In article <1746.2BD37A66@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>  Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes: > Since everywhere I look, Zoroaster is suggested as being a probable > descendant of Daniel; suppose you prove he wasn't.  Ref: Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade  MAGI:   [Sneak Preview: Later still, eschatology and apocalyptics were a fertile meeting  ground for Iranian and Judeo-Christian religions, as can be seen in the famous  _Oracles of Hystaspes_, a work whose Iranian roots are undeniable and which  most likely dates from the beginning of the Christian era, probably the  second century CE (Widengren, 1968). The Zoroastrian doctrine of the Savior of  the Future (Saoshyant) was the basis for the story of the coming of the Magi  to Bethlehem in the _Gospel of Matthew_ (2:1-12).]    The Old Persian word magu, rendered in Greek by magos, is of uncertain  etymology. It may originally have meant "member of the tribe," as in the Avestan compound mogu-tbish ("hostile to a member of the tribe"). This meaning would have been further resticted, among the Medes, to "member of the priestly tribe" and perhaps to "priest" (Benveniste, 1938; Boyce, 1982). The term is probably of Median origin, given that Herodotus mentions the "Magoi" as one of the six tribes of the Medes.   For a variety of reasons we can consider the Magi to have been members of a priestly tribe of Median origin in western Iran. Among the Persians, they were responsible for liturgical functions, as well as for maintaining their knowledge of the holy and the occult. Most likely, the supremacy of the Median priesthood in western Iran became established during the time of the Median monarchy that dominated the Persians from the end of the eighth century through the first half of the sixth century BCE until the revolt of Cyrus the Great (550 BCE). The Persians were indebted to the Medes for their political and civil institutions as well. Even if hypotheses have been advanced concerning the existence of Magi of Persian origin in the Achaemenid period (Boyce, 1982), we must still maintain that they were of Median origin. This is demonstrated by the eposide of the revolt of Gaumata the Magian, mentioned by Darius I (522-486 BCE) in the inscription at Bisutun (Iran), as well as by Greek sources. Indeed, Herodotus insists on the idea of the usurpatory power of the Medes against the Persians through the conspiracy of the Magi.   The fact that the Magi may have been members of a tribe that handed down the sacerdotal arts in a hereditary fashion naturally did not exclude the possibility that some of them undertook secular prefessions. This seems to be attested by the Elamite tablets at Persepolis.   There is a theses, put forth by Giuseppe Messina, that denies that the Magi are members of an ethnic group by suggesting that they are simply members of the priesthood - a priesthood of purely Zoroastrian origin. This thesis is untenable; on the other hand, the hypothesis that their name is related to the Avestan term magavan, derived from the Gathic maga (Vedic, magha, "gift"), is not without foundation (Mole, 1963). The meaning of maga can probably be found, in conformity with the Pahlavi tradition, within the context of the concept of purity, or separation of the "mixture" of the two opposed principles of spirit and matter. The maga, which has been erroneously interpreted as "chorus," from the root mangh, which is said to mean "sing the magic song" (Nyberg, 1966) and has been rendered simply by an expression like unio mystica, seems to be an ecstatic condition that opens the mind to spiritual vision. In any case, though there may be a relation between the Old Persian term magu and the Avestan terms magavan and maga, we must maintain a clear distinction between the Magi and the Avestan priesthood. The Avesta ignores the Median or Old Persian term, despite a recent hypothesis proposed by H.W. Bailey; Old Persian inscriptions ignore the Avestan term for "priest," athravan (Vedic, athravan), even if this is  perhaps present in an Achaeminid setting in the Elamite tablets of Persepolis  (Gershevitch, 1964).   The term magu has been present in Zoroastrianism throughout its history; the Pahlavi terms mogh-mard and mobad represent its continuation. The latter in particular derives from an older form, magupati ("head of the Magi"). During the Sasanid period (third to seventh centuries CE), which saw the formation of a hierarchically organized church, the title mobadan mobad ("the high priest of high priests") came to be used to designate the summit of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.   The Magi practiced consanguineous marriage, or khvaetvadatha (Av.; Pahl., khwedodah). They also performed a characteristic funeral rite: the exposure of the corpse to animals and vultures to remove the flesh and thereby cleanse it. The corpse was not supposed to decompose, lest it be contaminated by the demons of putrefaction. This practice later became typical of the entire Zoroastrian community and led to the rise of a complex funeral ritual in Iran and among the Parsis in India. Stone towers, known as dakhmas, were built especially for this rite. During the time of Herodotus the practice of exposure of the corpse was in vogue only among the Magi; the Persians generally sprinkled the corpse with wax, then buried it. The practice was widespread, however, among the peoples of Central Asia.   The Magi were the technicians of and experts on worship: it was impossible to offer sacrifices without the presence of a Magus. During the performance of a ritual sacrifice, the Magus sang of the theogony (the Magi were possibly the custodians of a tradition of sacred poetry, but we know nothing about the relationship of this tradition to the various parts of the Avesta) and was called upon to interpret dreams and to divine the future. The Magi were also known for the practice of killing harmful, or "Ahrimanical," animals (khrafstra) such as snakes and ants. They dressed in the Median style, wearing pants, tunics, and coats with sleeves. They wore a characteristic head covering of felt (Gr. tiara) with strips on the sides that could be used to cover the nose and mouth during rituals to avoid contaminating consecrated objects with their breath (Boyce, 1982). The color of these caps, in conformity with a tradition that is probably of Indo-European origin, according to Georges Dumezil, was that of the priesthood: white.   In all likelihood, during the Achaemenid period the Magi were not in possession of a well-defined body of doctrine, and it is probable that they gradually adopted Zoroastrianism; they were most likely a clergy consisting of professional priests who were not tied to a rigid orthodoxy but were naturally inclined to eclecticism and syncretism. Nonetheless, they must have been jealous guardians of the patrimony of Zorastrian traditions. By virtue of this they were the educators of the royal princes. The wisest of them was responsible for teaching the prince the "magic of Zarathushtra, son of Horomazes" and thus the "cult of the gods." Magi who excelled in other virtues were entrusted with the education of the prince so that he would learn to be just, courageous, and master of himself.   During the Achaemenid period the Magi maintained a position of great influence, although they were certainly subordinate to the emperor. Despite several dramatic events such as the massacre they suffered after the death of Gaumata the Magian - in which, according to Herodotus (who calls himself Smerdis), the Persians killed a large number of Magi to avenge the usurpation - the Magi nevertheless managed to maintain their influence at court in Media, in Persia, and in the various regions of the empire where they were stationed as a consequence of the Persian civilian and military administration.   No priesthood of antiquity was more famous than that of the Magi. They were renowned as followers of Zarathushtra (Zoroaster); as the teachers of some of the greatest Greek thinkers (Pythagoras, Democritus, Plato); as the wise men who arrived, guided by a star, at the manger of the newborn savior in Bethlehem; and as the propagators of a cult of the sun in India. But they were also known as the Chaldeans, the priesthood of Babylon, known for its occultism; this was perhaps the reason that the term magos had a pejorative sense in Greek, like "goes," "expert in the magic arts" (Bidez and Cumont, 1938). Indeed, the Chaldeans were experts in all types of magical arts, especially astrology, and had a reputation for wisdom as well as knowledge.   To understand the reasons for such various and sometimes discordant views, it is necessary to distinguish between the Magi of Iran proper and the so-called western Magi, who were later hellenized. In the Achaemenid period both must have been at least in part Zoroastrian, but the western Magi (those of the Iranian diaspora in Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Armenia), who came in contact with diverse religious traditions, must have, sooner or later and in varying degrees, been influenced by syncretic concepts.   The Greeks were familiar with both kinds of Magi and, depending on their varying concerns, would emphasize one or the other aspect of them. Classical historians and geographers, including Herodotus and Strabo, document their customs, while the philosophers dwell above all on their doctrines: dualism, belief in the hereafter, Magian cosmology and cosmogony, and their theology and eschatology. Those sources most interested in the doctrines of the Magi even speak of Zarathushtra as a Magus. In doing so they are repeating what the Magi themselves said from the Median and Achaemenid periods, when they adopted Zoroastrianism. At that time they embraced Zarathushtra as one of their own and placed themselves under his venerable name.   Zoroastrianism had already undergone several profound transformations in the eastern community by the time of the Acheamenids and was already adapting those elements of the archaic religion that refused to die. It has been said quite often, in an attempt to characterize the precise role of the Magi in the Zoroastrian tradition, that the Vendidad (from vi-daevo-data, "the law-abjuring daivas"), part of the Avesta, should be attributed to them. (This collection of texts from various periods is primarily concerned with purificatory rules and practices.) Nonetheless, the hypothesis is hardly plausible, since the first chapter of the Vendidad - a list of sixteen lands created by Ahura Mazda, the supreme god of Zoroastrianism, but contaminated by an attack by Ahriman (Pahl.; Gathic-Avestan, Angra Mainyu), the other supreme god and the ultimate source of all evil and suffering - does not mention western Iran, Persia, or Media (the land of Ragha mentioned in the text cannot be Median Raghiana). Furthermore, it has been noted (Gershevitch, 1964) that if the authors had been Magi the absence of any reference to western Iranian institutions, including their own priesthood, would be very strange.   The Magi were above all the means by which the Zoroastrian tradition and the corpus of the Avesta have been transmitted to us, from the second half of the first millennium BCE on. This has been their principal merit. We can attribute directly to the Magi the new formulation that Iranian dualism assumed, known to us especially from Greek sources and, in part, from the Pahlavi literature of the ninth and tenth centuries CE. According to this formulation, the two poles of the dualism are no longer, as in the Gathas, Spenta Mainyu ("beneficent spirit") and Angra Mainyu ("hostile spirit") but Ahura Mazda himself and Angra Mainyu (Gershevitch, 1964). [See Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu.] This trans- formation was of immense consequence for the historical development of Zoro- astrianism and was most likely determined by the contact of the Magi with the Mesopotamian religious world. In this new dualism - which was that later known to the Greeks (Aristotle, Eudemus of Rhodes, Theopompus, and others) - we can see the affirmation of a new current of thought within Zoroastrianism, to which we give the name Zurvanism. [See Zurvanism.]   Thanks to their adherence to Zoroastrianism, the Magi played an enormously important role in the transmission of Zarathushtra's treachings, as well as in the definition of the new forms that these would assume historically. Their natural propensity to eclecticism and syncretism also helped the diffusion of Zoroastrian ideas in the communities of the Iranian diaspora. The Greeks began to study their doctrines and to take an interest in them (Xanthus of Lydia, Hermodorus, Aristotle, Theopompus, Hermippus, Dinon), even writing treatises on the Persian religion, of which only the titles and a few fragments have survived. In the Hellenistic period, the Magi were seen as a secular school of wisdom, and writings on magic, astrology, and alchemy were lent the authority of such prestigious names as Zarathushtra, Ostanes, and Hystaspes, forming an abundant apocryphal literature. (Bidez and Cumont, 1938).   Later still, eschatology and apocalyptics were a fertile meeting ground for Iranian and Judeo-Christian religions, as can be seen in the famous _Oracles of Hystaspes_, a work whose Iranian roots are undeniable and which most likely dates from the beginning of the Christian era, probably the second century CE (Widengren, 1968). The Zoroastrian doctrine of the Savior of the Future (Saoshyant) was the basis for the story of the coming of the Magi to Bethlehem in the _Gospel of Matthew_ (2:1-12). [See Saoshyant.]   The Sasanid period saw the Magi once again play a determining role in the religious history of Iran. Concerned to win back the western Magi (de Menasce, 1956), and eager to consolidate Zoroastrianism as the national religion of Iran, the priests of Iranian sanctuaries in Media and Persia were able to establish a true state church, strongly hierarchical and endowed with an orthodoxy based on the formation of a canon of scriptures. The leading figures in the development of a state religion and of Zoroastrian orthodoxy were Tosar and Kerder, the persecutors of Mani in the third century.