Thanks to all who replied. Sorry that I had to run to work shortly after posting this.
there were all kinds of pagans in Persia. the Georgian nation was often attacked by fire worshippers from Persia. Just because they were from Persia does not necessarily make them Zoroastrian.
Astrologers tended to worship the stars; I doubt that some sort of Zoroastrian orthodoxy would have prevented this.
But also consider back then, just like today, religious syncretism was a popular thing. So they could have been Persian priests practicing a syncretist religion.
Also consider Zoroastrian do indeed worship, or highly revere, fire. A star is nothing but fire. So yes they do worship and revere them in a sense.
I read a couple of books about Zoroastrianism back in 2009. From what I remember, Persian Zoroastrianism from this period was far from orthodox. It was incredibly syncretistic with regard to the dominant religions which conquered the original Zoroastrian empires but not, if I'm correct, the lesser religions they had conquered (with Judaism being perhaps a marked exception). The Magi were the leaders of the syncretistic movement, having originally been an order of priests in a different religion. Fire worshippers from Persia actually sounds like Zoroastrians to me, so it probably was Zoroastirans attacking Georgia, probably because they viewed their religion as a threat as it was the same as their major rivals the Roman Empire. Both sides waged holy wars against each other until Islam came do dominate the Persian empire. I wonder if certain stars would have been associated with certain amesha spentas. I doubt they realized they were fire, though perhaps given that they were akin to worship fire anyway.
One must look at the definition of what it met to the culture that used it and its meaning at that time. The word originally comes from the Avestan word "maga" which means generosity, fellowship or magnanimity. Then as the word moved to Persian culture it became the word "magi" which means zoroastrain priest. Then as time went by again it made it's way into the Greek language as "Magoi" which means wise men. In Jesus's days it was also used as magus to mean magic and it was used to describe any astrologist or occultist. (There are people today that practice magic, but they are not persian priests either.)
The gospels weren't written or composed in persian or avestan culture, but Greek and Hebrew. So the correct interpretation to use would be Magoi, which is wise men.
So using the word in the correct context and time of culture, it really just meant wise men, which may or may not have been actual persian priests.
I don't think that "
μάγος" meant wise man any more than "wizard" does in modern English. Indeed probably less so. I have to imagine the listing of "wise man" in English to Greek dictionaries is out of deference to the typical English rendering of the word in Matthew, which and this is mostly conjecture, probably comes from a toning down to prevent scandal of the original proper translation of the word as something akin to "wizard" and perhaps a loosening of the meaning in later Latin. Indeed the word had a less strict sense to mean "an occult religious practitioner principally of a nonEuropean religion," but this was largely a misuse akin to something inbetween the way all Hispanics are called "Mexicans" in most states in America and how the Amish refer to all nonAmish people as "English" (even those "Mexicans" who are actually Salvadoran
). It would not surprise me if Matthew were using the term this way, but he also says they were
"from the east". A group of men east of the empire who were religious practitioners prominent enough to arrange and envoy bearing expensive gifts to bring to a king within the Roman Empire, were almost certainly actual magi in my mind, unless they came from India or farther.
I agree "worshipped" seems a little strong. That is actually how it appears in Fr. Seraphim Nassar's service book, but I see that in The Festal Menaion compiled by Met. Kallistos Ware and Mother Mary, the term "adored" us used. I think the Zoroastrians were astrology buffs, so this seems a little closer.
Thanks for the support:
"Adored" here is being used in a very strict antiquated sense from the Latin
adorare which is the Latin translation of
λατρεύειν. Met. Kallistos would have preferred that term given his education.
You may have just found the Troparia and Kontakia for the Nativity of Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ - but believe me, my Orthodox Brethren will find it hard to believe that you actually wonder if they are familiar with them .
I meant no offense. If I'm not mistaken this proper is only used for about two weeks a year and then only at 4 (5 if you count dinner before vespers) prominent services. I wouldn't expect anyone not in the choir to have it memorized. Most western Christians could not tell you the collect for Christmas even though I'm fairly confident they hear it virtually time they go to Church from Christmas Eve until the Feast of Baptism of the Lord.
I don't necessarily think that, even if they were Zoroastrians, the inaccuracy is anything to worry about.
I suspect you are right, but I cannot give a satisfactory (to me anyway) reason why. Could you venture one for me?
