That’s true, but the Orthodox Church do not follow traditions of men, but the Holy Tradition of God referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:2, and Thessalonians 2:15.
However, since
@prodromos has superbly addressed this digression (which as we shall see, was unwarranted), and since my post made no mention of Western Biblical folklore such as the charming if unlikely names Caspar, Melchior and Balshazar (the mere mention of which was a red herring), I shall address your objection scripturally using literal-historical hermeneutics stressed by the school of Antioch, which many Western Christians seem to use exclusively (although whether or not one is more familiar with their origins in third century Antioch and their juxtaposition with the typological-prophetic method stressed by the catechetical school of Alexandria would depend on whether or not you benefitted from a seminary or theological education that addressed the early church and the history of scriptural hermeneutics, which Orthodox clergy receive and which one also finds fairly frequently among Anglican clergy and other scholarly Protestant clergy from a seminary that puts some emphasis on Patristics and ecclesiastical history, such as Nashotah House in the US).
Now, herein we see why this whole tangent concerning tradition was in fact unwarranted, for the simple fact is that in authoritatively declaring these men to be three Zoroastrian clergy, I was not in fact making reference to Orthodox tradition (although I was also not consciously contradicting it, so far as I am aware (nor would I consider doing so; indeed if my pious Orthodox brother
@prodromos notices any error in the following rationale from an Orthodox perspective I will change it immediately):
Rather, the reason for my authoritative declaration that the men in question were Zoroastrian clergy requires that we momentarily set aside the familiar comforts of the KJV with its exquisite literary style, yet also its manifold flaws and ambiguities, and instead repair to the Koine Greek original text, we will find the word the KJV translates as wise men is μάγοι, which in ancient Greece referred to primarily to Zoroastrian clergy, and secondarily to occult practitioners such as astrologers and sorcerers, for example, Simon Magus (it is the root of the word ”magic”), although the main Greek word for such a person was φαρμακός.*
This word was also used by Herodotus in reference to one of the tribes of the Medes (Persians) but only on one occasion, and it could well be that the group he was referring to was in fact the Zoroastrian clergy, since Mobeds (the Persian word from which μάγοι is derived), like the Kohanim of Judaism, are a hereditary caste, even in modern day Zoroastrianism with its dwindling population.
Broadly speaking if one is familiar with the Zoroastrian religion and customs and those of related dualist religions such as Mandaeism, as well as Persian culture (which I have intimate and personal knowledge of through very close friends) it is not difficult to see how such a secondary meaning attached to the word, although I would note that the formal duties of μάγοι do not constitute what most people would regard as φαρμακεία unless one takes a very uncharitable definition of all historical religious ritual.
Nonetheless, Zoroastrian clergy is the polite way I could think of referring to the three μάγοι, who demonstrated their morality by their deeds, particularly in comparison to the only other example of a Magus mentioned in Scripture, Simon Magus.
Thus, while it would not be a stretch to refer to Simon Magus as a φαρμακός, there is no evidence to suggest that the Three Magi were φαρμακεία, and thus I cannot in good conscience refer to the three μάγοι using any term, including Wise Men, which historically was often synonymous with φαρμακοὶ, to refer to them.(particularly since referring to them in such a way as to imply they were φαρμακοὶ would Scripturally associate them with what the KJV refers to as “dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie”,(Revelation 22:15) and that would not do in this case, and indeed for this reason the KJV should not have referred to them, I would argue, as wise men, given the historically negative connotations the phrase has attracted).**
So yes, I will assert that my statement that the men were, at least before meeting our Lord, Zoroastrian clergy (or to be more precise, mobeds) is an authoritative statement of fact, since the alternative is to assert that they were immoral occult practitioners whose vocation will lead to their damnation, which would be slanderous and which is counter-indicated by their behavior as recorded in scripture. For either they are magi in the sense of pharmakoi, and thus are immoral, or they are magi in the sense of Mobeds, that is to say, Zoroastrian clergy or members of the clerical hereditary caste, who practice a religion which in many respects appears to be a corrupt form of the ancient Hebrew religion but shares some concepts with it, which are lacking from other ancient religions, and most people have historically found actual mobeds, which is the most literal definition of the Greek word μάγοι, to be fairly respectable (it being likely that Simon Magus was not in fact a mobed but rather a φαρμακός who styled himself a Μάγος.
* It is amusing to consider the reaction a citizen of the Eastern Roman Empire, especially those of Jewish or Christian persuasion, would have to the contemporary English speaking world, where in North America at least, the word Pharmacy is commonly used to refer to those places which dispense prescription medication, and pious Jews and Christians receive, with the respective rabbinical and ecclesiastical blessing, doctorates in Pharmacy, often from universities associated with their religion. As an Orthodox Christian, I somewhat prefer the English term chemist, although even this has occult connotations, and also causes confusion with actual practitioners of chemistry. The use in continental Europe of the term “Apothecary” might be closer to being ideal. But the historical term for pharmacies in the US, “drug store”, which remains in use at present, seems to be the most appropriate, although even here I’m sure we could find something etymologically troubling if we looked with sufficient zeal (especially in the modern context given the problem of illicit drugs).
**That is not even taking into account the contemporary usage of “wise guy” in the US to refer to members of organized crime, or more broadly, to people who are unethically clever, which is novel in its specifics, but more generally well-established with regards to its derogatory context.
