Having reviewed Timothy Jay Schwab's new book The Mystery of the Three Kings and shown that he has no idea what he is talking about and that the text of Revelation of the Magi contradicts him it is time to take a look at a few other things. In this article I will be reviewing Tim's claim the Greek word Magos is actually a Filipino word.
 |
| The Mystery of the Three Kings, pg. 68 |
The title of the chapter is Magi is not a Word From the Greek. Already we are in bad etymological territory as magi (magos) is certainly a Greek word which is found in the Bible. Case closed, right? No, because Tim does a little dance and makes a little mess which needs cleaning up.
Here is Tim's introduction to the matter.
One of the greatest revelations needed from Revelation of the Magi (RotM) is that the word Magi or Magos from the Wise Kings narrative does not originate in the Greek language. Greece is not East. The same could be said of Africa (which some scholars try to force), but for this to work, one must forget what direction both left and right are. Those are not theories. Yes, it is written in Greek in the New Testament (as the rest of the canonical books are), but is it Greek in origin? What if, instead, there was evidence that the word derives from its land and its language of nativity? It turns out, there is, thanks to this text. How many times have we all heard the Christmas sermon about how the Wise Men were not Kings? That is false, they were certainly Kings. 12 in all, there were more than three in number indeed, but three still has precedence, as you will find.
Then, even the highest of scholars takes us to the faulty assumption the Babylonian and/or Persian Magoi are injected by The Gospel of Matthew. They ignore that those Magoi were not even in power in the first century. They are still rebuked as satanic sorcerers in the same New Testament. One does not need to go to the Old Testament to learn how to read a word well defined in the New. They are changing the Bible when they do so, against its own interpretation itself.
They will make up fiction, supposing the sorcerers converted to the religion of Daniel. That is not ever a Bible account; it is poor assumption they cannot make. The fact that they have to manufacturer such a story to make their lie work should be evident. Certainly, Daniel was the head over the Biblical Wise Men, such as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, but sorcerers were his satanic enemy. For a theologian to assume such a thing is nonsense. Daniel never became head of the magicians. He was head of the Sophos; the Wise Men.
p. 69
What exactly does Tim think he is accomplishing here? Everyone familiar with the matter knows magi does not originate in Greek but is a Babylonian/Persian loanword. What Tim really means is magi isn't a Persian word not magi isn't a Greek word. He can't even get his claim right.
the name given by the Babylonians (Chaldeans), Medes, Persians, and others, to the wise men, teachers, priests, physicians, astrologers, seers, interpreters of dreams, augers, soothsayers, sorcerers etc.
Look at that. Magos is a catch-all generic word which does not only mean sorcerer but can also mean teacher, physician, or wise men. Context matters. Matthew calls them Magos because they came from the East. They were Wise Men (Magos) from the East. If they had come from somewhere else then perhaps Matthew would not have used the word magos. In Acts magos is translated sorcerer because that's what those specific people were, men who used magic and sorcery.
Keep in mind the word is magos and this word is also in the Septuagint in Daniel. That means the word was known BEFORE the Magi came to visit the Child Jesus. Tim is going to say this is a Filipino word originating in the word Maginoo. How can this be when the word dates at least to the time of Herodotus?
This name has come to us through the Greeks as the proper designation of the priestly class among the Persians (Herod. 1:132, 140; Xenoph., Cyrop. 8:1, 23; Plato, Alcib. 1:122; Diog. Laert. Parouem. 1, 2; Cicero, De Divin. 1:41; Apul. Apol. 1p. 32 ed. Casaubon, p. 290 ed. Elmenhorst; Porphyr. De Abst. 1. 4.; Hesych. s.v. Μάγος).
Here is the citation from Herodotus which dates to 425 B.C.
When he has so arranged it, a Magus comes near and chants over it the song of the birth of the gods, as the Persian tradition relates it; for no sacrifice can be offered without a Magus.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hdt.%201.132&lang=original
Tim has a lot to say about Daniel to prove his thesis that the Magi in Matthew were not Persians. According to Tim Daniel was not placed in charge of the magicians but the Wise Men as the Greek word in the Septuagint is Sophos not Magos.
Certainly, Daniel was the head over the Biblical Wise Men, such as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, but sorcerers were his satanic enemy. For a theologian to assume such a thing is nonsense. Daniel never became head of the magicians. He was head of the Sophos; the Wise Men.
pg. 69
The reference to the Book of Daniel’s Wise Men of Daniel 5:8, for instance, is not Magos. Daniel uses the Hebrew word hakim, which is a general term for those considered to hold knowledge above the regular folk. Taking that generality and assuming it into Matthew’s Wise Men is illiterate. However, he rattles off others in a listing that separates them. The King’s Wise Men that are described in the Book of Daniel were not the Magi described in the Book of Matthew. Even the era is very disconnected, as those Magi had no part in the New Testament except as enemies. One who supposedly converted to the Biblical faith would no longer be called a sorcerer. They would have to leave that satanic paradigm.
The Wise Men described in the Book of Daniel, however, are not Magos in Greek. According to the Greek Septuagint translation, the word is sophos meaning wise; not even Magos. It would not matter, however, if it was the same word; it most certainly is not the same concept in the Book of Matthew. Indeed, among those the King considered wise could definitely be sorcerers, however, they are still not called Magos by Daniel in the Greek Septuagint. They are still called sophos, instead, in Daniel 2:12, 13, 14, 18, 24, 27, and 48. Matthew’s Gospel repeats that in 23:34, using sophos as well; referring to prophets, wise men and scribes. Daniel does not even call them Magos. To equate that term solely based on a misunderstanding of a different word is not scholarship.
pg. 70
Tim is correct here in saying the King would consider sorcerers to be Wise Men. In Daniel sophos (wise men) is a catch-all term which includes enchanters, magicians, and soothsayers. Tim is wrong when he says Daniel was never head of the magicians.
Daniel 2:48 Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon.
Daniel 4:9 O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and nosecret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof.
In 2:48 Daniel is made ruler over all the wise men (Sophos) of Babylon and in 4:9 he is called master of the magicians (ἐπαοιδῶν). That is because Sophos is a catch-all term for enchanters, magicians, and soothsayers.
Daniel 5:11 further affirms the above two verses and says he was put in charge not of the Wise Men (Sophos) but of the magicians (magos) among others.
There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the Spirit of God; and in the days of thy father watchfulness and understanding were found in him; and king Nabuchodonosor thy father made him chief of the enchanters, magicians, Chaldeans, and soothsayers.
https://biblehub.com/sep/daniel/5.htm
Here is the Greek with the relevant words highlighted.
The first word highlighted is archon which means chief or ruler. The second is the word for enchanter as in verse 2:48. The third word is magos which is translated as magician. Daniel was made archon or ruler of the enchanters, magicians, Chaldeans, and soothsayers who constitute the Wise Men of Babylon.
Tim is totally wrong in his assessment of Daniel. The Septuagint version of Daniel does not help Tim's case at all. Tim's comments only muddy the waters for readers who won't or can't take the time to learn exactly how Sophos and Magos is used in the Septuagint version of Daniel.
That should be the end of the matter but of course it's not. Tim's fake Filipino etymology for this word is incredibly stupid. Let's look at it anyway.
What if the Philippines actually had a documented social class of royals known as the MAGI in their native, ancient language? Of course, that would be impossible. No such thing could ever occur... unless... it does! Filipinos already know what we are conveying as there is an ancient royal classification known as the MAGInoo. This was the highest social order, which included what one would refer to as Kings and princes. Then, Revelation of the Magi tells us these were Kings, sons of Kings, and Wise Men. It is not difficult.
MAGInoo: Tagalog: gentleman; gentlemanly; honorable.
maginoohin: of gentlemanly habits or bearing. Root: ginoó: mister; sir; gentleman. The female counterpart to “ginoo” is “ginang.” pagka-máginoó: Tagalog: quality of being noble, worthy or stately.
This title for royalty in the Philippines preceded the Spanish arrival recorded in use in 1571 and 1690 among other references. Better yet, it was recorded in the first century by the Apostle Matthew, who used the Greek language to express a word that was not of Greek origin. He was translating Tagalog into Greek.
pgs. 71-72
Behold Tim's brilliant solution! Matthew was translating Tagalog into Greek by transforming Maginoo into the word Magos. Why would Matthew shorten the word from Maginoo to Magos? Why would the usage of Magos in Matthew be different from that in Acts? Tim never explains how Magos is Filipino for Maginoo in Matthew and is Greek for sorcerer in Acts. Instead he gives a litany of Filipino words that begin with mag or magi and this is supposed to be his proof that Matthew was translating Tagalog into Greek. There was also no royal class in the Philippines known as Magi or Magos. They were called Maginoo. The words are not the same!
However, the scoffing academic would then ignorantly claim, “that is simply not enough.” No, it is not, and that is not the end of this narrative. What about these two definitions of prayer and silence? Certainly, neither of those could be of Philippine origin. Scoff! Scoff! Snark! Oops! They both are! In Tagalog, the national Filipino language, the prefix mag is used in magdasal, meaning to pray. MAG and MAGI are the origin, the root words, with a plethora of combinations in linguistics, which identify even other traits of the ancient Magi Filipino. Wow!
mag+root: [affix/verb] to do something; to do an occupation; to go; to use something; to wear something; to do a reciprocal action; to be.
MAGdasál: Tagalog: to pray.3
MAGa-ampo: Ilonggo/Hiligaynon: to pray. managampo: Bisaya: ampo: to surrender.
pg. 72
If Tim wants to go this route of listing words with mag in them how about this verse from Jeremiah 39:3.
And all the princes of the king of Babylon came in, and sat in the middle gate, even Nergalsharezer, Samgarnebo, Sarsechim, Rabsaris, Nergalsharezer, Rabmag, with all the residue of the princes of the king of Babylon.
Rabmag means magian or Magian or soothsayer or an official of Babylon.
Is this word also of Filipino origin? Or perhaps it is more proof Tim is wrong about his etymology of magos.
Finally, Tim gives us this gem.
The Chinese were documenting the account all along. They went to the Philippines to trade with an island, likely Mindoro, which they called MA-I or MA- YI. Wait! You mean they were attempting to express MAGI? We find that likely.
“An edict of 972 indicates that Mindoro (Ma-i) was part of that trade: In the fourth year of the K’ai Pao period [972], a superintendent of maritime trade was set up in Kwangchow, and afterwards in Hangchow and Mingchow also a superintendent was appointed for all Arab, Achen, Java, Borneo, Ma-i, and Srivijaya barbarians, whose trade passed through there, they taking away gold, silver, strings of cash, lead, tin, many-colored silk, and porcelain...” –William Henry Scott
“The first Philippine tribute mission to China appears to have come from Butuan on 17 March 1001. Butuan (P’u-tuan) is described in the Sung Shih (Sung History) as a small country in the sea to the east of Champa, farther than Ma-i...” –William Henry Scott5
Mindoro is on the way to Butuan, and we vet that further in The Search for King Solomon’s Treasure: The Lost Isles of Gold & The Garden of Eden. However, one of the most amazing facts about Mindoro or Ma-Yi, is the name of its indigenous tribes– the MAGI! Mindoro is historically famous for its skill in working with gold in fact.
Mangyan is the generic name for the eight indigenous groups found in Mindoro each with its own tribal name, language, and customs. The Mangyans were once the only inhabitants of Mindoro
pgs. 78-79
"We find that likely?" That is not a proof! That is conjecture. Ma-I is not Magi or Maginoo. Also the tribes of Mindoro are not called Magi but Mangyan as Tim even admits just after calling them Magi! Why is he lying about the Mangyan being Magi when he has already said Magi has its origins in Maginoo? He can't even keep his theories straight.
This whole chapter is completely worthless. Not one time does Tim attempt to prove Matthew was "translating Tagalog into Greek" or that the Chinese meant Magi by Ma-I. He simply sates it as a fact and moves on to listing Filipino words with mag or magi claiming that is proof enough. He even has the gall to say the tribes of Mindoro are called Magi and then show they are actually called Mangyan! He is blatantly lying to the reader's face and is making it all up as he goes. He is "Baffling with BS." Tim is in fact storytelling.
Are we "storytelling" or are we presenting the facts?
pg. 161
There is no reason to debate Tim on every word he lists because he has said Magi means Maginoo yet he has not proved that Matthew was "translating Tagalog into Greek." The Greek word magos pre-dates the Gospel of Matthew in Herodotus by almost 500 years. He does not even try to prove his case in any meaningful way except to say, "Look! This word looks and sounds like that word therefore it is that word or it is related to that word." That is not how linguistics works!
