This time of year, we start turning towards the events surrounding Christ’s nativity. One of those events was the visit of the Magi to Bethlehem. As with a lot of things, I tend to take a different view of who they were and why they came than tradition says.
About two years after Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem Ephratah (and there is no legitimate reason to assume other than the Scriptural account of the location of His birth), His mother, adopted father and He were visited by a group of men identified in the Gospel of St. Matthew only as “magoi” in the Greek who had come from the east. The text says that they had followed a star looking for the birth of a new born “King of the Judeans”, and that they had initially gone to King Herod’s palace looking for Him, only having been directed to Bethlehem after Herod had consulted with scribes and priests to determine where the Jewish “Mashiach” would be born.
While Christian tradition has given us a particular image of who these men were (three kings or Zoroastrian magi), there is nothing in Matthew’s text to support that image other than the term “magoi”, often rendered “magi” or the more vague and slightly euphemistic “wise men.” There is no account of the number of these travelers to support that there were only three. The word “magos” (the singular form) in Greek refers principally to a class of Zoroastrian priests, practitioners of astrology, centered in the area of Persia. For this reason, it also refers more generally to someone as a “wizard”, “sorceror”, “mage”, or a practitioner of the magical arts. Another example of the word used in the New Testament is in the Acts of the Apostles referring to “Simon the Magos” (often rendered “Simon the Sorcerer”) in Samaria. It appears clear that Simon was neither Persian in origin nor a Zoroastrian priest.
The Magi were regarded with extreme renown in their own homeland as scholars, magicians, astrologers, and priests. They were some of the most educated of their people and heavily involved in politics. But in all of the reading I have done on the subject, I have not once encountered a single extra-Biblical account of Zoroastrian Magi traveling outside of their homeland, much less for two years along the caravan routes across the Middle East, to honor newborn royalty they didn’t know (if anyone has such evidence, I would be happy to look at it).
Furthermore, the trip on foot across the land trade routes between a location in ancient Persia (such as Babylon, for example) only runs about 1200 miles, give or take. Figuring 20 miles a day on foot with a caravan, using Google maps to calculate it (as most of those ancient roads are still in service), the trip would take approximately two weeks and no more than a month, not one to two years as is implicated by the Biblical text. But those roads went farther east than just Babylon or ancient Persia. They went all the way to China even then. For this reason, the idea that these were literal Zoroastrian Magi doesn’t fit the description. In order to fit the time frames involved we must go farther east than ancient 1st century Persia.
In fact, there is one particular religious group also practiced with astrology that perhaps does fit the scant identifiers given. It is a little discussed fact among Christian theologians and pastors that Buddhism not only existed but flourished during this period (having been established by Gautama Siddharta around 500 B.C.E.) in what is now Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, and India. More than this, there is evidence that they regularly sent missionaries westward as far as Egypt. One region and group in particular that seems to fit is that of Ghandara around what is now Kabul in Afghanistan.
This region was conquered by Alexander the Great in 327 B.C.E. and later would become a part of the Indo-Greek kingdoms of the period. It also became a major center for the practice of Indo-Greek Buddhism, patronized by the rulers of the period, Menander I and his successors. One interesting note about Ghandaran Buddhism is its focus on the boddhisatva Metteya, the prophesied successor to Gautama Siddharta (the Buddha), from approximately 30-375 C.E.
About Maitreya, it is written that the Buddha said before he died:
And the Blessed One replied: “I am not the first Buddha who came upon earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious, knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal truths which I have taught you. He will preach his religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax, and glorious at the goal, in the spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure; such as I now proclaim.”
Ananda said: “How shall we know him?”
The Blessed One said: “He will be known as Metteya, which means 'he whose name is kindness.'”
(The Gospel of Buddha XCVII:12-15)5
It is a well established fact that to this day, Tibetan Buddhists will search far afield for reincarnations of previous teachers known as “lamas”. One of the more sensational occurrences of this is that depicted in the film “Little Buddha” which was based on the true story of a group of Tibetan monks who believed they had found the reincarnation of a great lama in a boy from Washington state in the United States.
It makes more sense to me, based on the scant details given, that these “magoi” described in the Gospel of St. Matthew were in fact Buddhist monks from either Ghandara or somewhere in the surrounding region. They were actively looking for the coming of the man they believed to be the Buddha’s successor (and it appears that at least after 30 C.E. believed that they had found him). When the star appeared, probably after much debate, they set out to follow it from “the east”. Not being aware of local Judean, much less Roman, politics, and assuming that the new boddhisatva would be born a prince (which would be a reasonable assumption since Siddharta was also born a prince), they traveled first to King Herod’s palace assuming that the new prince would be his son. They would not have known Herod the Great’s reputation. When inquiring about the new born prince, it is possible that they might have included in their explanation the Pali form of the name, “Metteya.” An interesting point about Greek orthography and pronunciation is that the “tt” and the “ss” can be, at times, interchangeable depending on the dialect and the age. It is possible they might have explained in Greek that they were looking for the new born “Metteya” (Grk. μεττηας) and those hearing understood them to be saying “messias” which comes into English as “messiah”. This would explain why Herod and those with him inquired as to where the “Christ” would be born upon the monk’s announcement they had come to honor a newborn king.
I imagine their conversation happened along these lines:
Monks: “We have come to do homage to the newborn king of the Judeans.”
Herod: “Sorry, friend. There is no newborn prince in my house.”
Confused, the Monks reply: “We have seen his star far to the east. The Lord Metteya has been born here, we are certain of it.”
Herod, now beginning to shake a little: “Did you just say Messiah’s been born?”
Monks, not understanding the difference: “Yes.”
I imagine also that Mariam, being one of the few remaining living witnesses to their presence and St. Matthew’s only realistic source, called them simply “magoi from the east” because, in reality, she may have had little real idea who they actually were or what land they had come from not having been educated in such things being a first century woman either still in puberty or barely out of it. Furthermore, among the Greek speakers of the Mediterranean, Buddhists were referred to as either “sarmanes”, meaning “ascetics” in general, “therapeutai,” or simply “philosophers” if they were mentioned at all. It is easy for me to entertain the idea that a group of Greek speaking Buddhist monks with heavy accents, educated in astrology and with their journey possibly backed by an Indo-Greek king, traveling together might have been described by such a woman as “magoi”. That they may have been looking for a newborn Buddha might be suggested by the three gifts they presented as well. Today, Tibetan monks searching for their reincarnated lamas frequently bring a series of personal objects belonging to the deceased lama along with similar objects not having belonged to them in order to test whether or not the child in question is who they think they are. In this case, they were looking, not for a reincarnation, but for the birth of a new Buddha, and so brought gifts that might indicate the path in life the child would take should he choose them. It’s been commented on before that the gifts which were given represented either kingship, priesthood, or healing. And they would have been familiar with the prophecy made when Siddharta was an infant that he would be either a King of kings or an enlightened one. It stands to reason they wanted to be certain as to which path the child would take.
Assuming that the two year old Jesus would have passed those tests, the next obvious thing they would have done would be to invite Him and His parents to return with them to where they came from to study and possibly protect the child. To this day this is Tibetan Buddhist practice. Here however, it is clear that they did not. Speculating on this further (as this is all reasoned speculation, to be sure), given Yosef’s advanced age, and Jesus’ very young age, there is probably a good chance that they conceded that it would be too far of a journey for them to make at the moment on foot and survive, and extended an invitation for Him to take when He was old enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment