After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
Three Magi: Not what they seem?
They were Zoroastrian priests, astrologers, magicians, ancient shamans from the courts of ancient Persia. They were the equivalent of Merlin of Britain. They were sorcerers, high-ranking officials, but definitely not kings. Quite possibly, they were queens. We’ve always pictured them with elaborate, exotic, unusual clothing, quite festive, highly decorated and accessorized! Also, the wise eunuchs, shamans, holy men were the only ones who had the forethought to go shopping before they visited the baby Jesus!
They also have shamanistic dreams. They deceive evil King Herod and actually play the precise role that many other prominent eunuchs play in the Bible: they rescue the prophet, this time the Messiah of God, and foil the evil royal plot against God’s anointed.-Wilson
My guess is that they were people who today would be termed transwomen-Mollenkott
The reflection at Jesus in Love also considers two other unconventional thoughts on the Epiphany, from two striking artworks. One is an image showing a multiracial group of three wise women, reflecting the importance of the outsider in the nativity story, and another showing Saints Francis and Aloysius bringing as gifts people with AIDS, possibly gay men. You can read Kitt’s full reflection at Jesus in Love. Here, I want to stay with the eunuch/trans theme.
Are Wilson and Mollenkott correct in their hypothesese? I find both plausible. (In many Middle Eastern religions, the practitioners of religious magic, the shamans, were typically cross-dressers, eunuchs, or those whom today would be called gay or lesbian). However, I don’t think it really matters. For me, it is sufficient that the might be, as this forces us to recognize how easily we fall into the trap of accepting without question the standard hetero assumptions behind the usual interpretations of scripture. If there is no definite proof that the Magi were in any sense queer, is there any compelling evidence that they were not - that is, do we know for certain that they were what we would call heterosexual, biological males?
There is a great deal to think about in this. First off, in the modern world we easily forget how commonplace eunuchs and cross-dressing were throughout the Mediterranean world, in Biblical times and beyond. (Two further signs of this are that in the Orthodox Church, yesterday was the feast day of St Apollinaria /Dorotheos, one of the group of Eastern cross-dressing monastic women, and on Christmas Eve was the feast of SS Protus and Hyacinthus, eunuch slaves who were crucified alongside their mistress St Eugenia / Eugenios - another of the cross-dressing female monks). Other notable eunuchs in scripture include Daniel the prophet and Ashpenaz, the chief eunuch who controlled him; Daniel’s three companions, renowned for their ordeal in the burning fiery furnace; the prophet Nehemiah, who returned to Jerusalem to rebuild God’s temple; possibly Potiphar, who bought Joseph from the Ishmaelites who took him from his brothers; and in the New Testament, Philip the Ethiopian, who received the assurance that “all are welcome”.
Even in reading of “eunuchs”, we make assumptions. There is some good evidence that of the 45 references to eunuchs in the Old Testament, not all refer to those who had been physically castrated, as we would interpret the word. In this view, the word includes those that simply are sexually attracted exclusively to other men - people the modern world would describe as gay. (See Faris Malik, Eunuchs are Gay Men, for an extended discussion).
When we read scripture without questioning those assumptions, we simply assume that the stories we read can be interpreted as if they were set in modern conditions. They cannot. To the people who object that we are making scandalous assumptions when we give them queer readings, the simple response is that the standard hetero interpretations may have even less sure foundation in historical evidence.
As I reflected on Kitt’s post and pictures, I remembered that beyond the liturgical sense, there is another meaning to the word “epiphany”: this refers in common parlance to a new insight, a new way of seeing things. When we read Scripture and church history with a deliberate effort to set aside the unwarranted assumptions that underlie the usual heteronormative, we can find in them fresh insights - in short, new “epiphanies” of understanding.
Later, I had yet another thought on the Magi: what every school child knows about these is that they came “bearing gifts”. If we think of them as queer, in any sense, let us also consider the lesson that contains. We as gay men, lesbian and trans Christians in faith have distinctive spiritual gifts to share with the church. Instead of hiding in shame and fear, we need to be out, proud, and celebrating those gifts.
Recommended Books:
Goss, Robert (ed): Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible
Mollenkott, Virginia Ramey: Omnigender: A Trans-religious Approach
Wilson, Nancy: Our Tribe: Queer Folks, God, Jesus and the Bible
Related articles
- Queer Eye for the Magi (Jesus in Love Blog)
- Joseph and His Fabulous Queer Technicolour Dreamcoat (Queer Saints and Martyrs)
- Daniel the Prophet (Queer Saints and Martyrs)
- Three Young Men and the Burning Fiery Furnace (Queer Saints and Martyrs)
- The Queer Lesson of Nehemiah: Rebuild God’s Church(Queer Saints and Martyrs)
- Nov 1st: All (Gay) Saints (Queering the Church)
- Christ’s Queer Family (Queering the Church)
- Queer Gods, Demigods and Their Priests: The Middle East (Queering the Church)
Happy Epiphany and thank you for quoting and linking to my
Epiphany reflection. I just posted an
updated version. Among the improvements
are links to this post and your piece on St. Apollinaria /Dorotheos, some
additional thoughts sparked by your comments — plus some fun new material on the
fabulous Balthazar. Here’s the link to
the updated version:
Epiphany: Queer eye for the Magi
http://jesusinlove.blogspot.com/2012/01/epiphany-queer-eye-for-magi.html
Firstly, Zoroastrian astrologers, which the so-called three wise men seemed to be, were generally NOT eunuchs. Some were married and had kids.
Secondly, I think you are getting your epochs and your empires/kingdoms confused. The most striking evidence of transgendered holy folk from around that time and around that area was unearthed in Catalhoyuk in what was Phrygia, but is now Central Turkey, Anatolia in other words. These are the forebears of the Galli that Catullus speaks of in one of his poems, the number eludes me at present.
They were devotees of the (Roman) goddess Cybele (who may have been known as Kybele), the great mother, and were well known as males who castrated themselves, took on women’s apparal and manners, and generally got up to no good, involving a lot of blood (see Taurobolium). There is evidence that a Hellenistic version of the Galla existed as devotees of Hecate and Rhea, but this would not mean they came from the East.
In my NRSV (Catholic, Anglicised version) there is no reference to the number of men that visited, but the text states “wise men” however, in the footnotes this is translated as “astrologers; Gk. magi”.
The word eunuch is quite emotive for a lot of people, not least trans women. I use four scriptural references to debunk the anti-trans religious rhetoric; Isaiah 56:3-5 (this is quite explicit that it refers to those males who are castrated in some way); Matthew 19:11-12; Acts 8:27-39; Galatians 3:28. I have read my bible in trying to understand the hatred that queer folk are subject to from the religious right, and it woiuld seem to me that transphobia has very, very little grounding in scripture. The Deuteronomy verse about wearing opposite sex clothing is rather pithy to say the least, besides, as Christians, are we not beholden to the teachings of Jesus expounded in the Gospels and refined by others in the other books? Did not Jesus say He, or more correctly His teaching, was the apogee of the Law?
To my mind this means the Law as written in the Hebrew scriptures, has been sort of sucked into a black hole and arrived at the singularity, which is Christ, and everything that the Law means now comes from Jesus Himself; God. I don’t discount the so-called Old Testament, but HAVE to read it as per my duty as a Christian, in light of the Christ.
But I digress, back to the eunuchs
It was a word used for many purposes; the Galla, as described above, were and are called eunuchs by the uninitiated, and they are so obviously trans. Indeed, a skeleton was unearthed in York I believe, a biologically male skeleton, with female grave accoutrements. It was labelled a eunuch by unthinking archaeologists immediately.
But the word has also been interpreted to mean as you point out Terence, men with a lack of desire for the woman. To our modern minds this may very well indicate gay men, but might it not also mean men who have no sexual desire whatever? This would have appeared very strange to our ancient cousins, when reproduction was vital to the community.
Despite the arguments for another meaning though, for me personally, the word eunuch in scripture means trans. Nothing else.
Thanks, Jennifer, four your helpful and thoughtful feedback.
I confess, I have little personal expertise in this: I simply report and reflect on what I have read elsewhere, often at second hand (for instance, I have not yet had access to Nancy Wilson’s book “Our Tribe”, although that will soon change: I have it on order).
I do hope to flesh out my knowledge on this quite substantially in the coming months. Meanwhile, I wonder if you would care to flesh out these thoughts on an important subject into an independent post of your own?
Hmm, see my email
On the Magi however, I don’t know if you read Thinking Faith, but Jack Mahony has written a splendid piece over at the Jesuit’s (British) website (http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20111220_1.htm) It’s really rather good
Thanks for the link, Jennifer. You’re right, it really is good. It’s message of “Journeying in hope” is an important one. It’s also helpful in its tracing of how the current popular perception of three very specific kings developed from Matthew’s simple reference to “wise men from the east”,