As I posted in the recent thread, there are references to other individuals as “Magi” in the Bible and Josephus who would seem to not be Zoroastrian and in a couple cases probably Jewish. By that time it was a general term for a mystic/whatever type person regardless of religion.
The Magi in Matthew could have been Jewish.
Based on my limited exposure to Christianity (mostly Catholics), I understood that the Magi are regarded as Saints. So they are saints and heathen ?
Whoever they were, they were described as being “from the East,” and therefore not intended to be Jewish. The whole point of the story was that they were foreigners.
They would have been heathens before they acknowledged the Christ child as Lord. After that, they would have been regarded as Christians. But they are basically mythical. The Gospel offers no information on them beyond what I said above. Of course over time they acquired names and backstories and came to be regarded as saints. I’m actually a little surprised that the Catholic Church still lists them as saints, and hasn’t demoted them like other “saints” for which there is no historical evidence like St. George and St. Christopher.
As far as I know, the Magi went back to their respective faiths after welcoming Baby Jesus and gifting Mother Mary. Jesus would himself take another 30+ years before preaching.
There are many Hindus, I know, who pray to Jesus and accept him as a “God” but they are still heathen or pagan because they worship other “Gods”.
So why this exception for the Magi and elevating them to sainthood?
( I do understand that this a matter of faith and May not always driven by logic. No offense intended)
In general conversation among Jews, you are correct that “gentile” and “goy” are used for all non-Jews, regardless of whether they are Roman Catholic, Wiccan, Muslim, or whatever.
But it is different in theological discussions about what God expects from us. Jewish belief is that while the full set of Jewish practice is required only of Jews, God does expect non-Jews to follow certain basic laws including prohibitions on murder, theft, and idolatry/polytheism. It’s the last one that gets complicated, with some religions being clearly monotheistic while others are not.
Even so, this distinction does not appear in any native English word. But the dialect used by many English-speaking Orthodox Jews does include the “word” avodazara-nik, referring to the adherent of a religion which Judaism considers to be idolatrous and/or polytheistic. (“Avoda Zara” is a Hebrew term literally meaning “foreign worship”.)
Where did you get that information? As I said, the Magi are mythical. But according to Catholic tradition Sts. Caspar, Balthasar, and Melchior (the Magi) were baptized in 40 AD by St. Thomas, who proselytized to the East. They eventually died as martyrs.
Because according to tradition they were baptized and became Christian (at least one supposedly became a bishop and was martyred on the altar) and no longer worshiped other gods. But all of this has the same factual basis as the tale of St. George and the dragon.
There are basically two statements regarding their origins. That they came from the East and that they returned to their own country. But quite a few Jews lived in countries to the East. There were Jews documented in noticeable numbers even as far east as S. India in 70AD so they had to have been there for quite some time before that. So the “East”/“Own country” stuff means little. Note that Alexandria had the largest population of Jewish folk at the time of any city. Definitely not in the same country. Would you presume that travelers to Jerusalem at the time from the SW were not Jewish? Lots of documentation of Jews from Alexandria going to Jerusalem then.
If you take them as mystic Jews coming to worship the new born King of the Jews, that’s entirely consistent with the Matthew. If you have an “angle” to generate that Jesus is the King of All (which the text explicitly does not state), then you have to do some mental gyrations.
You can always argue that “the whole point” of something is such-and-such if you start with that as an assumption.
Server error. Do not post dupe. Do not collect $200.
Due to The Troubles, somehow a second post got put in. I tried to edit it, but that also got lost. Anway …
Server error. Do not post dupe. Do not collect $200.
Travel from Syria or Mesopotamia to India was easy in ancient times. You just take a boat down the Euphrates to Basra. From there catch an Indian Ocean-going dhow at the right time of year and the trade winds blow you direct to Kerala. Which explains how Kerala got its Jewish community anciently, plus Christianity and Islam as soon as they respectively formed.
Yes, “Heide” also means “heather” as well as heath.
Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it’s a likely interpretation. Matthew was particularly concerned with linking Jesus to Jewish traditions. If he intended the Magi to be specifically Jewish wise men, I would assume he would have been more explicit about it.
Do you have a cite for any early commentators or traditions that identified the Magi as being Jewish, or is this just your own speculation? As soon as they appear in tradition they are depicted in dress associated with Eastern religions rather than Judaism.
I am not speculating that they were definitely Jewish. I am merely pointing out that there is no statement that they were Zoroastrian or some such. The text, as simply read, would imply a decent likelihood of them being Jewish.
Given the use of “magi” for non-Zoroastrians around that time, it is unwise to jump to a conclusion that they were.
And arguing based on traditions that pop up afterwards is much like arguing that there were 3 named Balthasar, Melchior, and Gaspar. None of that is in Matthew either.
I understood “pagan” as country folk following the old ways and not some new-fangled “religion” stuff, while “heathen” usually paired with “savage”, not following your culture’s rules.
We noticed certain nomenclature during our time in Chiapas (southernmost Mexico) and Guatemala, where Roman Catholicism was the default. Non-Catholics were “Protestants”. Muslims. Quakers. Mormons. Hindus. Scientologists. Voduns. Buddhists. They’re all Protestants, every last one of-em. Mayan Catholics include many “pagan” (traditional) elements in their worship, but as long as a priest and madonna are around, they’re normal.
How pagan can Catholicism be? The cathedral in Chichicastenango Guatemala is a Mayan temple. Incense burns constantly at the base of the front steps, which only elders may ascend; all others enter and exit by the side door. The interior has no pews; the floor is scattered with flower petals, which worshipers cross on their knees. Elders sit at the alter playing loud music on a boombox. The walls are lined with oversized holy figures, carried during street processions.
Are Mayans in Chichicastenango pagans, heathens, or devout Roman Catholics?
That’s my understanding; the word pagani originally meant “country folk” and is etymologically related to “peasants”. In the sixth century, when Benedict of Nursia arrived at Monte Cassino to found his monastery, he found the local villagers holding a festival in honor of the god Apollo.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Only if what you mean by “as simply read” is “ignoring the context and concerns of the author of Matthew.” As I said, the author of Matthew was especially interested in linking Jesus to Jewish traditions. It the author intended the figures to be Jewish mystics of some kind, he would undoubtedly have been explicit about it. Given this, there is no reasonable likelihood that they were intended to be Jewish.*
*And to reiterate, they weren’t “actually” anything. There is no evidence such figures actually existed. The only reason they are in the story at all is because Matthew was trying to make a point about them.