Luke and the Wise Men

[theophilus]

Every year before Christmas we see many displays of the birth of Jesus. The display normally consists of a baby in a manger with Joseph, Mary, some shepherds, and the Wise Men gathered around him. The birth of Jesus was an important event in history and it is appropriate that we should remember it but our traditional picture of how it happened is inaccurate. The Wise Men were not there. They were probably still in their home country and hadn’t even started their journey to Bethlehem.

Most of the elements in the traditional manger scene are taken from Luke’s gospel. He tells us why Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem in the first place and that they had to lay Jesus in a manger because there was no room in the inn. He describes the visit of the shepherds to see the baby. But he never speaks of the Wise Men here or anyplace else.

Matthew is the one who tells us about the visit of the Wise Men and he says that it took place after Jesus had already been born.

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
Matthew 2:1-2 ESV

When they did find Jesus he wasn’t in a manger but was living in a house.

And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.
Matthew 2:11 ESV

Mary and Joseph had decided to live in Bethlehem rather than return to Nazareth. It is likely that two years had elapsed since Jesus was born and the Wise Men saw the star.

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.
Matthew 2:16 ESV

Luke tells us more about the childhood of Jesus than any of the other gospel writers. He obviously did a lot of research to find out all of the things he did tell us so he must have known about the visit of the Wise Men. It seems like he should have included it even if it didn’t happen at the time Jesus was born. But if you consider the circumstances under which he wrote his gospel it is apparent that he had a good reason not to mention it.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
Luke 1:1-4 ESV

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.
Acts 1:1-2 ESV

Luke and Acts are a single work divided into two parts; they are addressed to the same person and were written at about the same time. At the end of Acts Paul was in Rome awaiting trial.

He lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.
Acts 28:30-31 ESV

The fact that Acts ends this way without any resolution of the situation Paul was facing shows that this must be the time Luke wrote his books.

Any information Luke included in his book would be known to the judges who were to try Paul and could influence their judgment. If they knew that Jesus had been proclaimed the king of the Jews they might have responded the same way Herod did and considered him a threat. Herod held his office of king by the authority of the Roman Empire so any challenge to his rule was also a challenge to the Empire. This would mean that Paul’s proclamation of Jesus would have been seen as an act of rebellion and it is likely that he would have been found guilty and executed.

Luke omitted any mention of the Wise Men because of the effect it would have had on Paul’s trial.

[Faber]

You lost me on that last part. Paul's accusers never showed up in Rome, and this was roughly 70 years after Herod the Great dropped dead.

[psstein]

The fact that Acts ends this way without any resolution of the situation Paul was facing shows that this must be the time Luke wrote his books.

No, it doesn't. Acts' narrative focuses on the gospel reaching Rome. Once Paul (and Peter) reach Rome, there's no need for the narrative to continue. It can end with them preaching the gospel, alive, in Rome.

[Catholicity]

Manger scenes as inaccurate as they may be are still a tradition. They aren't really meant to "confuse" what actually happened, its just an artist's rendition. I don't feel the need to necessarily have my Christmas decorations one hundred percent perfect or accurate, I just like them the way they are. Manger scene and all.

[One Bad Pig]

Every year before Christmas we see many displays of the birth of Jesus. The display normally consists of a baby in a manger with Joseph, Mary, some shepherds, and the Wise Men gathered around him. The birth of Jesus was an important event in history and it is appropriate that we should remember it but our traditional picture of how it happened is inaccurate. The Wise Men were not there. They were probably still in their home country and hadn’t even started their journey to Bethlehem.

Most of the elements in the traditional manger scene are taken from Luke’s gospel. He tells us why Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem in the first place and that they had to lay Jesus in a manger because there was no room in the inn. He describes the visit of the shepherds to see the baby. But he never speaks of the Wise Men here or anyplace else.

Matthew is the one who tells us about the visit of the Wise Men and he says that it took place after Jesus had already been born.

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
Matthew 2:1-2 ESV

When they did find Jesus he wasn’t in a manger but was living in a house.

And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.
Matthew 2:11 ESV

It is quite possible that both events took place at essentially the same location, and more or less at the same time. The idea that Joseph and Mary attempted to stay at an inn is based on a poor translation which has managed to become traditional. Inns were not very savory places to stay. Further, since they were traveling to Bethlehem for a census because Joseph's family was from there, they would have planned to stay with members of his family. However, the family's guest room (which is a better translation) was full because other relatives had come at the same time. Instead, Joseph and Mary had to stay in a portion of the house where animals were often brought in from the cold, which had a manger for feeding the animals. When the other relatives left, they moved into the guest room rather than travel with an infant.

Mary and Joseph had decided to live in Bethlehem rather than return to Nazareth. It is likely that two years had elapsed since Jesus was born and the Wise Men saw the star.

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.
Matthew 2:16 ESV

More likely, Herod was just being thorough.

Luke tells us more about the childhood of Jesus than any of the other gospel writers. He obviously did a lot of research to find out all of the things he did tell us so he must have known about the visit of the Wise Men. It seems like he should have included it even if it didn’t happen at the time Jesus was born. But if you consider the circumstances under which he wrote his gospel it is apparent that he had a good reason not to mention it.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
Luke 1:1-4 ESV

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.
Acts 1:1-2 ESV

Luke and Acts are a single work divided into two parts; they are addressed to the same person and were written at about the same time. At the end of Acts Paul was in Rome awaiting trial.

He lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.
Acts 28:30-31 ESV

The fact that Acts ends this way without any resolution of the situation Paul was facing shows that this must be the time Luke wrote his books.

Any information Luke included in his book would be known to the judges who were to try Paul and could influence their judgment. If they knew that Jesus had been proclaimed the king of the Jews they might have responded the same way Herod did and considered him a threat. Herod held his office of king by the authority of the Roman Empire so any challenge to his rule was also a challenge to the Empire. This would mean that Paul’s proclamation of Jesus would have been seen as an act of rebellion and it is likely that he would have been found guilty and executed.

Luke omitted any mention of the Wise Men because of the effect it would have had on Paul’s trial.

This sounds like it's more or less based on Paul on Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defense of Christianity by John W. Mauck. I agree that the Roman government would not like the visit of the Wise Men much more than Herod did.

[seanD]

No, it doesn't. Acts' narrative focuses on the gospel reaching Rome. Once Paul (and Peter) reach Rome, there's no need for the narrative to continue. It can end with them preaching the gospel, alive, in Rome.

No, that's what skeptics argue who want to uphold the belief that Acts was written well after Paul's martyrdom. Leaving apostolic martyrdom out of Christian literature, especially someone as famous as Paul, wasn't the typical Christian genre of Luke's time. The genre was aggrandizement of apostolic martyrdom, which is why every single piece of Christian literature during Luke's time that had a narrative about apostles aggrandized their martyrdom, including the letters between church fathers about their glowing accolades of Christian martyrdom. To make the argument that Luke had some other agenda for keeping Paul's martyrdom out of his literature is pure speculation, yet runs totally against the typical Christian agenda in literature at the time. The argument more consistent with this fact is that Luke left out his martyrdom because it hadn't happened yet.

[Faber]

It is quite possible that both events took place at essentially the same location, and more or less at the same time.

But with one minor exception. They had to have stayed at least a month before she could go to the temple for purification. But when the wise men arrived, they all had to leave that night. It would have to be at least a month after Jesus was born.

[One Bad Pig]

But with one minor exception. They had to have stayed at least a month before she could go to the temple for purification. But when the wise men arrived, they all had to leave that night. It would have to be at least a month after Jesus was born.

True. It would have been at least 40 days later (give or take; AFAICT the text does not require that they left that night, but it would have had to been soon, before Herod missed their return).

[psstein]

No, that's what skeptics argue who want to uphold the belief that Acts was written well after Paul's martyrdom. Leaving apostolic martyrdom out of Christian literature, especially someone as famous as Paul, wasn't the typical Christian genre of Luke's time. The genre was aggrandizement of apostolic martyrdom, which is why every single piece of Christian literature during Luke's time that had a narrative about apostles aggrandized their martyrdom, including the letters between church fathers about their glowing accolades of Christian martyrdom. To make the argument that Luke had some other agenda for keeping Paul's martyrdom out of his literature is pure speculation, yet runs totally against the typical Christian agenda in literature at the time. The argument more consistent with this fact is that Luke left out his martyrdom because it hadn't happened yet.

First, don't call me a skeptic. Perhaps you didn't mean it directly towards me, but the vast majority of practicing Christian scholars who hold to Von Harnack's dating for the gospels and Acts. A very small minority of scholars (largely evangelical, but not all) see the dates as being anywhere close to pre-60s. Redating Mark is, at best, problematic, and Crossley/Casey's case is simply not convincing.

Just to quote Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament:

Objection to a post-80 date stems largely from the fact that Acts ends ca.
63 with Paul's two-year imprisonment in Rome, and the contention that if
Luke had written much later than that, he would have reported Paul's subsequent
career and death. As we shall see in the next Chapter, however, that
objection probably misunderstands the purpose of Acts which was not to tell
the life of Paul but to dramatize the spread of Christianity, culminating with
the symbolism of the great missionary corning to Rome, the capital of the
Gentile empire. Indeed, the relation espoused by the Paul of Acts 28:25-28
between the mission to the Gentiles and the failure of the mission to the
Jews is so different from what Paul himself wrote in Rom. 9-11 that it is tough to imagine a date in the early 60s for Acts.

[seanD]

First, don't call me a skeptic. Perhaps you didn't mean it directly towards me, but the vast majority of practicing Christian scholars who hold to Von Harnack's dating for the gospels and Acts. A very small minority of scholars (largely evangelical, but not all) see the dates as being anywhere close to pre-60s. Redating Mark is, at best, problematic, and Crossley/Casey's case is simply not convincing.

Just to quote Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament:

You have no proof whatsoever that the group of scholars arguing for a pre-60 date is the "minority." I'd ask you to prove that but you obviously can't. I was saying that skeptics love to use that argument about Luke's supposed intent of Acts because this furthers their argument that the gospels can't be trusted as reliable history since they supposedly date so late. However, I gave you a very clear rebuttal against the idea that Acts was after Paul's death. And you are right, I wasn't calling you a skeptic; though the fact you assert that pre-60 scholars are the minority with no proof, and then slander them as "evangelicals" (another very popular smear tactic I've heard skeptics use countless times in order to discredit them as actual scholars) makes me seriously wonder.

[KingsGambit]

You have no proof whatsoever that the group of scholars arguing for a pre-60 date is the "minority." I'd ask you to prove that but you obviously can't. I was saying that skeptics love to use that argument about Luke's supposed intent of Acts because this furthers their argument that the gospels can't be trusted as reliable history since they supposedly date so late. However, I gave you a very clear rebuttal against the idea that Acts was after Paul's death. And you are right, I wasn't calling you a skeptic; though the fact you assert that pre-60 scholars are the minority with no proof, and then slander them as "evangelicals" (another very popular smear tactic I've heard skeptics use countless times in order to discredit them as actual scholars) makes me seriously wonder.

Using the descriptor "evangelical" is a slander?

[JonathanL]

Using the descriptor "evangelical" is a slander?

Depends on who's using it.

[seanD]

Using the descriptor "evangelical" is a slander?

Yes. His generalized argument against my rebuttal is to claim that a pre-60 view of Acts is only held by a minority of scholars, and evangelicals at that, therefore any argument I make in favor of a pre-60 date is just immediately discredited based on "real" scholarship that isn't evangelical based.

[psstein]

You have no proof whatsoever that the group of scholars arguing for a pre-60 date is the "minority." I'd ask you to prove that but you obviously can't. I was saying that skeptics love to use that argument about Luke's supposed intent of Acts because this furthers their argument that the gospels can't be trusted as reliable history since they supposedly date so late. However, I gave you a very clear rebuttal against the idea that Acts was after Paul's death. And you are right, I wasn't calling you a skeptic; though the fact you assert that pre-60 scholars are the minority with no proof, and then slander them as "evangelicals" (another very popular smear tactic I've heard skeptics use countless times in order to discredit them as actual scholars) makes me seriously wonder.

No, I was simply stating that the majority of scholars who hold to a pre-70 date are evangelicals. That's fine, evangelicals make real contributions in NT. Craig Keener and Craig Evans, in particular, have produced some absolutely fantastic work. However, some evangelical scholarship tends to be incredibly apologetic (see Archer's work on the DH and Isaiah or Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament). And I do have proof, just read through the vast majority of commentaries.

Your rebuttal doesn't prove anything. We don't have any Christian literature outside of Paul's epistles, the pastoral epistles, and probably Mark (I think Luke likely pre-dates Matthew) prior to roughly AD 80. Again, Acts is not "history" in the strict, modernist sense of the word. Luke is showing a unified, catholic and apostolic church, when we know that it was a little more complex than Acts shows. Most Christian literature concerning martyrdom (with the exception of 1 Clement, likely from the 90s) is from the 2nd century.

[psstein]

Yes. His generalized argument against my rebuttal is to claim that a pre-60 view of Acts is only held by a minority of scholars, and evangelicals at that, therefore any argument I make in favor of a pre-60 date is just immediately discredited based on "real" scholarship that isn't evangelical based.

No, the massive amount of evidence, both internal and external, indicates that Acts is post 70.