Astrology
One of the things my Apologetics group is discussing this Sunday is astrology. Please recommend any search tips or books you think might be helpful.
Thanks,
Susan Murphy
Comments
-
Hi Susan
Susan W. Murphy said:One of the things my Apologetics group is discussing this Sunday is astrology. Please recommend any search tips or books you think might be helpful.
I would start with the Factbook entry on Astrology - which links to a Topic Guide on it as well
Graham
0 -
Susan, may I ask a really dumb question? Why is the apologetics class apparently studying only topics that are against its beliefs? I think of apologetics as primarily defending ones own beliefs. Is there a difference in how we use the term "apologetics"?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Susan, may I ask a really dumb question? Why is the apologetics class apparently studying only topics that are against its beliefs? I think of apologetics as primarily defending ones own beliefs. Is there a difference in how we use the term "apologetics"?
Oh no, I said "one of the things" we'll be discussing. This Sunday we'll begin the class with discussing the makeup of the Bible, how we know the Bible is the Word of God, the Divine Authority of the Bible, what is meant by the inspiration of the Bible, etc. Then at the end we'll discuss things things like the ouija board, astrology etc. But by no means do I want anyone to think that we dwell on the negative. Also, I always give Scriptures to show what the Bible says about these things. And we are defending our beliefs showing that we're not to engage in things like the ouija board, study of the stars for guiding our lives, etc.
I think we need to be able to show our society that we must be careful and not get involved in a lifestyle that invites the demonic in such a sneaky way.We are living in a society that is full of these kind of things. So that's why we're talking about this. And I don't just teach Apologetics, I also love to teach the Bible That's my first love.
Susan
0 -
Thanks, Susan, that makes more sense.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Interesting connect. We were having a weekly Bible study, and our welcomed visitor launched into channeling as a Christian. It was interesting because no one knew what to say .... and not be insulting. We failed abysmally, looking back.
I'd think the subject is more common (astrology) than most realize.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Astrology while most of us would consider it a pseudo science the horoscopes in papers and pervasive use by some in wall street leads one to want a better understanding of this issue. We also end up asking is there absolutely nothing there? The Magi, used an astrological sign in the heavens to lead them to Jesus... We think of the witch of Endor who seemingly contacted Samuel for Saul after his death. We are never lead to believe that it was not Samuel or that the Magi were just lucky. While I feel it foolish to rely on these sort of things we may find there is something more to them than we think (although I would like to see some scientific study that gives evidence before I life my scepticism on the issues).
-Dan
0 -
The teaching that the zodiac is a Gospel in the Stars has been put forth by such popular ministers as E. W. Bullinger and Dr. D. James Kennedy.
See for instance Appendix 12 of The Companion Bible by E. W. Bullinger (in Community Pricing)
HTML version - http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app12.html
Here is a presentation by Dr. Kennedy:
Desktop link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYqc57F1X6s&app=desktop
Mobile link - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vYqc57F1X6s
Sermon Description:
===================
Dr. D. James Kennedy presents a classic - sometimes controversial - message on the zodiac called, “The Gospel in the Stars.” He strongly rejected pagan astrology, but believed with the Psalmist that the “heavens declare the glory of God.” This is the first of 13 messages preached by Dr. Kennedy on this topic.
Scripture Reference: Psalm 19:1-6Here is an article refuting the teaching - http://www.equip.org/article/the-gospel-in-the-stars-theory/
"The Christian mind is the prerequisite of Christian thinking. And Christian thinking is the prerequisite of Christian action." - Harry Blamires, 1963
0 -
Dan Francis said:
The Magi, used an astrological sign in the heavens to lead them to Jesus...
Not really... The Magi understood that an event on the earth (Jesus' birth) had an impact on the stars, whereas astrology teaches that the planets and stars allegedly impact and influence events on the earth.
The Magi truly were wise man. Reversing cause and effect, however, is foolishness.
0 -
Jan Krohn said:Dan Francis said:
The Magi, used an astrological sign in the heavens to lead them to Jesus...
Not really... The Magi understood that an event on the earth (Jesus' birth) had an impact on the stars, whereas astrology teaches that the planets and stars allegedly impact and influence events on the earth.
The Magi truly were wise man. Reversing cause and effect, however, is foolishness.
I wish I had more information on the Magi being truly wise men instead of just astrologers. Do you know where I can get this information? We'll be discussing this, this Sunday and I know there will be questions.
Thanks for your comments,
Susan
0 -
Jan Krohn said:Dan Francis said:
The Magi, used an astrological sign in the heavens to lead them to Jesus...
Not really... The Magi understood that an event on the earth (Jesus' birth) had an impact on the stars, whereas astrology teaches that the planets and stars allegedly impact and influence events on the earth.
The Magi truly were wise man. Reversing cause and effect, however, is foolishness.
I wish I had more information on the Magi being truly wise men instead of just astrologers. Do you know where I can get this information? We'll be discussing this, this Sunday and I know there will be questions.
Thanks for your comments,
Susan
0 -
Jan Krohn said:Dan Francis said:
The Magi, used an astrological sign in the heavens to lead them to Jesus...
Not really... The Magi understood that an event on the earth (Jesus' birth) had an impact on the stars, whereas astrology teaches that the planets and stars allegedly impact and influence events on the earth.
The Magi truly were wise man. Reversing cause and effect, however, is foolishness.
I wish I had more information on the Magi being truly wise men instead of just astrologers. Do you know where I can get this information? We'll be discussing this, this Sunday and I know there will be questions.
Thanks for your comments,
Susan
0 -
Susan ... the greek word has a range of uses ... magician (Acts), astrologer, wise in eastern knowledge, and even political groups in Persia.
Thus astrologer is assumed from calculating from the time a star first appeared ... presumably 2 years earlier.
The most accurate remains 'magi' ... not astrologer, magicians, etc which demand assumptions.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Matthew 2 is all the information there is.
From the passage we learn that the Magi observed the sky and the stars. Nothing inherently wrong with that, and it doesn't make them astrologers. A lot of people observe the sky who are no astrologers as well.
The Magi discovered a noticable change - a new star had popped out of nowhere. Again, it doesn't take an astrologer to make that discovery. It's the natural thing to do to look for an explanation of that discovery, and bingo, the Magi did come to the correct conclusion. I don't think it requires "astrological skills" to interpret one of God's miracles.
Just compare it to the usual astrological mumbo jumbo ("Saturn/Mars/Venus have a good/bad influence on people who were born in this and that month etc.") I don't see that it has anything in common with what the Magi did.
0 -
Here's an interesting book that I found quite helpful regarding the religion of the Stars (Hollywood stars).
Religions of the Stars: What Hollywood Believes and How It Affects You
Today's culture is saturated with news about celebrities and their beliefs. Oprah Winfrey, Tom Cruise, and Madonna all promote their own brand of spirituality. What do they really believe, and does it line up with what the Bible teaches? This book answers these questions, appealing to those curious about the religions of the rich and famous while holding up their beliefs to the light of the gospel. Concerned parents will also gain insight into the religious influences their kids may be exposed to in the media. (Vyrso description).
mm.
0 -
Thanks for the information on the book. I have read some of Warren Smiths books.
0 -
Susan W. Murphy said:Jan Krohn said:Dan Francis said:
The Magi, used an astrological sign in the heavens to lead them to Jesus...
Not really... The Magi understood that an event on the earth (Jesus' birth) had an impact on the stars, whereas astrology teaches that the planets and stars allegedly impact and influence events on the earth.
The Magi truly were wise man. Reversing cause and effect, however, is foolishness.
I wish I had more information on the Magi being truly wise men instead of just astrologers. Do you know where I can get this information? We'll be discussing this, this Sunday and I know there will be questions.
Thanks for your comments,
Susan
I did a search on "Magi" in Logos and came up with some good answers. These searches in Logos are really great.
Susan
0 -
For anyone passing thru here on the magi-account, the ICC Matthew volume (1 of 3) has by far the most in-depth discussion of magi, stars predicting kings, and so forth. There's so many parallels, I'd think even Matthew knew his readers would see unstated connects. The church fathers certainly didn't hold back.
Ok, maybe not kings visiting, three of them, a new-born, or a manger. Matthew forgot those."If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Jan Krohn said:
Not really... The Magi understood that an event on the earth (Jesus' birth) had an impact on the stars, whereas astrology teaches that the planets and stars allegedly impact and influence events on the earth.
The Magi truly were wise man. Reversing cause and effect, however, is foolishness.
That's an interesting perspective to hold with such certainty. I'm sincerely curious if you hold such a confident position about these men solely from Matthew 2, or if you have additional sources you are relying on that make you sure of the nature of their knowledge, and that they contained great wisdom.
The Greek text of Matthew 2 simply says, "We saw His star in the East, so we came..." This COULD mean that they saw a new star appear, or it could mean that they had a star that they had labeled as representing the coming King of the Jews and they were waiting for it to move to a place "in the east," which would then signify the birth of this King, or it could mean something that we don't have enough information to know what it means.
Regardless, none of this tells us what you said, that they believed that it was the birth of the King that had the pivotal impact on whatever astrological effect they observed, rather than the other way around, or was merely to be a concurrent event. Also, nothing mentioned in the passage states, or perhaps even implies that they were particularly wise men. It would not take "wisdom" to deduce that a new star, or whatever this sign was, meant there must be a new King born, or a Messiah, or anything else. It would seem that what was needed, and what they had, was a specific knowledge that could not be deduced through wisdom, or any other natural means.
Christians have gone to great lengths over the years, to make these guys into something very different than the plain reading of the text would tell us they were. The plain understanding of the word would be "conjurers," or "soothsayers," or "magicians." In fact, the two other times the word is used in the NT, that is precisely what it meant. Could the word in this passage mean something else, within the possible semantic range of the word, which is less commonly used? Sure. Is there any textual reason to believe that it does? Not that I can find. Some people have labeled them kings based on a reference to kings in a Psalm. The problem is, this would be an even less likely understanding of the word used here.
I understand the desire to have all the people involved in the "Christmas story" be great, or at least people of good repute. Magicians would certainly be looked down on in first century Israel, as the OT specifically warns against practicing magic. That said, it might be seen as strangely fitting with the rest of the radically incongruent birth and life of the King of Heaven and Earth.
0 -
Al Het said:
The plain understanding of the word would be "conjurers," or "soothsayers," or "magicians."
Referring to what language as the language of origin? Assuming Old Persian, the Zoroastrian interpretation is most likely unless there is strong evidence otherwise.
c. 1200, "skilled magicians, astrologers," from Latin magi, plural of magus "magician, learned magician," from Greek magos, a word used for the Persian learned and priestly class as portrayed in the Bible (said by ancient historians to have been originally the name of a Median tribe), from Old Persian magush "magician"
Note the very recent usage on the etymology. This meaning would be anachronistic. We want something that represents its use in the Mediterranean Basin at the time of Christ.
Wikipedia said:Old Iranian magu- is also identified as the origin of the Latin word magus, a "magian". Through the Greek adjective μαγικός magikos and Old French magique, 'mobed' is distantly related to the English language word "magic".
Wikipedia said:Magi (/ˈmeɪdʒaɪ/; Latin plural of magus) is a term, used since at least the 6th century BCE, to denote followers of Zoroastrianism or Zoroaster. The earliest known usage of the word Magi is in the trilingual inscription written by Darius the Great, known as the Behistun Inscription. Old Persian texts, pre-dating the Hellenistic period, refer to a Magus as a Zurvanic, and presumably Zoroastrian, priest.
Pervasive throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia until late antiquity and beyond, mágos, "Magian" or "magician," was influenced by (and eventually displaced) Greek goēs (γόης), the older word for a practitioner of magic, to include astrology, alchemy and other forms of esoteric knowledge. This association was in turn the product of the Hellenistic fascination for (Pseudo‑)Zoroaster, who was perceived by the Greeks to be the "Chaldean", "founder" of the Magi and "inventor" of both astrology and magic, a meaning that still survives in the modern-day words "magic" and "magician".
Search for support:
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Al Het said:
It would seem that what was needed, and what they had, was a specific knowledge that could not be deduced through wisdom, or any other natural means.
Perhaps known from prior intercultural exchanges with Israel.
Thanks Al Het - I appreciate your post.
"The Christian mind is the prerequisite of Christian thinking. And Christian thinking is the prerequisite of Christian action." - Harry Blamires, 1963
0 -
Al Het said:
The Greek text of Matthew 2 simply says, "We saw His star in the East, so we came..."
Please read v.7 that provides more clarity that there was a visible change in the night sky.
Stars don't just rise like that. They're at the same position every night. Planets (which also tend to be called stars) do rise, but do so at given intervals, so a rising planet is not really spectacular.
The Greek can't mean "east" in a literal sense, since the Magi followed the star (v.9) and they clearly travelled westward.
Al Het said:I understand the desire to have all the people involved in the "Christmas story" be great, or at least people of good repute.
King Herod surely doesn't fall into that category, and he was also involved.
Al Het said:Magicians would certainly be looked down on in first century Israel, as the OT specifically warns against practicing magic.
Now, that's speculation again. Just because Magi is used in the sense as "magician" in other occurrences doesn't mean it is used in the same way here. The Magi came from an entirely different cultural circle than the two other Magi of the NT. There might not even exist a Greek word to express correctly what they were.
All information we have is that the Magi interpreted the stars (not against the Law), interpreted dreams (not against the Law either), and worshipped the Saviour. I don't see why this would give them a bad repute.
Giving them a good (or at least neutral) repute however doesn't condone the use of astrology and similar humbug.
0 -
If you are following this path of research, I would also recommend Signs in the Heavens by Dr. Chuck Missler. If I recall correctly, he suggests that the Magi were members of the same group of 'wise men' that Daniel belonged to during the captivity.
There are also some youtube videos of the same presentation.
The premise is very interesting. It suggests that the original Hebrew names of the stars in the constellations (when listed in order of apparent brightness) details the plan of salvation - from the virgin birth (what is now called Virgo) through the Living Water (what is now called Aquarius) ending with the Conquering Lion of the Tribe Of Judah (what is now called Leo).
Dean
0 -
Jan Krohn said:
The Greek can't mean "east" in a literal sense, since the Magi followed the star (v.9) and they clearly travelled westward.
Searched everything for:
star NEAR Bethlehem WITHIN 11 WORDS (East,Jupiter)
Lexham Bible Dictionary includes explanation of Greek phrase in Matthew 2:2. Noted BR 17:06 (Bible Review December 2001) assumes Herod's Death happened prior to 2 B.C.E along with describing Babylonian astronomical understanding, which was used for astrological predications. Thankful for old Libronix purchase of Bible Archaeological Society (BAS) magazines, which included Bible Review. Unfortunately, BAS is no longer available for purchase from Faithlife (dreaming of BAS additions to Master Journal Bundle 2.1 (1,950+ vols or future Journal Bundle)
Web site has "The Star of Bethlehem" => http://www.bethlehemstar.com/ Study, which includes
The Star of Bethlehem said:On December 25 of 2 BC as it entered retrograde, Jupiter reached full stop in its travel through the fixed stars. Magi viewing from Jerusalem would have seen it stopped in the sky above the little town of Bethlehem.
Thankful for free open source Stellarium => http://www.stellarium.org/ Jupiter and Mercury had retrograde motion so they passed by the star Regulus in the constellation Leo three times before their close conjunction with Mars in August of 2 B.C.E. (near the time of the Jewish Fall Feasts). On 25 Aug 2 B.C.E, the conjunction of Jupiter, Mars, and Mercury was visible above the Eastern horizon for less than an hour before sunrise in Babylon (so Star rising in the East description in Matthew 2:2 is literally correct as this conjunction was not visible to human eyes during daylight). In Stellarium, set location to Al Basrah, Iraq with date of 25 Aug -1 (since Stellarium has year 0, year of -1 = 2 B.C.E.). Changed location to Jerusalem to see Blood Red Moon (total lunar eclipse) during the night of 9 Jan 1 B.C.E (Stellarium year 0 with Universal Time), which was ~2 weeks after Jupiter's retrograde stop on 25 Dec 2 B.C.E in the constellation Virgo.
Searching Josephus collection for:
eclipse
Found the one eclipse reference in The Works of Josephus Notably that eclipse shortly preceded Herod's death. Nasa Lunar eclipse catalog includes 10 Jan 0000 Blood Red Moon:
FYI: Nasa Lunar eclipse catalog includes many more; the eclipse mentioned in Josephus footnote on 13 Mar 4 B.C.E. (Julian period 4710) was a partial one:
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Interestin findings. However, I do have some difficulties believing several points, and would suggest verifying those therories, as I have some doubts that
* Christ was born on 25/12
* Christ was born in the year 0000
* the year 0000 existed
* the Magi could reach Bethlehem on 6 January when they set off from Persia on 25 December
0 -
Jan Krohn said:
However, I do have some difficulties believing several points, and would suggest verifying those therories, as I have some doubts that
Jan Krohn said:* Christ was born on 25/12
Magi worshiping Christ with gifts on 25 Dec 2 B.C.E is plausible, which would have been four months after birth.
Jan Krohn said:* Christ was born in the year 0000
Stellarium shows Star of Bethlehem conjunction year as -1, which is 2 B.C.E. (B.C.). Blood Red Moon was in year 0000 (1 B.C.E), which was ~4.5 months after conjunction of Jupiter, Mars, and Mercury on 25 Aug 2 B.C.E..
Jan Krohn said:* the year 0000 existed
Gregorian calendar goes from 1 B.C.E (B.C.) to 1 C.E. (A.D.) so does not have year 0000. However, NASA eclipse catalogs and Stellarium have year 0000, which is 1 B.C.E. (B.C.)
Jan Krohn said:* the Magi could reach Bethlehem on 6 January when they set off from Persia on 25 December
Between 25 Aug 2 B.C.E and 25 Dec 2 B.C.E. is four months, which is enough travel time for a camel caravan from Persia to Jerusalem.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Jan Krohn said:
Please read v.7 that provides more clarity that there was a visible change in the night sky.
You might well be right that a "star" suddenly appeared for the first time, and that these men, who were just exceptionally wise deduced from this that, of course, a new star means the "King of the Jews" has been born. I suppose that is possible. My question to you was based on you making a certain and declarative statement about what happened. The details of what happened is nothing like clear to me. An example from your response to me:
You reasoned that, "The Greek can't mean "east" in a literal sense, since the Magi followed the star (v.9) and they clearly travelled westward." Whatever this thing was, and whatever happened here, I don't think this event was a normal, or traditional "star" (planet, OR ball of burning gas). First of all, I don't read where the passage says that they followed the star west to Jerusalem, as you implied, to meet Herod. However, perhaps they did, and it was in the west, so that they could follow it to Jerusalem. If so, it seems to have changed location, as they now followed it south to where the Christ-child was. My point is, from these few words in this passage, I don't know WHAT precisely happened, nor can we deduce that it couldn't have been first seen in the "east." However, it was clearly miraculous, not ordinary, and I wouldn't try to say precisely WHAT was going on. As an example, I once heard a preacher say that the "star" was lower than an airplane, like a hovering light, and when they got close to it, the light rapidly descended down into the house where the baby was, and that's how they knew where to go. That might well have been what happened, but I don't think he can confidently assert that from this passage.
Jan Krohn said:Al Het said:I understand the desire to have all the people involved in the "Christmas story" be great, or at least people of good repute.
King Herod surely doesn't fall into that category, and he was also involved.
Yep. You're supporting my second point for me. Unlike you would expect in a strongly cast oriented system, Herod, the ruling Jewish Prefect was the bad guy, the foil in the events that transpired. Herod was "involved," by his physical absence, his jealousy, his rage. He was not the one to see the Christ Child. He was not the one to celebrate the greatest event the world had ever seen. On the contrary. It seems like the only people the Gospel writers focus on who get to see, celebrate, and glorify God for this child were people of seeming insignificance. There were unnamed shepherds, who had an audience with the newborn baby. Luke records that some time later, an elderly widow, and a man who seemed to have little status or persuasion, saw and supernaturally understood who this baby was, and worshiped God. And then there were these guys. I'm not saying that they could not have been men of significant repute, of high status, exceptionally wise. However, it seems to me that this would require a less common use of the word "Magi," and it would also be significantly different than the rest of the things these writers were showing us about the coming of Jesus.
Born in a barn, laid in a feed trough, celebrated by the lowly, not the powerful, working class parents, rejected by the power structure, in a world where you never rise above your level in society. And yet, He was God in the flesh, the greatest man ever to walk the earth. None of this means that these men were those who would be seen as pariahs, to be avoided by the the religious people of the day. However, in my lexicons, the most common definition seems to be "magician," and them being pariahs would also fit well in the pattern of the life of Christ.
Just my take, for what it's worth.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Referring to what language as the language of origin? Assuming Old Persian, the Zoroastrian interpretation is most likely unless there is strong evidence otherwise.
Greek, specifically mid-first century Koine (common) Greek, as would be best understood by people in and around Israel. This was the language the original manuscript was written in, and people in and around Israel are well accepted as the original intended audience of this book. Further etymology of the word is somewhat less significant to me than how these particular people would have naturally understood this word in ordinary conversation.
0 -
Thanks JAL
JAL said:Perhaps known from prior intercultural exchanges with Israel.
Yeah, I believe that is the most widely believed interpretation.
There is still some mystery, though. It is not miraculous, or even particularly mysterious that these people could known that Israel was awaiting a Messiah. However, I don't know if the people of Israel knew of any celestial signs that would accompany the Messiah. It doesn't seem like there were a lot of Jews who saw a similar astronomical sign, or at least if they did, the Bible doesn't tell us about it. Whomever these Easterners were, they obviously came across some knowledge or understanding linking this star to Jesus. Don't know if they were told, if it was revealed to them by God, if they "divined" it, or if some guy found a note on the ground...
0 -
Al Het said:MJ. Smith said:
Referring to what language as the language of origin? Assuming Old Persian, the Zoroastrian interpretation is most likely unless there is strong evidence otherwise.
Greek, specifically mid-first century Koine (common) Greek, as would be best understood by people in and around Israel. This was the language the original manuscript was written in, and people in and around Israel are well accepted as the original intended audience of this book. Further etymology of the word is somewhat less significant to me than how these particular people would have naturally understood this word in ordinary conversation.
Since the Greek originally referred to Zoroastrian priests and continued to do so up to late antiquity why not assume that Zoroastrian priests is how it would be best understood in the Greek world of the first century AD?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Carefully mudding the waters, but in Persia, the Zorastrians and magi went into conflict with each other. So, I'm not sure what the meaning would be, They're the same, but not. Especially if Matthew = Antioch.
One commentary noted tha the astrology-talk came out of Herod's literary mouth. As an inducement to return to Jerusalem. I didn't check.
I supect Susan is already hot on the trail of another apologetic for next week.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
Carefully mudding the waters, but in Persia, the Zorastrians and magi went into conflict with each other. So, I'm not sure what the meaning would be, They're the same, but not. Especially if Matthew = Antioch.
One commentary noted tha the astrology-talk came out of Herod's literary mouth. As an inducement to return to Jerusalem. I didn't check.
I supect Susan is already hot on the trail of another apologetic for next week.
Ha! Ha! How did you know I was hot on the trail for another topic? Only problem, I'm busy cooking for about 19 students for tomorrow night. It will have to wait a couple of days.
Susan
0 -
Denise said:
Carefully mudding the waters, but in Persia, the Zorastrians and magi went into conflict with each other.
Ah yes, Denise, this is why I love you. Judging from my very limited library of Old Persian, magu originally referred to the priests of Media. A form of the term does appear in the Avesta. However, drawing from Wikipedia 'cause part of my library is still in boxes:
[quote]According to Robert Charles Zaehner, in other accounts, "we hear of Magi not only in Persia, Parthia, Bactria, Chorasmia, Aria, Media, and among the Sakas, but also in non-Iranian lands like Samaria, Ethiopia, and Egypt. Their influence was also widespread throughout Asia Minor. It is, therefore, quite likely that the sacerdotal caste of the Magi was distinct from the Median tribe of the same name."
Now I will grant that Zaehner is old but so is my education and on some matters my library.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
To encourage Logosians to purchase/use the older sources:
Herodotus 1:120, 128, etc
Strabo 15:3:15
Plutarch Quuast. con. 4:5:2
Dio Chrysostom 49:7
I'd suspect Josephus is closest to Matthew. Ant. 10:195, 216 in time. But not in context.
Above from ICC Mat.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0
