus was as well.

Thank you this has been very helpful

[veroni213]

I voted yes, but one thing that bothers me is how people "know" where their relics are. I visited the Cologne Cathedral in 2005 during WYD and while it was very impressive, I just don't see how anyone could be certain that the bones there are anything special.

[heavenseeker]

never been givven reason to question it

[N/A Gone]

your right the term "common" cant be used because the common evangelical doesnt know the term midrash and could care less.

Protestantism is nicely divided in a civil war, liberals and fundis. the fundis take the story as absolutly real and to question is it damning im sure.,

where as the remainder are open to the possibility that it is a midrash

do i carE? no..not one bit, I dont think faith, or anything is changed in this issue. Go back in time and tell me for certain that it wasnt a mid rash. It wont change anything. I really dont care if it is literal or he is using a common jewish writing tech

[tojo]

I believe they were real. I take everything in the New Testament fairly literally (and most of the Old).

And as a former Evangelical, I would have to say that anyone who didn't believe in the Magi were real (and therefore doubted the Scriptures) isn't an Evangelical, at least, not a good one.

[N/A Gone]

well, as someone trained in evangelical theology I would call into question your assessment. "doubting the scripture" and placing it into a literary genre(midrash) are two different things. You sound more like a fundi than an evangelical

[Laudate_Dominum]

Describing elements of Matthew as "midrash" is too general and simplistic to really address the question at hand. Midrash in the applicable sense here does not necessarily imply that the events are simply unhistorical.

The internal evidence seems to suggest (to me at least) that the Matthew narrative is rooted in an historical Gospel tradition and that the supposed Midrashic flavour is the result of Matthew attempting to draw out the connections and implications of these events via a kind of Old Testament interpretation. In many respects the structure and form of Matthew would suggest the inverse of Midrash.

What I mean is that Midrashic literature (particularly of the Pesher and Peshat variety appropriate to that time) typically embellish or retell ancient history according to contemporary situations or themes; what Matthew is supposedly doing would be a bit different: embellishing or downright concocting contemporary history according to largely minor messianic prophecies; this is not exactly Midrash.

Plus Matthew's gospel is very different in format from the Midrash style. There are a great many points that could be made to highlight this fact but the main one, which I've already hinted at, is that rabbinical and Qumran Midrash and Pesher do not create or bend contemporary history around a selection of Biblical passages, it goes the other way around.

But of course I don't buy into that whole liberal reading of Matthew in the first place. I find the studies documented in the "Gospel Perspectives" series, as well as the points made by Rene Laurentin in "The Truth of Christmas" to be pretty compelling.


Found a blog post from a pretty cool dude which sort of scratches the surface on this: [url="http://singinginthereign.blogspot.com/2006/12/gospel-truth-about-christmas.html"]http://singinginthereign.blogspot.com/2006...-christmas.html[/url]

If anyone is serious about such issues I would recommend starting with the two sources I mentioned above.

But ok, let's say I took the time to lay out a series of comprehensive arguments in favor of my view that Matthew does not involve Midrash, so what? Maybe he's not doing Midrash in any conventional sense but perhaps the gospel stories still involve fictitious elements and the Magi may still be symbolic creations or something. It is one thing to undermine the idea that Matthew contains Midrash and it is something else altogether to "prove" that Matthew is literally historical through and through. If I were to have one central point behind this rant it would probably be that the issue of Matthew's application of the Old Testament does not offer anything conclusive one way or another toward answering such a question. I believe that anyone who puts forth Matthew's use of the O.T. as concrete evidence of the ahistoricity of the Gospel's contents is either biased or in dire need of examining their methodology and assumptions.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Christmas-Beyond-Myths-Scripture/dp/0932506348/sr=1-1/qid=1167902694/ref=sr_1_1/103-6852120-8529431?ie=UTF8&s=books"]The Truth of Christmas Beyond the Myths: The Gospel of the Infancy of Christ[/url]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Perspectives-Studies-History-Tradition/dp/1592442897/sr=8-3/qid=1167902538/ref=sr_1_3/103-6852120-8529431?ie=UTF8&s=books"]Gospel Perspectives, Volume 1: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels[/url]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Perspectives-Studies-History-Tradition/dp/1592442889/ref=pd_sim_b_1/103-6852120-8529431"]Gospel Perspectives, Volume 2: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels[/url]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Perspectives-Studies-Midrash-Historiography/dp/1592442870/ref=pd_sim_b_3/103-6852120-8529431"]Gospel Perspectives, Volume 3: Studies in Midrash and Historiography[/url]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Perspectives-Rediscovery-Eschatological-Discourse/dp/1592442862/ref=pd_sim_b_3/103-6852120-8529431"]Gospel Perspectives, Volume 4: The Rediscovery of Jesus' Eschatological Discourse[/url]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Perspectives-Jesus-Tradition-Outside/dp/1592446329/ref=pd_sim_b_5/103-6852120-8529431"]Gospel Perspectives, Volume 5: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospel[/url]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Perspectives-6-Miracles-Jesus/dp/1592442854/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/103-6852120-8529431"]Gospel Perspectives, Volume 6: The Miracles of Jesus[/url]


Shorter reads:

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Reliability-Gospels-Craig-Blomberg/dp/0877849927/sr=1-1/qid=1167902908/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-6852120-8529431?ie=UTF8&s=books"]The Historical Reliability of the Gospels[/url]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Matthew-Ignatius-Study-Catholic/dp/0898708176/sr=1-1/qid=1167903058/ref=sr_1_1/103-6852120-8529431?ie=UTF8&s=books"]Gospel of Matthew: Ignatius Study Bible[/url]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Luke-Ignatius-Study-Catholic/dp/0898708192/sr=1-2/qid=1167903082/ref=sr_1_2/103-6852120-8529431?ie=UTF8&s=books"]Gospel of Luke: The Ignatius Study Bible[/url]

A fairly new book which I've yet to read but it looks interesting:

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621/ref=cm_lm_fullview_prod_7/103-6852120-8529431"]Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony[/url]

Another provocative and accessible text:

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Fabricating-Jesus-Scholars-Distort-Gospels/dp/0830833188/ref=cm_lm_fullview_prod_8/103-6852120-8529431"]Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels[/url]

It is important, IMHO, to be skeptical of the skeptics and to balance out all the liberal scholarship with some stuff that challenges their conclusions and assumptions. If I believed in objectivity and the possibility of "scientific" biblical scholarship I would say that being "objective" and "critical" does not mean being reductionistic, agnostic or cynical; in a qualified sense this is my claim. Too often scholarship seems synonymous with suspicion and reductionism. Well, that’s an old and tiresome subject that we're all familiar with.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Theologian in Training' post='1155747' date='Jan 4 2007, 12:57 AM']
I was obviously doing research for the Q&A about Epiphany, and so many times, and I was taught, that the Magi were merely symbolic figures, but not real in any sense of the word. I, of course, disagree with this, but wanted to see what the general consensus was as well.

Thank you this has been very helpful
[/quote]
In my opinion it is not possible to arrive at a definitive "scientific" conclusion regarding the historical existence of the magi. To assume they did not exist has just as little critical foundation as holding that they did exist. The view one adopts says more about their philosophical dispositions and assumptions than anything else.

For myself I would rather believe and be in the company of the Fathers and Saints, than doubt and join company with Bultmann and the like. Not that it is an article of faith or anything, but it does represent a general attitude toward the Scriptures and reality in general that I consider to be a bit distasteful to say the least.

If I'm going to err I'd rather err on the side of faith and tradition, but honestly I don't believe I am in error. I believe through an act of faith (not full fledged religious assent) that the Magi narrative is true, but I also believe on a purely intellectual level that the historical facticity of the magi can be adequately established.

Oh, and yes, I'm quite familiar with the arguments of those who would consider my view naive and uncritical, but in general I consider such perspectives to be expressions of a kind of modern [i]faktizitat[/i] which I resent on many levels. I do not think I could adequately express my take to such persons without first dismantling what I believe to be the positivistic and semi-positivistic assumptions that ground their tradition.

[Theologian in Training]

thought you might like to read what I am going to say. I don't have much time to edit it, been way too busy, so I hope it is OK. God Bless

___________

Now that I have finished answering the very difficult questions posed by our third grade CCD class, I would encourage any of you who have questions to ask them as well. You can send them to me via email (you don't need that or put them on a piece of paper and give them to Fr. nor that, Fr. or that or myself. However, for this weekend, since we are celebrating the Epiphany, I figured I would pose questions with regard to that particular feast, and I thought what better question to begin with than the question of what The Feast of Epiphany actually is, and some of the traditions surrounding it. It is with this, that we pose our first question.

What is the Feast of the Epiphany?

The feast of the Epiphany, as defined in the Catechism of The Catholic Church is the “manifestation to the world of the newborn Christ as Messiah, Son of God, and Savior of the world.” It celebrates those three ways in which Christ manifested, or revealed Himself in His divinity: First, in the recognition and adoration of the magi, guided by a star to Bethlehem, second, by His Baptism in the Jordan River and lastly, by His first miracle at The Wedding Feast of Cana in Galilee. However, it also marks the twelfth day of Christmas and the end of the Christmas season. This is why the night before the Epiphany is commonly known as Twelfth Night, which for many, was and continues to be, a great source of celebration. This was also a time when it would have been appropriate to put on a play, which is probably where Shakespeare got his idea for his play, “Twelfth Night.” Also, given the fact that the magi were not Jewish, it demonstrates the universality of God’s mission, in other words, that Christ did not come to save a select few, but to save everyone and, as Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio, founder of the website “The Crossroads Initiative” states: “If you’ve ever wondered what the word “Catholic” means, here we have it. Derived from Greek words meaning “according to the whole,” it means that Christ did not come to establish some local religious sect for a select few, one “cult” among many. No, the Church he founded is “Catholic” or universal, spread over the whole world, welcoming the whole human race into one nation, one family, under one King.” So, in essence, these magi were the first converts to Catholicism. Yet, whenever we try to understand who these magi were and what their main purpose was, the answer varies quite a lot. Therefore, our next question will center strictly on them.

Who were the Magi and did they really exist?

It would almost seem to be foolish to ask such a question, however, there has been much speculation and many assumptions made with regard to these three men that we believe brought gifts to the child Jesus. So, I am going to try and convey what is known about them.

Historically, it is believed that there were three men (though some will say that that number varied) who did indeed see a star in the sky and felt inclined to follow it. Their names were believed to be Caspar (a.k.a., Gaspar, Kaspar or Jaspar), Melchior, and Balthasar, and it was believed that they were priests of the Gentiles, that is, the non-Jewish. As a result, some then contend that given that they were priests they were not kings and that this idea of kingship rather grew around the prophetic references in Scriptures as found in Psalm 72:10 “May the kings of Tarshish and of the isles render him tribute, may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts! And in Isaiah 60:6: “All those from Sheba shall come. They shall bring gold and frankincense, and shall proclaim the praise of the Lord.” And, given the fact that these “three kings” probably came from Persia, that is modern day Iran, and had ancestral origins in Persia, Babylon (modern Iraq), Arabia, India and/or Ethiopia, we can see where the correlation occurred.

The other difficulty that seems to develop is with regard to their following a star, which many will contend varies from a planet, to a galaxy, to any other number of celestial phenomena. Yet, it is believed that, given that part of the magi’s belief centered upon the importance of astrology, they saw within the star the birth of an important person. How that came about also varies, however, the safest assumption is that they were aware of the prophecies circulating at the time, one of which being the prophecy from Balaam, as found in Numbers: “A star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel.” Whatever the reason, as many Father of the Church would content, something caused them to follow this star.

Finally, the gifts that they brought, gold, frankincense, and myrrh, as depicted by the Fathers of the Church, were symbolic of the life Christ lived. Gold was the symbol of His kingship, frankincense the symbol of His deity, given the solemn nature with which it is treated in the bible (Numbers 30) and myrrh, which was used for embalming to be a symbol of Christ’s death.

So, in the end, we know more than we thought about these three men, and though we cannot verify everything, it is probably a safe bet to go with the Fathers on this one, that three magi did exist, did bring gifts, and have served for us as an example of those who seek to find to Christ and bring Him our gifts as well, that is, our prayer, our adoration and our very lives.

[Tindomiel]

Holy Mackeral.... I don't have time to read all this, so I'll just answer the question without trying to explain myself.... yes, I do believe that they were historical figures.

[KnightofChrist]

How can we talk about the Magi without reading their recorded story?

[quote]1 When Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of Juda, in the days of king Herod, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. 2 Saying, Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to adore him. 3 And king Herod hearing this, was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And assembling together all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where Christ should be born. 5 But they said to him: In Bethlehem of Juda. For so it is written by the prophet:

6 And thou Bethlehem the land of Juda art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come forth the captain that shall rule my people Israel. 7 Then Herod, privately calling the wise men, learned diligently of them the time of the star which appeared to them; 8 And sending them into Bethlehem, said: Go and diligently inquire after the child, and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I also may come to adore him. 9 Who having heard the king, went their way; and behold the star which they had seen in the east, went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was. 10 And seeing the star they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

11 And entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling down they adored him; and opening their treasures, they offered him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh. 12 And having received an answer in sleep that they should not return to Herod, they went back another way into their country. 13 And after they were departed, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph, saying: Arise, and take the child and his mother, and fly into Egypt: and be there until I shall tell thee. For it will come to pass that Herod will seek the child to destroy him. 14 Who arose, and took the child and his mother by night, and retired into Egypt: and he was there until the death of Herod: 15 That it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Out of Egypt have I called my son.

16 Then Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry; and sending killed all the men children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying: 18 A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.[/quote]

As we can see because the Magi visit, two prophesy were fulfilled. Because had the three Magi not come to Jerusalem, Herod would have probably never know of the birth of the New King! If Herod did not know of the birth of Christ there would have been NO need for Joesph to take Mary and Jesus to Eqypt, and the prophesy of God calling His out of "out of Egypt" would not have happend. And the prosphesy of Jeremias of the of the mass murder of the young baby boys would have never happend.

The fulfillment of the prophesies were in great part the effect of the visit of the Magi. Thats why it matters if they really existed or not. If they did not exist and there story is more a fairy tale then one can go from that a say the same of the two fulfilled prophesies, and the very birth of Christ.

Edited January 5, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Theologian in Training]

Very informative and quite helpful, but I already gave it to the secretary to send in for the bulletin. So, what you see above is what will get printed. I may find this useful in preparing this weekend's homily though, so thanks

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Theologian in Training' post='1156547' date='Jan 5 2007, 03:46 AM']
Very informative and quite helpful, but I already gave it to the secretary to send in for the bulletin. So, what you see above is what will get printed. I may find this useful in preparing this weekend's homily though, so thanks
[/quote]

I was worried about that but awesome all the same!

[xTrishaxLynnx]

I do believe in Magi! I do, I do!