Timothy Hein: Magically Satisfying: Matthew’s magi came in order to fulfill what was written by the Early Christian Interpreters

Later interpreters, such as Chrysostom and Augustine, find in Matthew’s magi a group of kings who came to worship the newborn King of the Jews (Matt 2:1–12). Yet, the earliest Christian interpreters of Matthew’s magi were vastly different. Recasting Matthew's narrative within new narratives for new theological trajectories, Protevangelium Jacobi reuses the pericope in a stripped-down fashion; similarly, Tatian inserted it within John’s Prologue for his so-called Diatessaron. Justin Martyr used Matthew’s magi to ‘prove' Jesus as fulfillment of Isaiah 8:4, leading Irenaeus to prophetic fulfillment in the magi’s gifts. Tertullian denounced all Christian practice of magic and was first to suggest Christians think them kings (Idol, 9.3). In his Commentary on Daniel, 'Hippolytus’ used Matthew’s magi to interpret the story of Daniel (Dan 2; Danielem 1.8-9, 2.1-9), whereas Origen was first to interpret Matthew’s magi by Balaam’s prophecy (Num 23). In each case, readers understood Matthew’s magi as practitioners of magic (including astrology) as the defining attribute, not kings. These readers find magi fulfilling something, but not necessarily what Matthew says his magi fulfill. This paper explores the origins and developments of these interpretive trajectories. These Early Christian interpreters seem to understand Matthew’s point about fulfillment, then redeploy it for diverse purposes, re-using Matthew’s magi as magical characters who prove Hebrew Scripture's fulfillment in Jesus life, who prove God acts in human history by miracles, who signal the demise of magic and its practitioners.