What is a survey of the traditional responses to those who argue that the story of the visiting magi, mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew, is a made up fictional story? For example, an article (sourced here ) explains the magi account in the Gospel of Matthew as fictitious. The article lays out a few arguments for why the story of the magi in the Gospel of Matthew is likely a made up fictional story. A few of the highlights run as follows:

 > From a historical point of view they appear to be highly problematic. > The story abounds with interior contradictions... > > Is it likely that the distrustful Herod would allow the Magi to go > their way without at least a spy to watch their movements?... > > Moreover, if the coming of the Magi upset the whole of Jerusalem, if > their adoration at Bethlehem and the murder of the infants were known > to tradition, why does neither Flavius Josephus, nor Jesus himself, > nor John, Mark, Peter, Paul or any other apostle, nor even Luke in his > infancy narrative, allude to this fact?... > > What was the evangelist's source of information on such hidden matters > as Herod's secret council with the Magi and the angel's apparitions to > them and to Joseph? What would be some of the traditional counter arguments to the above, that support the view that Mathew was writing true history and not making up fictional stories? For a parallel discussion see here .

Around 66 A.D, the Armenian King Tiridates I, who was also a Zoroastrian priest and magus, traveled from the east to Rome accompanied by other magi (Mάγος) to pay homage to Nero and vow fidelity to him. The emperor Nero even held a coronation ceremony for him. Tiridates I addressed the emperor: > My Lord, I am a descendant of Arsakes and the brother of the Kings > Vologases and Pacorus. I have come to you who are my god; I have > worshipped you as the [sun];I shall be whatever you would order me > to be, because you are my destiny and fortune. (See here .) A Wikipedia article states a skeptical viewpoint: > It has been suggested that the visit of Tiridates I, an event that > greatly impressed contemporaries, was adapted by Christians to become > the story of the adoration of the Christ Child by the Three Magi. (See here ) The late bishop John Shelby Spong, argued a few years back about how to understand the account of the magi of Matthew's Gospel. In his book, *Born of a Woman*, he writes how the universal assumption of people he knows, associated with New Testament study, is that the magi were not actual people. He states: "Matthew was clearly writing Christian midrash." (*Born of a Woman*, pages 89-90) Of course, Spong is not clear on whether the concept of Matthew using forms of midrash necessarily implies the use of fictional stories to illustrate spiritual truths. The definition of *midrash* (midˊ-rash) is that of noun, from a root meaning “to study,” “to seek out” or “to investigate.” Midrash stories elaborate on incidents to derive a principle or provide a moral lesson. So, in theory, one could write non fictional midrash. It is unlikely that Matthew's Gospel contains made up fictional stories to convey spiritual truths, as this was clearly addressed by the apostle Peter. He writes in 2 Peter 1:16 that: > ...we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to > you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were > eyewitnesses of His majesty. Daniel Wallace gives a good defense for attributing 2 Peter as an authentic letter of Peter. It can be found here . In the early church, Tertullian (215 A.D.) writes about a church leader who wrote fictional accounts and attributed them to the apostle Paul. He writes about the dim view that the early church had in regards to those making up stories and wrongly attributing them to the apostles: > ...let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that > writing, as if he were augmenting Paul's fame from his own store, > after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of > Paul, was removed from his office. (On Baptism, 17) With the above in mind, could a late editing of Matthew's Gospel include a non fictional midrash story of the Magi specifically because of the events in 66 A.D.? Charles Hill believes he’s found another fragment of Papias in one of Origen’s Homilies on Luke, which would suggest John had reviewed the other gospels in their final form as part of the final canonization process: > There is a report noted down in writing that John collected the > written gospels in his own lifetime in the reign of Nero, and approved > of and recognized those of which the deceit of the devil had not taken > possession; but refused and rejected those of which he perceived were > not truthful. (Charles E. Hill, “What Papias Said About John (and > Luke): A “New” Papian Fragment,” Journal of Theological Studies NS 49 > (1998), p. 585) Matthew's original "oracles of Jesus" were written in the Hebrew dialect. See Papias in Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16. So, the Papian quote from Hill could be taken in a general sense for how the apostle John selected Matthew's longer Greek version for the final canon that he authorized. A longer version that contained the account of the magi visiting Jesus at his birth would have been very helpful in Matthew's mission journeys later in life. According to Hippolytus (170-235 A.D), Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew and published it at Jerusalem, and died at Hierees, a town of Parthia (Hierees is near modern day Tehran in Iran). That the writing of multiple editions of books in other languages was a practice in the first century can be demonstrated by reference to Josephus’ first work, *Bellum Judaicum* (History of the Jewish War). He wrote seven books between AD 75 and 79, toward the end of Vespasian’s reign. The original Aramaic has been lost, but the extant Greek version was prepared under Josephus’ personal direction. See here . Josephus writes in his *Jewish Wars* (Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1): > I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the > government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek > tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and > sent to the Upper Barbarians. Would a longer edition of Matthew contain this story after 66 A.D., as the Persians were then seen in a more favorable light at least by Rome? Or, would the longer version of Matthew's Gospel be more likely written prior to 66 A.D.? Perhaps a little after Artabanus III, king of Parthia died in 38 A.D., and before the next war with the Parthians in 58 A.D. - as the coming of the Magi to worship Jesus would be less controversial at the time? It has been suggested that one of the reasons why Luke's Gospel does not include the story of the wisemen (magi from Parthia) is that it would have been distractive to include it at the time of its composition, as there was a Roman conflict with the Parthians going on. Lucian of Samosata, the 2nd century Greek rhetorician, drew up a set of rules for the budding historian in his book *How to Write History*. In it he writes (emphasis added): > Rapidity is always useful, especially if there is a lot of material. > It is secured not so much by words and phrases as by the treatment of > the subject. That is, **you should pass quickly over the trivial and > unnecessary,** and develop the significant points at adequate length. > **Much must be omitted.** After all, if you are giving a dinner to your friends and everything is ready, you don't put salt fish and > porridge on the table in the midst of the cakes, poultry, entrees, > wild boar, hare, and choice cuts of fish, **simply because they are > ready too!** You forget the cheaper articles altogether. (56) The dates of the various conflicts with Rome and Persia run as follows: > The decision of the Parthian King Artabanus III to place his son on > the vacant Armenian throne triggered a war with Rome in 36 AD, which > ended when Artabanus III abandoned claims to a Parthian sphere of > influence in Armenia. War erupted in 58 AD, after the Parthian > King Vologases I forcibly installed his brother Tiridates on the > Armenian throne. Roman forces overthrew Tiridates and replaced him > with a Cappadocian prince, triggering an inconclusive war. This came > to an end in 63 AD after the Romans agreed to allow Tiridates and his > descendants to rule Armenia on condition that they receive the > kingship from the Roman emperor. (See here ) I have a final thought that I picked up from Louis Sweet. He points out that the use of the phrase “Herod the King” by Matthew suggest an earlier dating, as the later signification “Herod the Great” was not yet in use.