411 Magi Story,” in The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context (ed. J. Fotopoulos; Leiden 2006) 330–45. Daniel James Waller B. Rabbinic Judaism Rabbinic literature (particularly the Babylonian Tal- mud) uses the term amgusha (related to Old Pers. magu-; Gr. μάγος (magos); Lat. magus; Syriac (magu- sha); Parthian mgw-; and Pahlavi mow and mog; Ro- senthal: 74 n. 25), alongside the term h ø abara, drawn from the biblical phrase h ø over h ø aver (Deut 18:11; Ro- senthal: 71–72 n. 23), to refer, either generically or more specifically, to the Zoroastrian priesthood (Mokhtarian: 95). Not unlike the multifaceted and variegated por- trayals of the magi in Greco-Roman literature (see “Magi II. Greco-Roman Antiquity”) and the NT (in Acts 13:6–8, for example, the magi figure in a ge- neric and pejorative sense of magicians, while in Matt 2 they bear more distinctive characteristics and are portrayed in a more positive light; see “Magi III. New Testament”), the different portrayals of the Zoroastrian priesthood in the Talmud are not cut from the same cloth. In some sources, they are de- picted in generic terms as magicians (see, e.g., bMQ 18a identifying Pharaoh as a magus), while in others they bear more distinctive features connected with the Zoroastrian priesthood (see below). While in most talmudic sources, the magi are portrayed in negative, hostile, and unflattering terms (see, e.g., bQid 72a portraying the magi as angels of destruc- tion; bSan 98a and bShab 139a connecting the magi with haughtiness; bPes 113b describing the magi as hateful), in others they are portrayed in more neu- tral terms (see, e.g., bYom 35a and bHul 62b, associ- ating the magi with the ambiguous term parwah, for which see Secunda: 89–90 and Kiel 2017: 11– 12). While some talmudic references to the magi re- flect confrontational and polemical rhetoric, in the course of which the rabbis attempt to construct their religious identity against the foil of a real or imagined Zoroastrian other, in other cases the Tal- mud draws the magi closer, by thinking “with” the magi and appropriating their figure to reflect on internal rabbinic concerns. The Talmud (bShab 75a) records a dispute be- tween the third-century rabbinic authorities Rav and Samuel concerning the nature of “Magianism” (amgushata): one position holds that it is connected with sorcery (h ø arashei ), while the other holds that it is connected with blasphemy (giddufei ). The debate is connected in the Talmud with a statement attrib- uted to Rav Zutra b. Tuvia in the name of Rav, ac- cording to which one who learns as much as a single utterance/word (davar) from a magus is liable to the death penalty (although, to be sure, this extreme rhetoric is used rather freely in rabbinic literature). It is possible to understand these rabbinic state- ments as broadly situated within the context of Greco-Roman depictions of magi as magicians and 412 sorcerers (see “Magi II. Greco-Roman Antiquity”). It is also possible, however, that the Talmud is grap- pling here with the peculiarities of Zoroastrian priestly recitation of the Avesta and Zand (Secunda: 44). The latter interpretation is especially likely in- sofar as the editorial layer of the talmudic discus- sion is concerned, in which context the redactors attempt to define the halakhic status of amgushata, i.e., should it be classified as a form of sorcery, in which case it may be taught but not practiced, or as a form of blasphemy, in which case it may neither be taught nor practiced (Secunda: 72). It must be stressed, however, that rabbinic reflection on the halakhic status of Zoroastrian priestly recitation does not necessarily imply actual learning encoun- ters between Zoroastrians and Jews (cf. Secunda: 42–50). In several talmudic passages, the magi are more closely associated with distinctive Zoroastrian fea- tures. Thus, bBB 58a refers to “a magus (amgusha) who used to exhume the deceased,” which is likely a reference to the Zoroastrian religious obligation to exhume corpses, so as to circumvent the contami- nation of the sacred element of earth, a practice am- ply attested in Zoroastrian, Christian, and Jewish sources in antiquity (Herman 2010b: 31–60). Simi- larly, bSan 39a reports that “a magus (amgusha) said to Amemar: from your waist upwards belongs to Hormiz (= Ohrmazd), from your waist downwards belongs to Ahreman,” thus attributing to the magi not simply a dualistic mindset, but a distinctive the- ology of anatomically-based dualism characteristic of contemporaneous Zoroastrian thought (Secunda: 136–37). Another passage (bSot 22a), which is part of a broader talmudic discussion concerning the rel- ative merit of recitation vs. analytical study of the Oral Torah, associates the tanna (rabbinic reciter/ transmitter of traditions) with the magus, reasoning that “the magus mumbles (ratin amgusha), but does not understand what he is saying, and (similarly) the rabbinic reciter recites (tanei tanna) and knows not what he is saying.” Indeed, similar tensions be- tween reciters and those engaged in analytical study are attested in Pahlavi and Syriac literature (Vidas: 150–66), while the very same terminology (retna, tanna) is employed in the Syriac sources to describe Zoroastrian priestly recitation (Rosenthal: 72–73 n. 23; Greenfield). In this case, the rabbis find the magi simply useful “to think with.” Even the more specific references to the magi contained in the Talmud, which associate the amgu- sha or h ø abara with distinctive Zoroastrian features, do not seem to reflect, on the whole, detailed rab- binic engagement with the subtleties and nuances of the functions and titles of the Zoroastrian priest- hood, among which we note the scholar-priest (he¯ r- bed), priestly student/reciter (ha¯ wišt), ritual priest (a¯ sro¯ ), judge (da¯ dwar), spiritual authority/confessor (rad and dastwar), and administrative priest (mow, Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 17 © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2019 Brought to you by | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Authenticated Download Date | 11/6/19 5:00 PM