66 Rick Strelan 1. A Magos The first description given of Bar Jesus is that he was a magos (mavgo"). Much has been written about the magoi and there is no need to repeat the results of that scholarship (5). The term, of course, originally referred to a Persian caste; but there is no doubt that in later usage it came to be used almost adjectivally of those who had ideas and customs that were foreign to traditional Greek views and customs. To give just one example, Strabo reports that the magoi ‘even consort with their mothers’ (Geog. 15.3.20). Pliny wanted to “expose their untruths” (N.H. 30.1). Not surprisingly, then, among the Greeks, a mavgo" became synonymous with a gohv", a charlatan and trickster (Dio Chrysostom, Disc. 39.41). From Luke’s perspective, Bar Jesus is a prophet whose interpretation of the will of God is false, and therefore whose authority is foreign to that of the legitimate prophetic circle as represented by Barnabas and Saul. The latter two have been set apart by the Holy Spirit (13,2), sent out by the Holy Spirit (13,4) and are filled with the Holy Spirit (13,9). Bar Jesus, however, has his authority from the adversary. He is, from Luke’s perspective, uiJo;" diabovlou (13,10). On the other hand, the identification as magos could mean little more than that Bar Jesus was associated with the court of the proconsul as a religious adviser, a position some Jews are known to have held (6). Josephus makes the specific Jew-magos link when referring to a certain Simon, co-incidentally also a Cypriot, and one who, like Bar Jesus, had friends in the Roman consular system (Ant. 20.7.2). In addition, the role and function of a magos and those of a rabbi, at least in later times, were not at all dissimilar. Both were ‘holy men’, both were men of power and special knowledge, both were involved in decision-making within their respective communities (7). However, for Luke, the point of the term seems to be that Bar Jesus, despite his name, certainly does not belong to Jesus, but is an outsider, having a (5) In New Testament studies, this work focuses largely on Simon Magus. For a useful bibliography, see J. JERVELL, Die Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen 1998) 258-259. See also the recent work of S. HAAR, Simon Magus. The first Gnostic? (Berlin – New York, forthcoming). The understanding of Simon as a magos strongly colours the understanding of Bar Jesus as such in many commentaries. (6) Joseph, Daniel, and Ahikar are well-known examples of Jews holding such positions. Compare also Josephus, Ant. 8.2.5; 20.7.2. (7) See J. NEUSNER, “Rabbi and Magus in Third-Century Sasanian Babylonia”, History of Religions 6 (1966/7) 169-178.