What does the story of the Magi from the East truly mean? How should we view it from a historical perspective? Let us first examine these Magi. In the Greek translation of Matthew’s text, they are referred to as μαγοι απο ανατολων, magoi apo anatolon, meaning „Magi from the East.” Likely, the reader (…) has already guessed that this refers to Persian magicians. (…)
Since the Magi engaged, among other things, in studying the stars and attempting to predict the future based on them, they were considered soothsayers outside the Persian world. (…) However, it must be emphasized that they were also doctors, which meant they possessed natural and medical knowledge as well.
Slightly later, most likely in the 6th century, Christian literature began identifying the Magi with kings. Referring to the fact that the Evangelist mentions three types of gifts, it was assumed that there were three of them. (…) We agree that the version involving three individuals finds justification in the number of gifts. Let us remember that the Magi adhered to Persian customs when appearing before a ruler: (…) It was unthinkable for one guest to bring gifts while another came empty-handed. All the gifts they presented to the child Jesus were very valuable—what we would call costly. Thus, if there had been only two Magi, and one presented two gifts, while the other offered a lesser one, it would have been a significant faux pas towards the recipient, particularly a king: the gift had to be of at least comparable value. This supports the notion that there were indeed three Magi. (…)
The Evangelist wrote that when the Magi saw the Child with His mother Mary, they fell to the ground and worshipped Him. (…) Here, we are not only allowed but also obligated to ask: how is this possible? Why would the Magi, seeing the material poverty and social insignificance of this family, (…) make such a gesture? (…) Their faith in the righteousness of their actions and the uniqueness of the One they beheld must have been unimaginable—absolute, devoid of any doubt. (…)
The Evangelist recorded that after prostrating themselves, (…) the Magi paid homage to the Child. This reflects the full court ceremonial owed to the Persian (or Parthian, in the time of St. Matthew) king. The proper order of showing utmost respect and humility was observed: first proskeion (prostration), then homage. Mary could not have invented this gesture for the simple reason that she had never witnessed the homage given to a Persian ruler.
Next, the Magi completed the ceremonial act of tribute without hesitation, opening their treasures and offering Him gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. In this order, we find the explanation for the mystery of the Magi’s homage. They did not come to Judea, Jerusalem, or Bethlehem to pay homage to a child in the sense understood by the locals, Herod, or even us. The Magi simply paid homage to the Child as one does to God! They recognized the divine nature of the young Jesus, as such profound homage, coupled with the gifts they offered, was a form of divine worship in their homeland. Thus, the Magi saw in the Child Jesus the Son of God. (…) They not only prostrated themselves before the Child, an act they absolutely should not have done; among their gifts were those reserved for the King of Kings (gold and frankincense). By adding myrrh, they composed offerings reminiscent of a sacrifice to God.
Let us now turn to another issue raised by the Gospel account: the question of the star that guided the Magi to Bethlehem. (…) It is believed to have been associated with a specific physical phenomenon. Various attempts have been made to explain what this star was. Among the most frequently cited phenomena is the conjunction of planets. (…) Two such conjunctions occurred a few years before the currently accepted date of Jesus’ birth. (…)
Another popular theory attempts to link the phenomenon of the Bethlehem star with comets. (…)
However, both theories (…) have one fundamental flaw: they cannot be logically reconciled with the narrative in the Gospel. (…) Let us note the Magi’s statement to Herod: „We saw his star in the East.” It is beyond doubt that this experience must have been very strong to compel the Magi to undertake such a challenging and undoubtedly dangerous journey. It could not have been an illusion—neither collective nor individual. They did not live together in a monastic-like community. Hence, one of them could not have been deluded and drawn the others along. (…)
This experience must have been perceived as completely authentic, (…) foretelling an event surpassing anything they had ever encountered. (…) Only such certainty could prompt them to embark on a dangerous journey and fall prostrate before the child of poor parents. (…) The appearance of a star or a celestial alignment announcing the extraordinary birth of a king, even to astrologers and physicians, would not have motivated such radical risk-taking. It could not have been an extraordinary star or conjunction. The source of their certainty must have lain elsewhere.
Where did this certainty come from? Let us examine another fragment of Matthew’s narrative. The Evangelist wrote that upon hearing about the star, Herod was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Analyzing this passage, an obvious question arises: how is it possible that Jewish priests and scholars, who also observed the sky, (…) did not notice such a strange phenomenon as an additional conjunction or a comet? (…) For the scholars, it was Scripture that indicated the birthplace of the Messiah. (…) Therefore, in response to Herod’s inquiry, they answered: „In Bethlehem of Judea, for this is what the prophet wrote: ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’” However, Scripture did not specify the date of the Messiah’s birth, which is why the Jews continually awaited His arrival. They certainly did not expect an astronomical phenomenon to herald His birth. Scriptures did not predict this. The news of the Messiah’s birth brought by pagans—the Magi—was thus unacceptable to Jewish priests and scholars. This is why they did not follow the unexpected visitors to greet the Messiah, worship Him, and recognize Him as their Lord. They simply did not believe the Magi’s story. (…)
We read in Matthew’s Gospel that the Magi, after hearing the king, departed. And behold, the star that they had seen in the East went before them… This sentence from Matthew further confirms that this could not have been an astronomical star. (…) The fact is, such a star would have been visible not only to the Magi but also to the residents of Jerusalem, including the Jewish priests and scholars.
Then what about the next part of Matthew’s account? It reads: „Until [the star] came and stopped over the place where the Child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed.”
(…) Upon arriving in Jerusalem, the Magi lost sight of the star. (…) The reason could have been mundane: stars are not visible during the day. (…) However, since the star later stopped over the place where the Child was, it could not have stopped over any location in Jerusalem. This explains why the Magi felt lost and began asking in Jerusalem: „Where is the newborn king of the Jews?”
(…) How is it possible that while Herod’s people and the scholars could have overlooked a star over Jerusalem, they still failed to see it after the Magi set out for Bethlehem? As we read in the account, the Magi saw the star again! (…) Specialists like the Magi would have prompted particularly careful sky-watching. Yet, as we may assume, the priests and scholars looked at the sky and saw nothing.
(…) The Magi did not travel at night, when stars are visible. (…) Recall how people traveled at that time. Journeys began at dawn, as soon as the road became visible. This avoided the midday heat. If travelers were on foot, they paused during the hottest part of the day and resumed walking when the sun’s intensity waned. By evening, they sought a place to camp. Only at night could stars be seen. Thus, a star could not have guided the Magi to Bethlehem.
Additionally, we must remember that in the East, the day begins abruptly, and the evening comes quickly. There is no long twilight or gradual dawn. Therefore, we must dismiss the assumption that a star indicated Jesus’ birthplace at dawn or just before nightfall. Could the Magi’s guide have been a star at all?
There is another weak point regarding the star: a star cannot stop. Human perception may create the impression that stars „hang” or „stand still.” However, the vast, unimaginable distance between humans and stars makes it absurd to expect a star to indicate a specific point, as the Magi claimed. Let us recall this passage once more: „[The star] went before them until it stopped over the place where the Child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. They entered the house and saw the Child with His mother Mary.”
This passage confirms our position that no classical astronomical phenomenon is in question here. A star, or even a comet, (…) cannot simply stop. (…) This raises the question: if what the Magi saw was neither a star nor a comet, what did they see? (…)
We invite our dear readers to explore Prof. Idzi Panic’s book, where they will find the continuation of the chapter on the Magi from the East and their guiding star, along with other topics about Jesus, Mary, and the early Christians, written not from a theological but a historical perspective.
