Remix.run Logo
bambax 2 days ago

> "Magi" were priests of Zoraster

That's the etymology of the word, but there is no indication in the gospel of Matthew (the only one to even mention this) that it's a reference to Persia.

That would be like saying when anyone who mentions "algorithm" is really talking about Uzbekistan, because al-Ḵwārizmī means 'the man of Ḵwārizm' (now Khiva).

wahern a day ago | parent [-]

AFAIU, in Ancient Greek culture Magi were often considered like Plato's Philosopher Kings. Greeks didn't have an accurate understanding of Zoroastrianism or the structure of Persian government, but for some reason they saw Persian leaders, and Magi in particular, as possessing a synthesis of political, religious, philosophical and scientific virtues. For example, they thought Persian leaders' grasp of astronomy meant the laws they promulgated were what we might call today, science-based. Magi represented idealized leadership rooted in reason, similar to the way today people of one country like to point at some other country du jour as an exemplar of rational governance, especially when critiquing their own government or society.

Aristotle and others specifically said that the Magi did not practice metaphysical sorcery. They believed the Magi could, for example, divine the future, but doing so through their study of astronomy (i.e. their science-y astrological knowledge).

The biblical account of the Magi and the star they followed perfectly matches the mythos of Persian Magi in Greek culture. The story itself tells the reader not only that those rational leaders over yonder were convinced about the importance of Jesus, but that they knew because "science" revealed it to them.

nivertech 15 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think there was a distinction between science, magic and religion (or rather, cults, since there were no organized religions in the modern sense).

wahern 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, modern science wasn't a thing, per se; would have been part of natural philosophy and not well delineated. But philosophy, religion, and magic were broadly speaking understood as distinct, similar to today, at least from the perspective of the learned, and notwithstanding some esoteric cults (which also exist today). This is fairly obvious from the works that have survived, from Plato, Lucian (Syrian satirist), and many others, because they distinguish them similar to how we do today. Even atheists likely were also somewhat common, though it definitely wasn't something discussed as heavily as today. Plato specifically and literally mentions atheism--in Laws he says it's a typical phase for young adults, though it may be more fairly understood today as shirking, loose disbelief, or agnosticism. It's a fair deduction that Lucian was an atheist as we understand that term, and the popularity of his work strongly suggests atheism, or at least skepticism of religion and magic, were widespread.

Point being, while our particular categories aren't perfect fits for the ancient and classical worlds, the general human and cultural dynamics were quite similar. They weren't unsophisticated rubes blind to their own ignorance; not much more, if at all, than we are today. What really distinguishes us is our wealth, and how a much larger fraction of our society has the opportunity to study and debate ideas like patricians and philosophers of yore.

nivertech 12 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't know about ancient philosophers, but for ordinary folks there was no distinction between a religious scholar and a scientist (both were learned men who read books). This still happens today, when many people mix history and genetics with religion and politics.

If you have some relevant references that would be helpful.

wahern 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It's difficult to know specifically what ordinary folks believed, let alone the literati. But as you said, even today people mix religion and politics even when they at least superficially understand them as distinct and separable. I think starting from the assumption that people today, at a fundamental level, think and behave the same as people from millennia ago, is a good starting point, just as it's a good starting point when understanding different cultures and ethnic groups today. When we depart from that initial assumption, even with good intentions (e.g. some other culture is more rational, etc), prejudice rapidly creeps in. But it's a choice, nonetheless, and can lead in different directions.

AFAIU, many historians believe, at least tacitly, that atheism wasn't a thing in the ancient world, and therefore that religious and mystical ideas were unconsciously and hopelessly intertwined and melded with other knowledge and beliefs, at least much more than today (assuming they even admit we still do it today). Probably because they understand atheism, and implicitly agnosticism and religious skepticism, as a modern ideology; which, as an "ideology", it is, but that's skipping ahead a few steps. They look for evidence to refute that assumption, and it's relatively scant (though not non-existent), for all the reasons most of history is lost to us. But if you start from the opposite assumption, that people think and behave similarly, I think the evidence strongly supports that the same intellectual dynamics were at play, certainly among the learned. Emphases and perspectives are different--even today each generation is more interested in certain questions than others. And of course literacy and, presumably, exposure to diverse ideas was less common (that was my point about wealth). But AFAICT and IMHO all the same threads are there, the distribution is just different. If you were teleported to 100 BC, I'm confident you could find people with very modern ideas and perspectives, they'd just might be more difficult to locate. But I think even the general milieu wouldn't be too foreign, depending on time and place. (If you teleported to the US during one of the Great Awakenings, the milieu would be much more religious than at other earlier and later times.)

What definitely stands out in the surviving works is that atheism was generally cast in a negative light. While there's often open derision of magic and aspects of foreign and cult religions, religion was generally understood as an important element of a healthy polity. Though, in Plato's works its arguably (IMO conspicuously) ambiguous whether sincere belief is necessary, or just tacit acceptance and active participation in rituals. But none of that is unlike the situation until 50-100 years ago in the modern Western world.

Anyhow, among the few books that directly speak to this topic are Atheism in Pagan Antiquity (1922), https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/28312, and Atheism at the Agora: A History of Unbelief in Ancient Greek Polytheism (2023). They contain lots of references and quotations to classic works. The first book I came across via Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9gtbs6/comme...