Real answer: the term used in the original Greek is μάγοι, which in Roman letters would be represented as mágoi. This appears to derive from the Persian magush and ultimately from the Avestan magâunô, terms for a priest or cleric, though the Persian word is poorly attested in surviving Iranian sources.
I any case, they are also described as coming “from the east”, which in Roman-occupied Judah would have meant Iran. Matthew doesn’t spell this out, but the implication is that the Wise Men were Zoroastrian priests who, as other commentators have noted, would have been knowledgeable of astronomy. It should be noted that Matthew doesn’t strictly refer to them as “wise men”, instead using a technical term for Zoroastrian clergy; “wise men” is a later translation choice which gets across some of the meaning to a reader to whom magush would be meaningless jargon.
In any case, the appearance of the magi seems to be an attempt to equate Christ with the Saoshyant and thus bolster the argument that he was tge prophesied Messiah. Zoroastrian tradition prophesies that at some point a virgin will get pregnant by sperm Zarathustra left in a pool somewhere and give birth to a son, the Saoshyant. After Iran conquered Chaldaea, this idea of a saviour figure born from a virgin filtered through to the captive Jews at a time when both Judaism and Zoroastrianism were shifting toward monotheism.
So when Jesus’ sect proclaimed Jesus as Messiah, having magi make the same proclamation when he was a baby reïnforces the Christian claim
I’m sure thus has nothing to do with Xavier Milei