Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.messianic:6594 alt.pagan:29742 talk.religion.misc:83817 alt.mythology:2848
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,alt.mythology
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!quack!pharvey
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: The Magi of Matthew was The Jewish Discomfort With Jesus
Message-ID: <f2b3HeD@quack.kfu.com>
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
References: <1746.2BD37A66@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>
Date: 21 Apr 1993 05:48:56 UTC
Lines: 238

In article <1746.2BD37A66@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> 
Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes:
> Since everywhere I look, Zoroaster is suggested as being a probable
> descendant of Daniel; suppose you prove he wasn't.

Ref: Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade

MAGI: 

[Sneak Preview: Later still, eschatology and apocalyptics were a fertile meeting
 ground for Iranian and Judeo-Christian religions, as can be seen in the famous
 _Oracles of Hystaspes_, a work whose Iranian roots are undeniable and which
 most likely dates from the beginning of the Christian era, probably the
 second century CE (Widengren, 1968). The Zoroastrian doctrine of the Savior of
 the Future (Saoshyant) was the basis for the story of the coming of the Magi
 to Bethlehem in the _Gospel of Matthew_ (2:1-12).]

  The Old Persian word magu, rendered in Greek by magos, is of uncertain 
etymology. It may originally have meant "member of the tribe," as in the
Avestan compound mogu-tbish ("hostile to a member of the tribe"). This meaning
would have been further resticted, among the Medes, to "member of the priestly
tribe" and perhaps to "priest" (Benveniste, 1938; Boyce, 1982). The term is
probably of Median origin, given that Herodotus mentions the "Magoi" as one of
the six tribes of the Medes.
  For a variety of reasons we can consider the Magi to have been members of a
priestly tribe of Median origin in western Iran. Among the Persians, they were
responsible for liturgical functions, as well as for maintaining their
knowledge of the holy and the occult. Most likely, the supremacy of the Median
priesthood in western Iran became established during the time of the Median
monarchy that dominated the Persians from the end of the eighth century
through the first half of the sixth century BCE until the revolt of Cyrus the
Great (550 BCE). The Persians were indebted to the Medes for their political
and civil institutions as well. Even if hypotheses have been advanced
concerning the existence of Magi of Persian origin in the Achaemenid period
(Boyce, 1982), we must still maintain that they were of Median origin. This is
demonstrated by the eposide of the revolt of Gaumata the Magian, mentioned by
Darius I (522-486 BCE) in the inscription at Bisutun (Iran), as well as by
Greek sources. Indeed, Herodotus insists on the idea of the usurpatory power of
the Medes against the Persians through the conspiracy of the Magi.
  The fact that the Magi may have been members of a tribe that handed down the
sacerdotal arts in a hereditary fashion naturally did not exclude the
possibility that some of them undertook secular prefessions. This seems to be
attested by the Elamite tablets at Persepolis.
  There is a theses, put forth by Giuseppe Messina, that denies that the Magi
are members of an ethnic group by suggesting that they are simply members of
the priesthood - a priesthood of purely Zoroastrian origin. This thesis is
untenable; on the other hand, the hypothesis that their name is related to the
Avestan term magavan, derived from the Gathic maga (Vedic, magha, "gift"), is
not without foundation (Mole, 1963). The meaning of maga can probably be found,
in conformity with the Pahlavi tradition, within the context of the concept of
purity, or separation of the "mixture" of the two opposed principles of spirit
and matter. The maga, which has been erroneously interpreted as "chorus," from
the root mangh, which is said to mean "sing the magic song" (Nyberg, 1966) and
has been rendered simply by an expression like unio mystica, seems to be an
ecstatic condition that opens the mind to spiritual vision. In any case, though
there may be a relation between the Old Persian term magu and the Avestan terms
magavan and maga, we must maintain a clear distinction between the Magi and the
Avestan priesthood. The Avesta ignores the Median or Old Persian term, despite
a recent hypothesis proposed by H.W. Bailey; Old Persian inscriptions ignore
the Avestan term for "priest," athravan (Vedic, athravan), even if this is 
perhaps present in an Achaeminid setting in the Elamite tablets of Persepolis 
(Gershevitch, 1964).
  The term magu has been present in Zoroastrianism throughout its history; the
Pahlavi terms mogh-mard and mobad represent its continuation. The latter in
particular derives from an older form, magupati ("head of the Magi"). During
the Sasanid period (third to seventh centuries CE), which saw the formation of
a hierarchically organized church, the title mobadan mobad ("the high priest of
high priests") came to be used to designate the summit of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy.
  The Magi practiced consanguineous marriage, or khvaetvadatha (Av.; Pahl.,
khwedodah). They also performed a characteristic funeral rite: the exposure of
the corpse to animals and vultures to remove the flesh and thereby cleanse it.
The corpse was not supposed to decompose, lest it be contaminated by the demons
of putrefaction. This practice later became typical of the entire Zoroastrian
community and led to the rise of a complex funeral ritual in Iran and among the
Parsis in India. Stone towers, known as dakhmas, were built especially for this
rite. During the time of Herodotus the practice of exposure of the corpse was
in vogue only among the Magi; the Persians generally sprinkled the corpse with
wax, then buried it. The practice was widespread, however, among the peoples
of Central Asia.
  The Magi were the technicians of and experts on worship: it was impossible to
offer sacrifices without the presence of a Magus. During the performance of a
ritual sacrifice, the Magus sang of the theogony (the Magi were possibly the
custodians of a tradition of sacred poetry, but we know nothing about the
relationship of this tradition to the various parts of the Avesta) and was
called upon to interpret dreams and to divine the future. The Magi were also
known for the practice of killing harmful, or "Ahrimanical," animals (khrafstra)
such as snakes and ants. They dressed in the Median style, wearing pants,
tunics, and coats with sleeves. They wore a characteristic head covering of
felt (Gr. tiara) with strips on the sides that could be used to cover the nose
and mouth during rituals to avoid contaminating consecrated objects with their
breath (Boyce, 1982). The color of these caps, in conformity with a tradition
that is probably of Indo-European origin, according to Georges Dumezil, was
that of the priesthood: white.
  In all likelihood, during the Achaemenid period the Magi were not in
possession of a well-defined body of doctrine, and it is probable that they
gradually adopted Zoroastrianism; they were most likely a clergy consisting of
professional priests who were not tied to a rigid orthodoxy but were naturally
inclined to eclecticism and syncretism. Nonetheless, they must have been
jealous guardians of the patrimony of Zorastrian traditions. By virtue of this
they were the educators of the royal princes. The wisest of them was responsible
for teaching the prince the "magic of Zarathushtra, son of Horomazes" and thus
the "cult of the gods." Magi who excelled in other virtues were entrusted with
the education of the prince so that he would learn to be just, courageous, and
master of himself.
  During the Achaemenid period the Magi maintained a position of great
influence, although they were certainly subordinate to the emperor. Despite
several dramatic events such as the massacre they suffered after the death of
Gaumata the Magian - in which, according to Herodotus (who calls himself
Smerdis), the Persians killed a large number of Magi to avenge the usurpation -
the Magi nevertheless managed to maintain their influence at court in Media,
in Persia, and in the various regions of the empire where they were stationed
as a consequence of the Persian civilian and military administration.
  No priesthood of antiquity was more famous than that of the Magi. They were
renowned as followers of Zarathushtra (Zoroaster); as the teachers of some of
the greatest Greek thinkers (Pythagoras, Democritus, Plato); as the wise men
who arrived, guided by a star, at the manger of the newborn savior in
Bethlehem; and as the propagators of a cult of the sun in India. But they were
also known as the Chaldeans, the priesthood of Babylon, known for its occultism;
this was perhaps the reason that the term magos had a pejorative sense in Greek,
like "goes," "expert in the magic arts" (Bidez and Cumont, 1938). Indeed, the
Chaldeans were experts in all types of magical arts, especially astrology, and
had a reputation for wisdom as well as knowledge.
  To understand the reasons for such various and sometimes discordant views, it
is necessary to distinguish between the Magi of Iran proper and the so-called
western Magi, who were later hellenized. In the Achaemenid period both must
have been at least in part Zoroastrian, but the western Magi (those of the
Iranian diaspora in Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Armenia), who came in
contact with diverse religious traditions, must have, sooner or later and in
varying degrees, been influenced by syncretic concepts.
  The Greeks were familiar with both kinds of Magi and, depending on their
varying concerns, would emphasize one or the other aspect of them. Classical
historians and geographers, including Herodotus and Strabo, document their
customs, while the philosophers dwell above all on their doctrines: dualism,
belief in the hereafter, Magian cosmology and cosmogony, and their theology
and eschatology. Those sources most interested in the doctrines of the Magi
even speak of Zarathushtra as a Magus. In doing so they are repeating what the
Magi themselves said from the Median and Achaemenid periods, when they adopted
Zoroastrianism. At that time they embraced Zarathushtra as one of their own and
placed themselves under his venerable name.
  Zoroastrianism had already undergone several profound transformations in the
eastern community by the time of the Acheamenids and was already adapting those
elements of the archaic religion that refused to die. It has been said quite
often, in an attempt to characterize the precise role of the Magi in the
Zoroastrian tradition, that the Vendidad (from vi-daevo-data, "the law-abjuring
daivas"), part of the Avesta, should be attributed to them. (This collection of
texts from various periods is primarily concerned with purificatory rules and
practices.) Nonetheless, the hypothesis is hardly plausible, since the first
chapter of the Vendidad - a list of sixteen lands created by Ahura Mazda, the
supreme god of Zoroastrianism, but contaminated by an attack by Ahriman (Pahl.;
Gathic-Avestan, Angra Mainyu), the other supreme god and the ultimate source of
all evil and suffering - does not mention western Iran, Persia, or Media (the
land of Ragha mentioned in the text cannot be Median Raghiana). Furthermore, it
has been noted (Gershevitch, 1964) that if the authors had been Magi the
absence of any reference to western Iranian institutions, including their own
priesthood, would be very strange.
  The Magi were above all the means by which the Zoroastrian tradition and the
corpus of the Avesta have been transmitted to us, from the second half of the
first millennium BCE on. This has been their principal merit. We can attribute
directly to the Magi the new formulation that Iranian dualism assumed, known to
us especially from Greek sources and, in part, from the Pahlavi literature of
the ninth and tenth centuries CE. According to this formulation, the two poles
of the dualism are no longer, as in the Gathas, Spenta Mainyu ("beneficent
spirit") and Angra Mainyu ("hostile spirit") but Ahura Mazda himself and Angra
Mainyu (Gershevitch, 1964). [See Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu.] This trans-
formation was of immense consequence for the historical development of Zoro-
astrianism and was most likely determined by the contact of the Magi with the
Mesopotamian religious world. In this new dualism - which was that later known
to the Greeks (Aristotle, Eudemus of Rhodes, Theopompus, and others) - we can
see the affirmation of a new current of thought within Zoroastrianism, to which
we give the name Zurvanism. [See Zurvanism.]
  Thanks to their adherence to Zoroastrianism, the Magi played an enormously
important role in the transmission of Zarathushtra's treachings, as well as in
the definition of the new forms that these would assume historically. Their
natural propensity to eclecticism and syncretism also helped the diffusion of
Zoroastrian ideas in the communities of the Iranian diaspora. The Greeks began
to study their doctrines and to take an interest in them (Xanthus of Lydia,
Hermodorus, Aristotle, Theopompus, Hermippus, Dinon), even writing treatises
on the Persian religion, of which only the titles and a few fragments have
survived. In the Hellenistic period, the Magi were seen as a secular school of
wisdom, and writings on magic, astrology, and alchemy were lent the authority
of such prestigious names as Zarathushtra, Ostanes, and Hystaspes, forming an
abundant apocryphal literature. (Bidez and Cumont, 1938).
  Later still, eschatology and apocalyptics were a fertile meeting
ground for Iranian and Judeo-Christian religions, as can be seen in the famous
_Oracles of Hystaspes_, a work whose Iranian roots are undeniable and which
most likely dates from the beginning of the Christian era, probably the
second century CE (Widengren, 1968). The Zoroastrian doctrine of the Savior of
the Future (Saoshyant) was the basis for the story of the coming of the Magi
to Bethlehem in the _Gospel of Matthew_ (2:1-12). [See Saoshyant.]
  The Sasanid period saw the Magi once again play a determining role in the
religious history of Iran. Concerned to win back the western Magi (de Menasce,
1956), and eager to consolidate Zoroastrianism as the national religion of
Iran, the priests of Iranian sanctuaries in Media and Persia were able to
establish a true state church, strongly hierarchical and endowed with an
orthodoxy based on the formation of a canon of scriptures. The leading figures
in the development of a state religion and of Zoroastrian orthodoxy were Tosar
and Kerder, the persecutors of Mani in the third century.

SAOSHYANT:
  The Avestan term saoshyant ("future benefactor"; MPers., soshans) designates
the savior of the world, who will arrive at a future time to redeem humankind.
The concept of the future savior is one of the fundamental notions of Zoro-
astrianism, together with that of dualism; it appears as early as in the Gathas.
Zarathushtra (Zoroaster), as the prophet of the religion, is himself a Sao-
shyant, one who performs his works for the Frashokereti, the end of the present
state of the world, when existence will be "rehabilitated" and "made splendid."
[See Frashokereti]
  Later Zoroastrian doctrine developed this notion into a true eschatological
myth and expanded the number of Saoshyants from one to three. All the saviors
are born from the seed of Zarathushtra, which is preserved through the ages in
Lake Kansaoya (identified with present-day Lake Helmand, in Seistan, Iran),
protected by 99,999 fravashis, or guardian spirits. The greatest of the awaited
Saoshyants, the victorious Astvatereta ("he who embodies truth"), the son of
the Vispataurvairi ("she who conquers all"), is the third, who will make
existence splendid; he appears in Yashts 19. Upon his arrival humankind will
no longer be subject to old age, death, or corruption, and will be granted
unlimited power. At that time the dead will be resurrected, and the living will
be immortal and indestructable. Brandishing the weapon with which he kills the
powerful enemies of the world of truth (that is, the world of the spirit, and
of asha), Astvatereta will look upon the whole of corporeal existence and
render it imperishable. He and his comrades will engage in a great battle with
the forces of evil, which will be destroyed.
  The name Astvatereta is clearly the result of theological speculation
(Kellens, 1974), as are those of his two brothers, Ukhshyatereta, "he who makes
truth grow," and Ukhshyatnemah, "he who makes reverence grow"; the names of the
three virgins (Yashts 13) who are impregnated with the seed of Zarathushtra
when they bathe in Lake Kansaoya and give birth to the Saoshyants, are equally
speculative. Each of these Saoshyants will arrive at the beginning of a
millennium, initiating a new age and a new cycle of existence; Astvatereta will
appear in the third and final millennium to save mankind.
  The doctrine of the future savior had already taken shape in the Archaemenid
period (sixth to fourth century BCE). It was not, perhaps the principal element
in the formation of the messianic idea, but it was certainly a determining
factor, one that enjoyed great success in the Hellenistic period beyond the
confines of the Iranian world. A similar concept, that of the future Buddha,
Maitreya, was most likely indebted to it, and Christian messianism can trace
its roots to the same source.