I was looking into the accounts of Jesus' birth both in Matthew and Luke and tried to make something of a chronology of the events on a piece of paper so that I can get it clear in my head. The thing that I came to notice is that there could be a large time gap in between Luke 2:38 and Luke 2:39... Now if we read the 2 accounts carefully we will understand that the wise men came to Jerusalem (The city of the King), expecting to find the newborn King there. However, Herod, consulting the scholars of the day sent them to Bethlehem (as it has been prophesied) (Mat. 2:1-6). Now, we are not actually told that they actually went to Bethlehem as the star appeared and guided them again. However, certainly that is the assumption of most people. Later we read (Mat. 2:16-18) that Herod went about killing all the male children aged 2 years or less, based on the information he had acquired from the wise men, concerning the time that the star appeared (Mat. 2:7). So it is safe to say that the wise men came to Jesus anytime before He was 2 years of age. However, what makes it more interesting is that it is written that after the wise men left, Joseph was told in a dream to flee to Egypt with Mary and Jesus. Knowing this, we look back into the account by Luke and see that they went into the Temple in Jerusalem, for the cleansing of Mary (Luke 2:22) as it is written in the Law (Lev. 12:3-8)... According to this passage for a male child this is done 33 days after (birth?). Which would mean that they visited the temple before the wise men came to them? And then returned to Bethlehem where the wise men came (even though Lk. 2:39 says they went back to Nazareth - assuming there is a gap and this speaks after their return from Egypt.) **OR** they went back to Nazareth straight after the cleansing in the temple (approx. a little over a month after the birth), meaning that even though the wise men were sent to Bethlehem by Herod, the star guided them to Nazareth..? **So, my question:** Now, more than one question arise from the comments above, however my main question is: According to my observations, is it safe to say that Jesus went to Jerusalem and into the Temple before the wise men got there? Are there other places in Scripture that confirm this or is there perhaps a flaw in my logic?

According to the following excerpt from the "Called to the Faith" sermon of St. John Vianney, > The theologians [at Jerusalem] told them [the Wise men] the prophecies announced that > the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, and that the time had come. I know that the prophecy in Daniel ch. 9 indicates that the Messiah would be *cut down* before the destruction of the Temple---and so, must have already been on earth prior to 70 A.D. However, I ask--- Which prophecy[ies] might suggest, more specifically, that "the time had come" for the Messiah to be born? The where portion (i.e., Bethlehem) is nevertheless, clear to me.

> And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child > with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they > had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; **gold**, and > **frankincense**, and **myrrh**. (Matt 2:11 ) I feel that it is pretty safe to assume that they at least used some of the gold to travel to Egypt, and perhaps even lived off of it while they were there. But I don't suppose any Josephologists or Mariologists have made any discoveries that perhaps give us some clues as to what exactly Joseph and Mary may have done with the gifts from the Wise men?

In Matthew 2:5-6 we see the wise men from the East telling Herod of the king who was to be born in Bethlehem, and they seem to be quoting from Micah 5:2. Did gentiles have access to the Old Testament before Christ? Could they have known what Micah said without having the book of Micah?

**What is the authoritative Catholic explanation of why the Magi get a pass, yet Catholics are required to reject astrology?** [Catechism of the Catholic Church | Divination and magic, 2116]( http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm) has: >All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future [Cf. Deut 18:10; Jer 29:8]. Consulting horoscopes, **astrology**, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone. The [Magi](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09527a.htm) utilizing their Magian [astrology](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02018e.htm) , were led Christ. It appears that the stars have a knowledge, a science. What made the *Magian astrology* acceptable, and would that type of Astrology be permissible to Catholics? Please see this answer also: [What types of signs are given by the “lights in the expanse of the heavens”?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/31247/what-types-of-signs-are-given-by-the-lights-in-the-expanse-of-the-heavens/31339#31339)

The wise men were educated and would have documented their experience in detail. Also, they would have shared the Christmas story with everyone they came in contact with on their trip home. Once they were back in their home land their story should have spread far and wide. Outside of scripture, are there any writings telling of the wise men story? If they indeed were educated, respected, and had influence and integrity, there would be non-biblical accounts. Have any been found?

It is widely supported that the wise men were not present at the time of Jesus' birth. (ie. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/23369/what-is-the-basis-for-the-belief-that-the-wise-men-did-not-arrive-in-bethlehem-u) . However I only 'learned' of this quite late in my America/Protestant EFCA upbringing. I've been perplexed since as to *why the concept of wise men present during Jesus' birth appears to be propagated by Christians* during Christmas1; the symbolism is common in Chistian paraphernalia/decorations, yearly 'Away in a Manger' plays mix shepherds/wise men, and such stories are [all too often] presented as 'truth' during such time; - *Is the placement of the wise men at nativity scene common among churches that observe a 'nativity scene' Christmas*? - *When did the now 'traditional' nativity scene configuration become widespread?* Was such tied to a religious (or cultural) movement? e.g. was there a Christian book that made such popular? --- 1 I realize that celebration of Christmas is very faith/church/culture specific and most such 'traditional' practices are not biblical-based. I also understand (and respect) that many Christians do not celebrate Christmas; or do not celebrate it in this manner. I'm *not* looking for a defense, justification, or opinion of such, nor am I looking for a 'History of Christmas' except as such is immediately relevant to this *particular* perpetuated belief/story.

The wise men are commonly thought of as three men, each bearing a gift for the baby Jesus. When in fact the scriptures don't indicate exactly how many wise men there were, only what gifts they brought. There could have be four, five, or more wise men that each brought either gold, frankincense, or myrrh. Or, there may have only been two wise men, and both of them could have given the Christ child three gifts. > "¶And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child > with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they > had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and > frankincense, and myrrh." (Matt 2:11 ) Is there any indication that there were more or less than exactly three wise men? Or has it always just been assumed that the fact they brought three gifts indicates there were three men? If so, when did this association begin?