Jump to content

Talk:Biblical Magi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Homework

Some1 plz help me w/ these questions!

1.What is the feast day of the 3 kings called?

(maybe: Epiphany  ??)
  • Precisely -- Jmabel | Talk 00:21, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

2.What does this word mean? (?)

  • Use your dictionary -- Jmabel | Talk 00:21, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

3. What are the names of the three kings? (?)

4.Name their other titles (plz). (?)

  • Not sure what you have in mind. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:21, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

5.Name the town where this feast took place. (?)

  • There is no one town where the Feast of Epiphany takes place. It is the name of a holiday, not of a particular banquet. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:21, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

three?

It should be pointed out that the Scriptures refer to three gifts, not necessarily three givers; it should also be noted that types of gifts may be differentiated from multiples of the same item (much as children around the world get many pairs of socks from relatives on their birthdays).

As well as saying those names were not theirs some reference could also be made to the fact they may not have even been three.

I'd add it myself I'm not sure how to word it. But I'm sure you who have already created this fine article can take it from here! :) GarrettTalk 11:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The article already contains the text "neither their names nor their gender nor their number are given: the Greek text of Matthew refers to them merely as μαγοι απο ανατολων, 'Magi from the East'" and "The Greek Matthew does not mention their exact number, but since three gifts were given, they were thus often described as the Three Wise Men or, later even Three Kings. Alternate traditions have as few as two and as many as twelve visiting Jesus." - SimonP 14:11, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I have removed "Alternate traditions have as few as two and as many as twelve visiting Jesus" until we have something more on these "traditions". --Wetman 06:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Shepherds and the star

Among masses of chitchat unconnected to the Biblical Magi (evergreen pine, Mithra, etc) is the following speculation without the least connection: "The shepherds, who heard the angel, and who saw the host of Heaven, may have been the same Jewish shepherds who were charged with raising the prize temple sacrifices (the unblemished sheep) which the Sanhedrin used exclusively during the feast of Passover." An unbased connection even if it were relevant. --Wetman 06:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The following passage is better treated (one hopes) at Star of Bethlehem, where it belongs: "This will fulfill the promise to King David, made by God Himself, that David would "never lack a man on the throne", and later, that the Messiah's kingdom would be "forever" (made by Daniel)." Wikipedia cannot guarantee any promises as "made by God himself" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wetman (talk • contribs) 17 Nov 2005.


Solstice

Why is there any reference to the winter solstice and the winter climate in this article? The Biblical account of the Magi in Matthew makes no claim about the time of year that the Magi made their visit to Jesus. (Anon.)

Made the lack of a sostitial connection in the text more explicit.--Wetman 21:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Demon slayer?

This use reflects the priest-king's role as demon-slayer.

I removed this sentence, which was inserted by an anon at the end of the section discussing the uses of the word magus in the New Testament. First, I'm not sure what's being alleged here; that Simon Magus, Elymas, and the Three Wise Men were "demon-slayers?" It might make more sense to call Jesus a demon-slayer, but then Jesus is not called a "magus" in the NT as far as I know. Smerdis of Tlön 14:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Arguments against Brown

"Self-described Catholic Raymond E. Brown in The Birth of the Messiah lists six reasons he does not believe the Biblical account:" followed by six reasons--each of which is then followed by an argument against Brown's reasons. The arguments against seem to have first been added in this edit. Is there a citation for these? If so, it needs to be reformatted to make the source clear. If not, they should be removed as original research. Chuck 20:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Marco Polo

If this article is to reach Featured Status, it should really expand upon Polo's writing about the tombs. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 15:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Opposing views

I reverted 66.121.73.94's recent edits to this section, especially because of the way it was worded. Starting off with "But as is often the case with Jehovah's Witnesses positions..." and going from there into speculative talk just to discredit the Witnesses is not the way to do it. What is written on the Witnesses viewpoint is cited, and provides the scriptural reasons.

My responses to the poster are: If God wanted to enlighten the Magi, who, being Magi and astrologers, were practicers of something God dislikes, as to the nature of the child they already referenced as "king", why in such a way that resulted in the end of a large number of innocent children's lives and hurt families? How is the promotion and celebration of practicers of what God dislikes *not* contrary to the Bible's "internal logic"? They were reading signs from the stars, from the East, and called Magi which was used in other verses to mean sorcerer and were sent to a hostile ruler first. The Bible gives no extra commentary on them good or bad other than this and the scriptures referenced in the section, and so the burden of proof is on those claiming that they were not astrologers.

In the end, if you want to write something about common responses to these views, do so higher up in the main part of the article or in a very different way, please. Oscillate 22:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary skepticism

Anything touching religious beliefs is bound to be a sensitive subject. Still, these topics should have entries in Wikipedia. The key guidelines to follow include maintaining a neutral point of view and showing respect for the beliefs of others.

The overwhelming bulk of this article treats Matthew's story of the Magi as if it were true History. Only near the end does a section expressing doubt appear. While this is not a quantitative balance, it seems to be reasonably acceptable.

In the section "Contemporary skepticism," an extremely well-respected scholar's six reasons for doubt are listed. This is immediately followed by a quote attempting to explain away these doubts. In fact, this explanation, which is as long as the six points combined, only deals with the first point. This can hardly be considered balanced. Still, answers are usually longer than questions, so this, too, can be overlooked.

However, please note that whoever inserted the attempted explanation states that there are several creditible ones.

  1. Creditible to whom? Obviously the contributor. But his statement is merely his opinion. Others can, and do, find no strength to the explanation.
  2. This is the best of the several explanations. Yes? Says who? Again, obviously the contributor. Others may find more power in a different explanation to assuage the original scholar's doubts. And what are these other possible explanations? We are never told. Do they, in fact, even exist? It can't be demonstrated by what's here as they were never given.

So, we are told that other points could be raised, but not told what they are, told that this one is the best, on the basis of one person's opinion, and we are to be satisfied with that.

Clearly the personal opinions should be edited out.

But I didn't do that. What I did do was add one sentence at the end. In politer terms, I pointed out that the "explanation" related to events in 2 and 3 BC, but that Herod had died in 4 BC, so this "best" explanation was pointless. This was obviously too much for some people.

First my sentence was mutilated by some anonymous vandal. I restored it.

Then it was mutilated again by Oscillate who has suddenly discovered that

"The date of Herod's death is debated, with some chronologers holding that he died in 5-4 B.C., which would be before the Magi appeared, while others place his death at a later time."

I have no idea who these "chronologers" are since we are not told. Are they associates of the "top scientists" who are forever being quoted in supermarket tabloids? I could just as easily say that whether the Earth is round or flat is dabated because I can dig up somebody who says it's flat. I am unaware of any respected historian who doesn't give 4 BC as the date of Herod's death.

Be that as it may, I wouldn't have done anything about it if Oscillate hadn't wiped out my sentence when adding his own. Once again, we have a case where someone not only wishes to present his own points, but won't allow anyone else to present anything on the other side.

If Oscillate wants to add something, that's his right. Just don't vandalize my sentence. B00P 22:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the wording on your sentence reads like personal commentary, with nothing to back it up. Tell me how "Interesting as all this may be" belongs in an encyclopedia? If you would bother to follow the link I added to Herod_the_Great#Date_of_Herod.27s_death, it explains the debate. My replacement: "The date of Herod's death is debated, with some chronologers holding that he died in 5-4 B.C., which would be before the Magi appeared, while others place his death at a later time." contains your sentence in a better format, plus a link for the user to follow to see some debate on the topic. You think that's mutilation? I did not present "my viewpoint only", what I wrote well-contains your sentence without the personal commentary. Maybe "generally accepted" is better than "some chronologers", no problem with me. Let's just calm down. --Oscillate 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
How about this - "The date of Herod's death is generally accepted to be 5-4 B.C., which would be before these astronomical events of 3-2 B.C. This is debated somewhat, with a few others placing his death at a later time." ? --Oscillate 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (re-worded slighly --Oscillate 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards in that it does not cite any sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 09:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Medical gold?

From the article: "It has been suggested by biblical scholars that the "gold" was in fact in a medicinal form rather than as metal." What on Earth is medicinal gold? (Perhaps some of the "monatomic gold" crackpottery?) - Mike Rosoft 22:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

lead paragraph

There's no complete summary of the 'wise men' story. I'd like to put it in the lead paragraph. The summary of the lead paragraph is incomplete. Jonathan Tweet 02:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

too long

Let's cut the long Star of Bethlehem section and just point to the main article. Jonathan Tweet 15:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

An attempt at cleaning up

A start, at least. Mostly I fixed capitalisations (Magi not magi, since it seems to be a religious title, Messiah by the Style Guide on capitalisation says, and so on), spellings, punctuation, puttng dates into brackets, and so on. In a few places I've tweaked text to read (IMO) more smoothly or to shorten long multi-clause sentences. The one thing I hope I haven't tweaked is anyone's feelings...

To be honest I agree with Jonathan Tweet; there are too many things bundled up in this article that probably could profitably be moved to other articles or, if necessary, to new ones. Kay Dekker 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed speculation

I removed the following unsubstantiated (and illogical) speculation (removed text is in italics): After having consulted with these religious individuals, Herod is described as secretly meeting with the Magi, which while fitting with Herod's paranoid nature, does beg the question of how Matthew could possibly have known that the events took place.

Matthew certainly could have known. The Magi met with Herod, then Mary and Joseph. If the Magi were concerned for the life of the child they would have warned Mary and Joseph of Herod. Even more likely, the Magi could have simply told Mary and Joseph that Herod also wanted to "worship" the child, which may have seemed innocent enough to the foreign Magi, but would have certainly alerted the parents. Matthew could have been told this by Jesus (assuming his parents told him about it when he was older), or even by Mary herself.

--Dan East 03:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Witch of the Magi?

when i was in protestant church in younger years i do recall some talk of the magi being told by some woman, some "witch" that jesus of nazareth was to be born and to follow the shining star..

does anyone have information on this?

It might be a story from one of the books in the New Testament apocrypha. Try looking through some of the Infancy Gospels, maybe the Protevangelion of James or Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. Clinkophonist 19:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an italian folk story about the Magi encountering a witch. The story basically goes that she didn't believe the Wise Men and because of her unbelief she aged quite quickly. To undue the curse of the Wisemen she had to find the male child in the manger. When she eventually found the Christ child she set her son's items before him. The new born child called out to her as "Befano" and from that point on she was instituted into the capacity of giving treats to children throughout the world. Anyhow I am not sure but that is the only witch story I know in connection to the Magi. (71.49.41.95 02:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

Prof. Heribertus von Some again?

"To some it is about Zoroastrianism (monotheist and organized) giving its blessing to the new born Christianity." If this reading is to be in the article, it must be a report of the connection. "Some" needs some specifics. --Wetman 20:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Zoroastrianism connection is a common speculation in regards to the Magi. Though this article presents it as fact, it is only a speculation. The author of this text only presents the onesides argument of it referring to Zurvanism. However their are strong arguments for the Magi to be located from other groups and location. (71.49.41.95 03:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

Challenge to the section on Birthplace

This section makes references to disputes among "modern scholars" and "inerrantists" to suggest that there are contradictions between the narratives of Matthew and Luke, but the alleged contradictions are misrepresented and the allegations to the purported arguments are not supported. I intend to correct this section to a fairer and hopefully more accurate treatment of the subject. Any objections/comments?--Rwphan 06:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Greek vs. Roman Orthography

In this article, sometimes Greek words are spelled with Greek letters, other times with Roman letters. I would recommend that Greek letters be used first, then Roman in parentheses and in later usages.

Ben —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beniamino (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Was one of the Magi from India?

Bible historian Chuck Missler in a write-up mentions about an Armenian tradition identifying the 'Magi of Bethlehem' as Balthasar of Arabia, Melchior of Persia and Gasper of India. An English play by name “The Wise Man from India” by Mathew G Kayalackakom [1] tells the story of a person from India who was among the three ‘wise men’. The play also makes a link with the visit of St Thomas the Apostle to India. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.164.144.250 (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Islamic tradition

According to snopes.com, Islam says that there were twlve magi. There should be a mention of that and additional detail here. I'd post it myself, but I don't want to get slammed with {{Fact}} or deleted. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes ... check:

  • Hastings, J., Selbie, J. A., Davidson, A. B., Driver, S. R., & Swete, H. B. (1898). A dictionary of the Bible: dealing with its language, literature, and contents, including the Biblical theology, "Magi".. New York: C. Scribner's sons. Page 203 - 206.

It states that the eastern tradition holds that there were 12. J. D. Redding

the "Christ"

If the sentence in this article— The Gospel of Matthew states that they came "from the east to Jerusalem" to worship the Christ, "born King of the Jews"— gives you, the reader, the impression that Jesus is called "the Christ" in the text referred to, this is not unintentional. Little manipulations of text like this one have an ancient history in this field. --Wetman 19:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Greek text

What is "legonteV pou estin o tecqeiV basileuV twn ioudaiwn eidomen gar autou ton astera en th anatolh kai hlqomen proskunhsai autw" supposed to be? I don't know the Manual of Style off by heart yet but I'm fairly sure that a transliteration apparently based only on keyboard mapping, with no translation, is completely inappropriate for any article. Is there any chance someone who knows how to enter Greek characters could rectify this, and someone who understands Greek then provide a translation so that the paragraph might make sense? Leushenko 00:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I figured out the first mystery: it's not the regular encoding system for Greek text, it's a transliteration from the symbol font. In addition, it's not from Matthew 2:7 but from 2:2. This is what I've got:
λέγοντες πού εστιν ο τεχείς βασιλεύς τών Ιουδαίων; είδομεν γάρ αυτού τόν αστέρα έν ανατολή, καί ήλθομεν προσκυνήσαι αυτώ.
Saying, "Where is the one born as king of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east, and we came to worship him."
Assist on the translation from The R.S.V. Interlinear Greek-English New Testament: The Nestle Greek Text (21st edition) with a Literal English Translation by the Reverend Alfred Marshall. First Printing 1968, Eighth 1975. Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan.Tsunomaru 01:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Although traditionally the Magi, coming from the east (apo anatolón, απο ανατολων), are described as having seen a star in the east (en te anatole, έν τη ανατολη), the Greek word in question is anatole, which many scholars feel more accurately translates as a star rising in the morning, meaning a heliacal rising. See also: Note 16, pages 319 - 321. The original Greek text (Matthew 2, 1-12 and 16) you can find in: Konradin Ferrari d´Occhieppo, Der Stern von Bethlehem in astronomischer Sicht, 1994 (2. Auflage), page 137, ISBN 3-7655-9803-8. λέγοντες πού εστιν ο τεχείς βασιλεύς τών Ιουδαίων; είδομεν γάρ αυτού τόν αστέρα έν τη ανατολη (and not: έν ανατολή), καί ήλθομεν προσκυνήσαι αυτώ. Saying: "Where is the one born as king of the Jews? For we saw his star rising in the morning, and we came to worship him." -- Dietmar 15:33 13 August 2007
The paragraph in which this "Greek" text occurs is a mess. Not only, as already noted, is the transliteration wrong and the verse wrong, but the subject of the verb which the KJV translates as inquired … diligently (ἠκρίβωσεν) is Herod, not the Magi! Which makes a nonsense of the whole argument. Plus, I can find no evidence to support the assertion that ἀκριβόω "is actually a Greek technical word referring directly to astrological sciences of the time". (It can have the sense of scientific exactitude, but that is not inherent to the meaning of the word.) I have therefore cut out that material entirely. Vilĉjo 11:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Houses/Stables in Bethlehem

Regarding this sentence in the current article:

"This raises the question of how the family has its own home in the town when the Magi visit, having only been able to have a stable when Jesus was born."

One item which could be considered here is that many traditional rural Palestinian homes were two story structures which often included an arched ground-floor area for livestock (ie, a "stable"). I believe that there is some controversy regarding how old this style of architecture is, so I raise it here as a possible addition, rather than including it myself.

A photograph of such a structure: http://www.palestine-family.net/photos/7/1162313828.jpg Apparently it is known as the "throne" structure. I came across an article suggesting the design was in use during the time of Herod but I don't have the reference on hand. If someone wants to do more research on this, it might benefit the article. 216.95.114.241 (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The texts raise no such questions, which are just personal speculations— "where did the camels stay?"— that come under the heading of Original Research, though research is scarcely involved. Wikipedia offers a report on texts, not a personal and imaginative synthetic "biography" of these figures. --Wetman (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed the three wise men

Just thought I would tell I had removed *Three Wise Men from the see also section - as it refers back to this article again. More links may need verifying, but I just found this link made no sense when browsing the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatMagicalHat (talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is capitalization of pronouns referring to Jesus NPOV? -- Zoe

No, it would probably be better to lower case them. Fixing... Wesley
If you mean "Jesus" or "Christ" then they are proper nouns and should be capitalized. Thats grammer not POV. Dainamo 12:21, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Pronouns, not names. As in do we write, in the Christian manner, "...at the time of His crucifixion..." or in the same way we would write about any other crucified person "...at the time of his crucifixion..." Wikipedia style does not capitalize pronouns for monarchs, either. -- Jmabel 16:43, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you (slaps own head) I can see that now. :) Dainamo
So we can not capitalise pronouns referring to my God and the one I belief? The bible capitalises the nouns referring to Jesus Christ, in my opinion they should be capitalised here too, as a sign of respect to our beliefs.
Note: I would not feel offended if you capitalised nouns referring to other God's that I don't belief in, and I would understand this sign of respect to wards other people. Paddy 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
And what about people who don't believe in any gods? It is in general a box of worms. What about Satan? Surely, His pronouns would need to be capitalized. Some Pastafarians have said that any pronoun reference to Spaghetti or any of Its forms should be capitalized. Should Wikipedia toss in some caps for that too? For fairness sake it is 'all' or 'nothing'. And for fairness sake all isn't very fair. Tat 21:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the Bible doesn't use capitalisation of nouns referring to Jesus Christ or any other capitalisation. Hebrew doesn't contain capitals, and the Greek texts were penned in all caps. 98.16.10.133 (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

questionable fact

The following is inacuate:

"In the Eastern church a variety of different names are given for the three, but in the West the names have been settled since the 8th century as Charles Schulz,Jim Henson and Walt Disney. "

Last I checked Schulz, Henson and Disney were not the proper names for the 3 wise men. I am unsure of the correct names. Someone will need to correct this error. --24.238.215.228 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Burns 11:25, 29 Dec, 2006

Taken care of. --BorgQueen 17:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This section is still wrong. It reads:

'since the 8th century as Caspar]</ref>.'

That appears to be a broken tag but, when I look on the edit page, there appears to be a large amount of material that isn't showing on the regular page. I'm afraid I'll mess it up if I try to fix it.98.16.10.133 (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it. I had to revert the added comment to do so - not sure if it should go back in, since it does seem to be properly cited. --Rbreen (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus's house

>>This raises the question of how the family has its own home in the town when the Magi visit

I don't know. Maybe, they knew a good carpenter somewhere. Also, the Bible never specifically mentions a stable.98.16.10.133 (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we are also missing the point here that carpenters are not poor in Jerusalem. Mary and Joseph [i]were[/i] able to stay in the inn; they had the means, hence the knocking at the inns and asking if there was room to stay. There simply wasn't [i]room[/i] at the inn, hence the staying at the stable. Haven't you ever gone traveling somewhere, say for a business conference, and all the hotels are booked so you wind up staying at a third rate hotel that smells like cheep cigarettes? Can we assume that trip was kind of last minute and they couldn't exactly call ahead and book reservations? (hahaha)
Furthermore, the term "carpenter" in the ancient times must be looked at logically. Everyone used wood, at least a little bit, back then. But the only really good wood, the wood the Romans used, came from Lebanon. This wood was high quality stuff, and seeing as how the Romans used it the most, who do you think that Joseph worked for? And how well do you think that the Romans paid, them ruling the world and all? Also! Carpenters of the time were synonymous with masons. If you look at that picture up there ^, what is the main construction material used in the building of the house? the manger? Stone and mortar. Cerpenters carved not only wood but stone. A stone cutter of the time was paid almost twice that of a wood cutter, which we have already established were paid at least moderately well.
As a third point, didn't Joseph live in a house before marrying Mary? He was of full manhood, after all and had a trade. Their trip to Bethlehem was simply a mandatory trip, not a permanent residence. And, according to Jewish custom, Marry, after marrying Joesph, would have been sent to live with him at his residence. Hence the long engagement, Joseph had to prove that he was capable of providing for Mary; giving her a home food, etc.
For a final point, it's already been established that the Magi visited Jesus when he was a "young child", not when he was a babe, meaning that it would have been a few years after the whole manger incident. So, even if they were poor before hand, they would have had time to get on their feet by then.

Three Kings in Astrology

I believe that the astrological aspects of the Three Kings should be noted somewhere on the Biblical Magi page, or elsewhere concerning a similar topic of discussion. When regarding religious views concerning the birth of Jesus Christ in Christianity, most supporters of the Bible choose to ignore the interesting astrological phenomenon that takes place during the dates of December 24th and 25th. Sirius, or preferable known by some as the star in the east, is the brightest star in the night sky. On December 24th Sirius aligns with the three brightest stars in Orion’s Belt, which are notably titled still today what they have been titled since ancient times, the Three Kings. Sirius, along with the Three Kings, all point to the place of the sunrise on Earth the morning of December 25th. This can be metaphorically referred to as why the Three Kings “follow” the star in the east to the birth of “God’s Sun”. Whether it be intentional ignorance of factious events that concern alleged allegories involving Christianity or lack of knowledge in connection with this happening, it is seemingly unnoted at all in any page of Wikipedia that deals with religious beliefs regarding the Biblical Magi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hizashi Hirogeru (talk • contribs) 12:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've heard about this too, but this idea of Sirius "lining up" with Orion's belt on the same day each year is just nonsense. Stars can take centuries to move relative to the other stars. The proper motion of Sirius is little more than 1 arc second per year, for example. It's also impossible for an alignment of stars to point to any particular place on this planet (except perhaps for the Pole Star which is always in the north). If a star rises in the east, it will set in the west. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 10:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Christ was probably not born in December. The Catholic Church established that as the accepted day of recognition. Around AD 200, Clement of Alexandria wrote that a group in Egypt celebrated the nativity on Pachon 25.[3] This corresponds to May 20. So before surmizing the constalations at the time of the birth of Christ, one would need to establish the correct date of birth. Also since Herod ordered the death of all children under the age of 2, one could speculate that the magi had been traveling for some time and the now saught after christ child was likely a toddler, not a newborn. So this astrological event was; 1. an event visable over a long duration and/or 2. not necessarily an annual or even recurring event. At any rate difficult to recreate the celestial conjunctions without looking at the correct dates.71.111.57.97 (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Page name

Does this page need a new name? I don't think any modern translation still uses "wise men". Moreover the scripture neither says there were three nor does it specify that they were men. Perhaps the page be moved to Magi (Bible)? - SimonP 22:27, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I shall make a redirect, so that anyone who enters Magi (Bible) will find her way to the article. Simple obvious titles are always the best. See Mme de Sevigné for an egregious example of a very correct title that no one will ever find.--20:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the page should be moved, it is also adopting a certain traditionalist POV. No one disagrees that they were "magi" but many, including most mainstream churches, reject the notion that they were "three wise men." - SimonP 22:26, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

"Biblical magi" logically would include Simon Magus, so by the goose-chase of an elusive neutrality the title actually becomes less accurate. The "Three Kings" are common figures of Christian mythology— though not of Christian theology— so through them readers will still find these "Biblical Magi", whatever we are to call them currently. Kings of Matthew would also have been correct, though clumsy and unfamiliar. --Wetman 21:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kings of Matthew would not have been correct, because the scripture nowhere states that they were either men or monarchs. Magi has for centuries been a common name for this group, e.g. in the phrase Adoration of the Magi, and this term lacks the POV and inaccuracy of "Three Wise Men." Moreover at least according to Google Magi also seems to be the more popular name. "Magi" + "Bible" gets about four times as many hits as "Three Wise Men" + "Bible". - SimonP 22:12, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
I would have preferred the page to remain at Three Wise Men or Three Kings. Neither of these titles is perfect or accurate, but it's what the English speaking world recognizes them by. FWIW the article does at least mention Simon Magus, as well as Elymas the sorcerer. Smerdis of Tlön 22:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The English Standard Version uses "wise men" and footnotes that the Greek is magi. 97.81.80.19 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputes

List of original research or unattributed claims

Please lsit them. Place possible citations under them. J. D. Redding 22:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Need citations

  • Some liberal Bible scholars consider this nativity story to be an invention of early Christians, but orthodox Christians maintain its accuracy.
    • JDM Derrett, Further Light on the Narratives of the Nativity. Novum Testamentum, 1975. (cf., "Jean Danielou's conclusion that the Magi were an invention of Matthew")
    • Mobbs, Frank, The Meaning of the Visit of the Magi. New Blackfriars, Blackwell Publishing, Volume 87, Number 1012, November 2006, pp. 593-604(12)
    • Ernest L. Abel, The Psychology of Memory and Rumor Transmission and Their Bearing on Theories of Oral Transmission in Early Christianity. The Journal of Religion, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Oct., 1971), pp. 270-281
    • George A. Wells, Stages of New Testament Criticism. University of Pennsylvania Press, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1969), pp. 147-160. doi 10.2307/2708429
  • A clearer indication of their astrological credentials is in the phrase translated in the King James Version of the Bible as enquired of them diligently, which is actually a Greek technical word referring directly to astrology, with no direct translation into English.
  • It has been suggested by biblical scholars that the "gold" was in fact in a medicinal form rather than as metal.
changing "gold" -> "gifts" J. D. Redding
  • What subsequently happened to these gifts is never mentioned in the scripture, but several traditions have developed.
    • Lambert, John Chisholm, "A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels". Page 100.

List of concepts disputed on neutrality.

Please list them. Removing tag if no response. J. D. Redding 00:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Items factually disputed

Please list them. Removing tag if no response. J. D. Redding 00:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

List @ GA?

Is criteria 2b of the GA quality standards reestablished? It does cite sources now. Maybe after the List of concepts disputed on neutrality and items factually disputed are "fixed", it can be reexamined. J. D. Redding 01:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Chinese Wise Man

I added the opinion from mainland China about a tradition that one wise man came from the Imperial Court of China. I have also cited the source. However, the placement of this within the article is open to debate. (The reference is from leaders of three different house church movements in China - essentially denominational leaders - and it's inclusion keeps Wikipedia from having an exclusively western-oriented view of this matter. The actual number and names of the wise men are known only to God, and those who were there - but the Chinese tradition is fascinating.) --Baxterguy 12:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite a recent tradition, may one imagine? Or is this being officially presented as "Nestorian"?--Wetman 12:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There were no Zoroastrians who were Chinese. The Magi were not Chinese - there is no reliable evidence for this. I believe other ethnic groups depicted the Magi as like themselves. When Mongols were temporarily in power, they hired Chinese artists to paint miniature portraits, etc. and they depicted the Persians as oriental looking. While Persians come from the Caucus steppes, the Indo-European Iranians are not oriental. Of course, there is mongol influence all over Iran, Russia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere, but the Mongolians are in the far eastern region of Iran, and most ethnic Iranians are at least 88% or more European-Mediterranean. The almond-shaped (not necessarily small) eyes have always been a trait of Persian people, and can also be seen among the Celts and Slavs. Many Persians and Celts have round eyes, but others have a slight tilt to their eyes - doesn't make them Asian. Many Indo-Europeans are Eurasian because that is where the Aryans originate from - Caucus steppes are on the Asian continent. Race and geography are different things though. The point is, the most reliable sources and tradition have always shown the Magi to be ethnic Persians - Medo-Persians, Scythians. One, may have been an Indo-European living in the Persian empire. They were most likely Zoroastrian based on historical research. The Zoroastrian faith has many ties to Chrisitianity. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Astrology condemned

The article states that astrology is condemned by the Bible, but no references or authorities are cited. I personally don't believe the Bible does condemn astrology, but this is beside the point. Reading along, I wondered what those who claim it is condemned in the Bible claim as their source, and find none in this article. I suspect this is a matter of opinion, but either way, sources should be given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvastarr (talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out, that the Bible says that they had knowledge of the sky (astronomy), but there are not any about astrology (mix of astronomy with religious-traditional believes. --220.150.40.27 (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Magi's definition in Greek

is false. Please refer to Zoroaster and [2] for a comprehensive explaination of the word and its false translation in Greek. Zoroaster and Magis in Greek sources where associated with astrology, which is not accurate at all. Ddd0dd (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Ddd0dd (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I can't quite understand the issue. However note that what matters is not what the magoi really were in Zoroastrianism, but what the Greek and later Western authors believed them to be. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why "His"?

Why are "Him" and "His" always capitalised in wikipedia when referring to Jesus Christ or God? It's like saying "Allah (praise be upon him)". Isn't this a neutral Encyclopedia?

The pronouns are indeed customarily capitalised when referring to Jesus or God. Wikipedia does not observe this custom, but not every writer knows this. Smerdis of Tlön 21:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
It's common in religious writing, but certainly not in encyclopedias. Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it's simply one of those little Gestures of Piety, like capitalizing LORD as the translation of Adonai, by which the Pious Classes identify one another, with little appreciative murmurs of approval. An expression of the "Honk if you love Jesus" social level. --Wetman 21:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Capitalizing LORD is for the translation of YHWH not Adonai MikeG-Scot 00:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In truth, it comes from the previous capitalization of the term "Lord", which, in the King James version is the Latin interpretation of the Jewish word "Adonai" (and other such names) which are used in replacement of the word "YHWH" which is considered too sacred to print or write. (hence the actual pronunciation being lost over the ages.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.254.122 (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Which is pronounced, as opposed to spelled, Adonai Lee-Anne (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Essay topic: "When did the Magi see Jesus?"

This section, heartfelt no doubt, is simply a personal excursus in special pleading. It doesn't makes the necessary minimal pretense at being a report on any publication or professional opinion, but is simply a personal essay, a touching Testimonial of Faith. The only reason that it is not disallowed as Original Research is that the subject is too dear to many simple hearts. The rest of us are too cowed to speak up. Why are such Sunday-School essays okay in Wikipedia? Shouldn't it be tagged with one of those dreadful little tags? --Wetman 22:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

According to current scientific ephemerides (DE406), the star, seen by Magi, which was a unique planetary configuration shaped as a star of David , occured on December 28, 3 BC (year -2 with 0 in center, Julian Day 1720690 ).
(Note by Semi Psi, 18June2006)
Contrary, actually. The celebration of Christmas in December is a tradition started by the early Christians after being persecuted by both Jew and Gentile for celebrating it around the time of passover. So, the early Christians changed the celebration to coincide with the pagan tradition of Yule, to stave off persecution. So, based on that information, the Christ Child was born in April. Thence the sign not being able to be seen until the time of his birth. The wise men could not have seen the star until at least April.

Also, in Matthew 2:8-11 (KJV) the Magi, as well as Herod (who was consoling with his scribes) call the "King" the wise men are seeking a "young child." In verse 11, it states that the Magi came unto his "house," clearly not a manger, meaning that they were unable to see the child until he was at least a year or so old. Logically, this makes sense. If the sign of the Christ's birth appeared on the day the child was born (as with all the miracles of both the Old and New Testaments), and the Wise Men were in the East (however far east that may be) then they would not have packed up their stuff and started their journey until after they saw the sign, and, staying with tradition, if they traveled via camel, the journey from say...the far east reaches of Parthia or even the Gulf area, the journey would have taken at least a year. So, no matter when the Magi saw the sign, they would not have seen Jesus until at least a year after his birth, in which case he would not be considered a babe by Jewish standards, but a "young child" as afore mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethearia (talk • contribs) 21:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Obscure" myrrh?

"...frankincense, and particularly myrrh, are much more obscure." Obscure? Perhaps only to the writer. For this article, the only authentically historical question is, what was the standing of myrrh in the first and second centuries? Myrrh was a staple of luxury trade, not "obscure" in the least. --Wetman 01:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think "obscure" is justified here; though it is clear to scholars, most people are not bible scholars, and one of the key things about cultural depictions of the three gifts is that when it comes to myrrh people react with "what?" or "whats it for?", or as in the Life of Brian, "myrrh?". Clinkophonist 19:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems as though both may be correct. It is obscure in the sense that readers are like, "huh?" it is uncommon to them and therefore the reference is obscure. However, the absolute usage of the word in the writings of the time indicates that it is not simply an obscure reference, but a fact. make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethearia (talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Following the star

"According to Matthew, they followed a star, and as they approached Jerusalem, Herod tried to trick them into revealing where Jesus was, but once they had found Jesus they left by a different route." No, according to Matthew before they left (some place in the east) they "saw a star in the east". If the star was in the east and they travelled west then the star was behind them. If "saw a star in the east" means "saw a star while THEY were in the east" then we do not know where the star was. Matthew tells us that they were seeking the newly born "King of the Jews". It is obvious that if you were looking for a Jewish king then you would head for Jerusalem.

The modern translation of this phrase is "star at its rising" (NRSV), persumably meaning a predawn, or heliacal rising. I think this translation makes a lot more sense than "star in the East" (KJV). All stars rise in the east and set in the west. Whether a star is in the east or in the west has no significance beyond time of night. The magi went to Jerusalem to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 60, which is also why picked gold, frankincense, and myrrh as gifts.Kauffner 03:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, it may hold true that the translations of Matthew simply omit or add words (as most translations do) and so they did either see it rise in the east - a symbol of a rising king in most ancient cultures - or they were in the east and saw the star - also very logical. Either way, there are many legends throughout eastern cultures, including among the Americas (which is east of Jerusalem i suppose) of a new star appearing in the heavens when the Messiah or King of the Jews was born. (see Helaman 14:2-6). Though my reference to the Latter-Day Saint's Book of Mormon may be obscure, the fact is that the legend was global. No matter the religious views of the peoples of the Earth at the time, it appears as though God wanted people to know the sign of Christ's birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethearia (talk • contribs) 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

How the Magi knew what a new star meant

I'll let someone else edit the article if it's deemed appropriate, but I'd like to see some mention of the prophet Daniel in the history of the magi. While many people have been pointing to astrological signs as the explanation how the magi knew that a king was born in Judea, it need not be so. In the book of Daniel, the prophet is placed in charge of all Babylon's wise men (Dan. 2:48), apparently the same category of astrologers, magicians, advisers and diviners (Dan 4:7-9) which Matthew calls Magi. Daniel may have been the source of the their knowledge of the star. To those who believe the Bible is literal truth, Daniel foretold world history accurately and in great detail. His prophecies (including many, presumably, not recorded in the Bible) would have been preserved and studied by his fellow magi and future generations of magi. The magi may have seen a miraculous star appearing at the right time in history, and used Daniel to interpret the meaning of the new star. Some will object to any belief in miracles. But then why waste time falling back on astrological signs as an explanation? If magi saw a conjunction of planets, guessed that it meant a king was born in Judea, and travelled a thousand miles to arrive just when Jesus was born, either that's a miracle of timing, or a vindication of astrology (also miraculous), or a truly incredible coincidence, or it never happened at all. If you're going to believe in the miraculous, why not just accept the miracle as recorded? If not, astrology does not give a way out.

I agree that the article is remiss in not mentioning Daniel. As it is written, the article implies that they were Zoroastrians from Persia, but it unlikely that Matthew was familiar with this group. The approach of puzzling out who the magi were as if they were real people has some problems. Why would anyone travel hundreds of miles just give gifts to a child? The account in Matthew is constructed to glorify Jesus and fulfill as many Old Testament prophecies as possible. The article should simply present the various common interpretions of the magi, as given by Origen, John Chrysostom and others. Anything beyond that is OR.
BTW, there is no suggestion in the Bible that the magi arrive "just when Jesus was born." Jesus is already a child by the time the magi arrive, not a baby anymore. Kauffner 07:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The 'miracle as recorded' doesn't mention a prophecy from Daniel. It gives astrology as a 'way out'. 98.16.10.133 (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, let me say, thank you to Kauffner for agreeing with me on the point of Jesus being a child when the Magi visited him. Second, if this is all based on speculation and really good scientific guesses, allow me to pose a suggestion. If it was God's desire that there be wise men that bring Jesus gifts when he was a child, would God not have sent visions or some sign to said wise men? And how do we know that these wise men weren't Jews or converted Jews or raised by Jews? The Kingdoms of Israel had been scattered abroad many times and we know that there were Jews as far away as Purim and Damascus, why could these wise men not have known about the prophecy of David? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethearia (talk • contribs) 21:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Magi were Zoroastrian, if so controversial ?

The Magi may well have been Zoroastrian priests, it is well known that at that time Persians were advanced in the study of astronomy. More importantly, Zoroastrians believed (and still believe) there will be another three prohpets after Zoroaster (c. 500BC - dates not agreed), known as the Saoshyants (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saoshyant). Hence it is entirely plausible that they will have set off on this mission.

Controversy arises because they did not "worship" and declare Jesus as a Saoshyant. Zoroastrianism predates the arrival of Jesus by many years, indeed also states that Saoshyants will be born of a virgin. They may have bestowed gifts, however, not to have spread the word to the remaining Zoroastrian population (who, around 330 BC had been decimated by Alexander the Great) does imply they did not regard Jesus as the next prophet. The article states, without reference, they may have been baptised - their duty (both as Zoroastrians and believers in Christ) if they had accepted Jesus as prophet would have been to return to Persia and declare the new Saoshyant. If they were indeed Magi - the most senior priests, they would have been escorted when travelling - nowhere is it suggested they were stopped from declaring their findings. Did they just reject Jesus as Saoshyant and so little more was said about it in Persian records ?

I'm sure this cannot be original research. I must have some facts wrong, or missing or there is a logic flaw. I'm sure someone will point this out; hence this is in the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.63.74 (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no or very few Persian records of Pre-Islamic Persia. After the Arabs conquered Persia (see Muslim conquest of Persia), all records and libraries that were not about Islam were burnt. Therefore, although there could have been records of this event, none remain today. One could believe that the Magis came to Jesus to give him gifts sensing that he was a high spirit or soul and on a higher level than most other ordinary people. However, it should be noted that nowhere in any Zoroastrian scripture or text, does it talk about Jesus. In fact, if it did not mention the magis in the bible, there would be no source even indicating this fact, and it would not even be known today. However, current Zoroastrianism believes in differnet branches, the Pundol Group, the Ilm-e-Kshnoom, Orthodox beliefs, and finally reformist beliefs. These branches have different views on the Saoshyant. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 07:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Well if there are such few records, why is the link with the unrelated Zoroastarian Monks the most potently implied in this page? Also, the link with Babylonian (who had a much greater tradition of studying stars) is much more promenently believed in. Also, how do I get notified of replies, I am not getting any notifications like before, so might take a while to get back. TC Pink Princess (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Magi were not African as some would say or Chinese. Zoroastrians are and were very insular. Even Medo-Persians/other ethnic Persian tribe members weren't just allowed to be a Zoroastrian priest. Africans were slaves in the Persian Empire. As as person with Zoroastrian ancestry and a practicing Catholic, I have researched the connection between Zoroastrianism and Christianity. It is believed that the depictions of an African Magi came about because some Christians wante to depict the faith as universal. I have gone into great discussion on the Magi page. However, I have come to agree with the consensus reached that more evidence and reliable sources need to be added. There are many sections on this page that should either be deleted or sourced. None of the information about the Magi celebrations in other countries is sourced. Why are they included?--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC) I CAN ALSO EDIT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.77.2 (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If I may pose a question or two on this subject. First, txts may not have stated that they were escorted, but neither does it way that they weren't. Often times, in biblical writing, the details are excluded if they are unknown. Second, the assumption that the Magi were in fact Zorastrian is just that, an assumption. Could it be as simple as the writers of the Gospels knew of the event but simply didn't know the details, therefore they made the same assumptions that we are now? Especially seeing as how they would have been much more familiar with other religions of the time than we are now? Or! on that same note, could they have heard the account first hand from Mary and [i]she[/i] assumed that they were Zorastrian based on her limited knowledge? Or! better yet, they were from some far off land which no one had yet heard about and she simply knew them as men sent from God who apparently knew of Jesus, and that very simple and eloquent account has been changed and altered so much in the telling that the original meaning has since been lost to the ages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethearia (talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Trinity

It would be interesting to see if any comparisons have ever been made between the three kings and the three persons of the Trinity. 149.99.131.76 (talk) 06:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Seems unlikely, since Jesus, which they came to see, was one of the persons. However some medieval authors have identified them with three fundamental qualities, such as humility, wisdom, devotion, etc.; and even given them names that are supposed to mean those qualities in Greek or Hebrew or Persian. Kehrer's book lists some examples (p.66). All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting note, three is a sacred number to the Jewish tradition. Also, if you look at other "types" or "representations" in the scriptures, you'll find that people - take John the Baptist for example - who really exist are put in the scriptures and said to represent other people. Jesus himself taught in parables, why not God the Father? So you have the basic story of the three kings, right? We all know that story: three kings from the east come baring gifts to Jesus the Christ (also titled at times the Son of Man). right? That's the basics. But look deeper! Under the basic story is a parable, if you're looking. Three members of the godhead come from heavenly realms to Man, bearing gifts of spiritual wealth (gold), communion with them (frankenscence), and reverence for the dead (myrrh). I never made that connection before! Thank you for posing the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethearia (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Bribery

An idea I recently heard about that makes me curious: the view of the magi presenting the gifts as bribes. I've been Googling around but I can't seem to locate anything about this, and it's not referenced in the article either (nor am I suggesting its addition, as it seems slightly obscure and undocumented). Normally I'd just forget about it, but I've heard this independently from two people and wonder if there is a book or site my Google-fu has failed to dredge up.

Chances are that it's an opinion that someone in some church started to spread based on logic, rather than study and prayer. (If you'll forgive my spiritual reference.) You can't always trust the theories of men, especially if they just don't make sense and aren't supported by fact - the like of which, you seem unable to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethearia (talk • contribs) 20:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Persian ?

The Magi were not Persian, and there is neither any solid foundation nor cultural linkage with this horrendous claim - probably made by Persian nationalists, with their own politically-motivated agenda and Original research. Infact many sources (including source 2) is taken completely out of context to make a completely different claim, when no other sources are found. I have editted out this bias rubbish which seems to be solely aimed at stealing the Semetic history of the area and undermining Arabs. Don't make such orsurd claims with no sources. Until then, this article will have a NPOV based on the most popular perspective. Pink Princess (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

WRONG. The Magi were Persian and this is based on not only tradition, but historical research. Did you catch any of the History Channel documentaries on the subjet. Zoroastrianism and Christianity have strong ties. No intelligent person would think the Magi were Arab. The concept of a Messiah came from Zoroaster and the traditions associated with the Magi are Persian not Arab. It's SEMITIC not SEMETIC; and ABSURD, not ORSURD, first of all. And you sound like a bitter Arab trying to steal Persian history. This isn't the first time Arabs have tried that.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Bible does not provide information to confirm or deny they were Persian. Although it is presumably as it says they came from the East, and we know they came from a culture with astronomic knowledge (not necessary astrology).--220.150.40.27 (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Most historians refer to the Magi as Persian. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure we can say "most". But these claims were made by some *Western* writers since the 5th century at least. Therefore "Persian nationalism" has nothing to do with them. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, seeing as how all accounts from the Bible are second and third hand accounts most likely recorded by the hands of the apostles after hearing the story from Mary (who would have then been in her old age) the accounts lack details and therefore everything is left to speculation. Persia is simply a location, not an entire culture, so chill, no one is attacking your personal beliefs. In fact, at this time, Persia and the majority of Arab nations are owned by Rome, so strictly speaking they'd be Roman Magi unless they were from faaaaaarrrrr east. But that's just a technicality, seeing as how Rome allowed for all citizens of Rome to maintain former ranks, titles, and religions of their region. So, it is of my opinion that if you're going to get caught up in an argument as to the orientation of the Wise Men/Magi/Whatever-you-want-to-call-thems just pray about it and stick with that answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethearia (talk • contribs) 22:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever -- parts of Mesopotamia were ruled by Rome (though the widest Roman borders didn't occur there until after Jesus' death), but Rome never ruled east of the Zagros. And the word magos in Greek does tend to suggest a Persian connection... AnonMoos (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The Magi are consistently shown in early-ish christian art in Persian dress - trousers & caps. This is not so in their earliest appearances in the 4th century, but is from the 5th century for several hundred years. Who knows what bearing this has on any historical reality. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The text of the gospel does not make clear the origin of the magi. The word magi is Persian in origin, but by this time it had been adopted by non-Persians and could be used to refer to any seer or magician. The references to astrology could mean that they were Babylonian, as they were considered the top astrologers of the region. The three gifts are all of Arabian origin. - SimonP (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
If you look at it from that perspective, then one can make the speculation that these could have been Jews from previous generations that got "stuck" in those regions of the world. There are accounts of Jews never leaving Sussa (capitol of Persia) and taking on some of the native customs. (Similar occurring have happened in Babylon, hence there being Jews in Damascus.) So, these very well could be Persian Magi (or at least were referred to as such) due to the crosscontamination of cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethearia (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Names probalby resemble other local gods

  • Caspar => means treasure keeping, like done by many people with stones (bethyl cults) in that area. the name is still present in todays Kashbah in the city of Mekka, just some 200 km out of Jerusalem.
  • Melchior => strong resembling of more or less regional god Melkart
  • Balthasar => is composed out of the god Baal in its rich variations all over the whole area.

please remember that those namings were established after a few centuries of the real event, at least that is what we know today. so the meaning can be very clear - all former gods do bow their knees by the means of their representatives in front of Jesus Christ. a second aspect of this whole scene is the three gifts that are often attributed as the role and skills that Jesus was meant to have in live. maybe it even makes sense to link the gifts backwards to the names of the magi and their gods attributes as well. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Source? - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Vague sound resemblances prove nothing. The Keher reference (unfortunately in German, which I can read only a little) has an extensive study of the names and their endless variations in several languages. There seems to be no evidence that the names (as well as the other details, such as ages, clothing, nationalities, hair color) were not invented by some late writer in order to flesh out the story. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I learned at school that the names are derived from the "C+M+B", which on epiphany is written on peoples front doors, but C+M+B was actually short for "god bless this house" in some language. It might be bogus, but just for completeness, I wanted to add this to the discussion... AlgorithMan (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
huh, interesting point. If the names are symbolic of other Gods at the time, then that denotes that all other gods bow down and worship Christ. So, even if the Church just made up the names with that intention, perhaps they were sending a message that Christ is over all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethearia (talk • contribs) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No need for speculation; reliably sourced information is all we can add to the article anyway. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't really attempting to add to the article, only note that it's an interesting question. Isn't all science started in simple speculation. I mean, that's where this entire article came from initially, the speculation of the religious aristocracy of the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethearia (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Technically, this talk page only exists in order to discuss possible changes to the article. This never was and still isn't meant to be a forum for general discussion of the topic. That's what FisherQueen is talking about.
Oh, and for anyone who doesn't know, you can should sign a talk page entry by putting four tildas at the end of your message. Otherwise the bot is forced to do it for you. -- Fyrefly (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Magi and the Bible.

1. Magos is a greek word which by implication means a magician. (see Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. No.3097). Jesus nor the disciples used Greek or Persian. So the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic or Hebrew. In Hebrew the word used is Châkam, meaning to be wise in mind, word and Act. (see Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. No.2449). The same word is used in the same gospel in verses 7:24 and 23:34 but the translation given there is “wise men” and not Magi or Magoi or Magos. This clearly means that the correct translation is wise men and not magi.

2. They came from Persia or Parthia. Bible tells that they came from the East. According to the first century historian Strabo (64 BC – 19 AD), Korami (Cape Comerin, now known as Kanyakumari) in South India was the eastern point of the then known world. So the wise men could have come from anywhere from Persia (modern Iraq) to Kanyakumari in South India.

Astronomy and astrology were not limited to Persia and Babylon. It was well advanced in almost all of the East in the first century.

3. In the Bible there is no such usage as A Star. A new star, or Star of Bethlehem. Note that King Herod, his Chief priests, and teachers of the law, none of them saw this star (or comet or conjunctions).

In the Bible Gospel of Matthew Chapter 2: 1, clearly says that they saw His Star in the East. In this article it is not mentined that they saw His Star. His star is different from A star. Probably the writers are unaware that even today (twent-first century) almost all the people in a State in India, knows the name of His Star or Her Star. Some of them add the name of His Star or Her Star with their names. These wise men might have come from that area.

They were from the East, they were wise men, there were more than three people including astrologers and their journey was described by first century historians including King Herod’s historian who met these wise men at Antioch, near Daphne. The wisemen returned to their country. Some of them later became followers of Jesus of Nazreth.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

see also: Schulze, in: Theologische Zeitschrift 31, 1975, pages 150 ff. and 39, 1983, pages 178 f.: Magos is a greek word which by implication means a magician that means magos are famous men - with documemtary proofs by Schulze, 1975. -- Dietmar 20:04, May 8, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.59.208.250 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
>>Matthew was written in Aramaic or Hebrew. In Hebrew the word used is Châkam

Does this mean that you have a copy of the original Gospel of Matthew?98.16.10.133 (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, there's no evidence that any book of the New Testament was originally written in a non-Greek language, or relied heavily on a non-Greek Christian text (with the possible -- though very disputed -- existence of an Aramaic language "sayings document"). And post-exilic Judah was under the rule of the Persian empire for several centuries, so Jews certainly knew about Persians... AnonMoos (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, some Jews still lived in formerly Persian cities during the time of Christ. Alethearia (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Alethearia

Needed grammar fix

"Van means "against," Div, or Daeva, at the root of "Deus" or "Dieu," were the pre-zoroastrian divinities, and Dad stands for law."

This sentence under the 'Names' section needs to be fixed. It makes no sense, grammatically. I'd fix it myself, but I can't figure out what the author was trying to say here. -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit

The article referred to Zoroastrianism as "Kurdish religion". Although a part of the Kurdish population now live in areas where Zoroastrianism once prevailed, Zoroastrianism can by no means be called a Kurdish religion in this context. So, I removed that part.

Wikiexplorer7 (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Pindi Kuthi Perunnal /Festival

Pindi Kuthi Perunnal /Festival

It would be noteworty that in Thrissur District in Kerala, India a festival called Pindi Kuthi Pernunnal is observed with great spirit. After few days from Christmas, front side of houses will be decorated with lamps and lights. In the centre there will be a big plantain /banana tree fully decorated with flags and lamps. The idea is to show way and light to three wise men. Many church festivals in this area, notable one: Irinjalakuda church festival comes in this time and is celebrated in this spirit. May be I am a bit scarce in providing information, but tens of thousands of people from that area celebrate this festival with great zeal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.146.99.112 (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

"Astrologers" or Astronomers?

"...the Three Kings, traditionally refer to the astrologers from the east, mentioned in the New Testament, in the Gospel of Matthew..." Notice how the use of italics gives the impression that the Gospel of Matthew is being quoted. A direct quote would have been so plain and clear: what is the reason for mystification here? --Wetman 11:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NRSV gives "astrologers" as a possible translation of Magi in the footnotes, but opts for "wise men" in the text. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand and for the term of Magi, they were men of science. They knew the stars, they might probably be astronomers, and not astrologers. Astrology is the worst enemy of Astronomy.

At one time, there was little distinction between astrology and astronomy. Some people still consider astrology to be a science, and a surprising number of people confuse the words and don't understand the difference. If the Wise Men weren't astrologers -- why did they believe the star (or whatever it was) heralded the birth of someone important? QED. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Gondophares/Gaspar

This article seems to disagree with the Gondophares article -- this one seems to suggest that Gondophares was originally associated with traditions about the Apostle Thomas in India and later got transferred to the Magi because he was in roughly the right era and from the East; the Gondophares article seems to suggest that there were several different kings with the name/title Gondophares ... so these traditions might actually apply to different people? Or something? 165.91.173.32 (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Magi vs. Chaldeans

Aren't astrologers usually called "Chaldeans" in the Bible? Generally "Magi" seems to be a more positive term in biblical writings than "Chaldeans", as all things Persian tend to be depicted in a more positive light than those of any of the other foreign nations, particularly Babylon. Is Magi just the "good" word for astrologers while Chaldeans is the "bad" word, or does Magi mean more than "astrologers"? -- 77.7.142.37 (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Magi refers to Zoroastrian priests (Zoroastrianism taught/teaches that there is one God, who will send a messiah, and a bunch of other things that the Israelites agreed with). The Magi were usually Persian, and the Persians were well studied in astronomy. The Chaldeans were a tribe in Babylon that happened to be well studied in astronomy and astrology. Magus is used in a negative context with Simon Magus. However, the Greeks (whose thought did influence the New Testament world) did not view the Magi on very high terms, and by that time "Magus" was also used to refer to priests of offshoot religions such as Zurvanism. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Alpha Quadrant talk 18:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


Biblical Magi → Three Wise Men – However inaccurate, this seems to be a much more common name for these legendary gentlemen. Powers T 19:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Surprised to Oppose - I was expecting this to be a walkover for "three wise men" but +Bethlehem only got 7890 Google Book hits (yes I'm aware the magi probably didn't go to Bethlehem) and "three wise men" +Jesus 10,900. and then "magi" + Jesus got 83,200. Who'd have thought it, "three wise men" isn't more common, even in popular literature. Certainly not WP:IRS. So for once, the academic name is actually more common as well. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
IIO, your searches are all wrong, I'm afraid. You have to go to the last page to get the accurate figure from Google, and even then it will remain a mere estimate if it exceeds 1,000 hits. Your search on {"three wise men" Jesus} yields only 432 genuine hits. (See how I arrived at that figure.) The corresponding result for the current title, using {"biblical magi"} is just 154 genuine hits. That should be put on record here as well. NoeticaTea? 08:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Noetica thanks for correction. Still oppose on basis of the more academic hits.In ictu oculi (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is no count on the number of magi who were attendant. "three" is a myth, there are only three types of gifts. 76.65.129.5 (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- can't get around the fact that the number 3 is not mentioned in the Bible... AnonMoos (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both titles are substandard. I'd go for Magi (Bible), which redirects to the present article. People looking for this article surely start their search with "Magi" more often than "Biblical". It they type in just "Magi", they get the article Magi, which has a note at the top alerting them to Magi (disambiguation), where everything is sorted out. NoeticaTea? 08:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment re various. "Magi" is not, I would suggest, a name in modern popular use. The guiding policy here should be WP:COMMONNAME, and though metaphorical etc uses of this make google counts difficult, "Three Wise Men" seems the clear winner to me on that basis. The number may not be mentioned in the Bible, but that at least the leaders of the expedition were three is universal in Christian tradition and imagery, as reflected in the most common name. Johnbod (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think that actually WP:COMMONALITY should have primacy here, and whilst 'wise men' might be more common in some cultures, in some they are kings and various other things. Oh, and there may not have been three of them. Existing title should remain. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Which cultures use what? They were "wise men" in the Authorized/KJV and the Douay/Rheims, which should cover the original tradition in all English-speaking cultures. Many 19th century translations switched to Magi following the Greek & the Vulgate more closely, and since then I would suggest naming has become variable across all English-speaking cultures rather than different between them. Johnbod (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is the trend for the U.S. It's pretty much the same. The U.S. is the only region with enough data to give you a meaningful result -- I mean, besides Bangladesh. Kauffner (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Strange claim in french wikipedia

In Russia as in Finland , it is also said that Santa Claus would be the fourth Magi offering gifts to the children because, too far north of the planet to see the evening star at the time, he would never have reached Bethlehem. (translated with Google)
I don't know about Russia, but in Finland, I have never heard of this. And this claim is not in Finnish wikipedia either, though there is a claim there was a fourth Magi who didn't get there in time. Should this be in Finnish and English wikipedia? 85.217.46.172 (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the source for the statement? Wikipedia, being a user-generated source, is not considered a reliable source (yes, Wikipedia is not a reliable source on Wikipedia). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
It has cite #10 in the french article, seems to be in the Google Docs. 85.217.20.33 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"The majority viewpoint"

"According to the majority viewpoint, the magi are legendary"

Shouldn't this really say 'majority scholarly viewpoint' or something? I'd think it's more likely that the majority of people who've thought about it at all are Christians... 165.91.173.32 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Having read this article for the first time I think it doesn't strike a properly encyclopaedic tone. It tries too hard to tie up loose ends - what were their names; what happened to their gifts; where are they buried etc? Instead it should make clear that they did not exist as individuals (they were not real people) but rather the story in the Gospels is intended to be apocryphal. The key point is that it is about gentiles (i.e. non-Jews) recognising the importance of Jesus (and thus supporting the subsequent baptism and integration of gentiles as Christians). I have no doubt that the "traditional" or "popular Christian" belief is that they existed, but I think we need to present a more scholarly and thoughtful analysis. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Biblical Magi → Magi

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

– These moves would allow the Biblical Magi, the ones who followed the star to Bethlehem, to be primary topic for the term Magi. The current Magi article is an ORish essay on the Zoroastrian priesthood of ancient Persia. Britannica`s entry on "Magi" is about Matthew's wise men, with no mention of Zoroaster or Persia. It is unlikely that Matthew thought of his Magi as Persian priests. The Biblical term applies generally to those from the East with special talents, according to this lexicon entry. "Magi" got 249,028 page views in 2010, while Biblical Magi got 563,115 page views. So there is clearly some mistargeting going on. Kauffner (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: I am not sure yet what my vote would be; I have mixed feelings. However, I do think that this current article needs to have a more direct connection to the other article to begin with. Perhaps a section of this article should use a main article tag reference to the other. ~ Lhynard (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2011 (EST)‎
  • The author of Matthew used the word "magos", and they did come from the East, both of which seem strong indications of the visitors being Persian Magi. That said, I can't say I disagree with the idea that this is the primary topic for the word "Magi". Powers T 20:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- The word "Magi" alone really refers to Zoroastrianism or the history of Persia. "Biblical Magi" is just one particular incident in which Magi were present. What you propose would be pretty much the tail wagging the dog... AnonMoos (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Who claims that the Magi in the Bible were Zoroastrian? This is a way fringe POV. Most translations give "wise men," i.e. the Persian connection is understood as just etymology. Even if Matthew's Magi were from Persia, that would not be a reason to direct readers to a topic less likely to be desired. Kauffner (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
In other words, Biblical Magi are not the same as Magi tout court. That's an argument more against the rename than for it...AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Bible translations are done by committees of experts. But of course you know better. Kauffner (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Magi clearly has a wider reference than the Biblical usage, and it is unclear how seriously the author of the Matthew Gospel intended the description to be taken. It is certainly the most popular usage of the word, but there is far more to the subject than this one instance, and the suggested move is therefore disproportionate. The Biblical reference should be a subset of the more general one. --Rbreen (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Cautious support the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument seems fairly strong in this case. The cautious is not because of any weakness in this proposal, but because I'm also a little bit unsure about the weighting given Zoroastrianism in the generic article. Usage of the original Greek term is wider LSJ Greek Lexicon entry for magos, and Latin will be similar, but I'm not really well informed enough to know whether it really is narrower down to Zoroastrianism only in English. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Aside from Matthew, the other notable use of the word "Magi" is in Septuagint's version Daniel chapter 2. These Magi belonged to a fictional society of learned Babylonians. So again, no obvious connection to Persia or Zoroastrians. Kauffner (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Biblical Magi?

Isn't there a guideline that most used names should be used as article names? I had never heard of anything similar to magi before, though I'm not native english speaker. Magi makes me think of magicians, which they probably were not. I'd suggest "Wise men" or "Three wise men". 82.141.74.33 (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a policy of using common names, and in academic circles, this is the most common. Magi and magician have the same root, but they're not the same word. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Even if "wise men" is more common, it is hopelessly ambiguous. "Three wise men" is incorrect, however common it might be. Other reference works title their entries as "magi," which is what we should do. See Britannica or A Dictionary of the Bible. Kauffner (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Change translation used in the original account section

The New RSV and the recently added (and quickly removed) KJV use "wise men" as do several other translations. Both the NASB Matthew 2:1–12 and NIV Matthew 2:1–12 use "Magi". Are there any preferences as to which to use? I prefer the NASB but understand that NIV is the more common translation and easier to understand. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich (stigmatic nun in Germany 1774 - 1824), Visions of the 3 Kings

Hello, I was expecting (well, hoping) to see a mention of Anne Catherine Emmerich's visions of the 3 kings, which she narrated to Clemens Brentano after he abandoned his poetic career to stay in Dulmen and take notes on her visions as she had them. I think them worth mentioning because in several cases, most notably her description of the location of the home of Mary after Christ's crucifixion in Ephesus, her visions proved historically and literally correct. She had quite a lot to say about the entire journey, and named the Kings as Mensor, Theokeno and Seir. Her visions seem relevant and can be reviewed online at http://www.ecatholic2000.com/anne/lom101.shtml. The journey of the three kings appear on several subsequent pages as well, and include the visit to Jerusalem and Herod, the entrance into Bethlehem, and their arrival at the cave where Joseph, Mary and the infant Jesus were staying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah64554 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you could add it, but don't forget that the subject here is the Magi, not Anne Catherine Emmerich. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I really do feel that this part needs rewriting...

According to Austrian Professor Konradin Ferrari d'Occhieppo in 1965, 1969, 1999 and 2003, it happened not only a triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 7 BC. The astronomer interpret the words "stood over" as a term that refer respectively to the retrogradation and stationing of the royal star Jupiter/Saturn in the sign of Pisces (=land in the west) in 12 November 7 BC since 854 (!) years. The term "stood over the house" is taken as detail-faithful eyewitness report, refers to the star already standing, like Occhieppo assumes. The large joy refers clearly to the end of the journey, finding the place of birth of the king looked for a long time.

TBH, that looks more as though it's come out of AltaVista (has it? it isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm not complaining) because the grammar definitely isn't standard English. Whoever added it, would you be happy to rewrite it? I'd be happy to help if that would be of assistance to you. Kay Dekker 20:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is just the section I came here to post about. If it's not going to be fixed (I would try, but I'm not sure what it's even saying) I think the entire article should be given one of those banners that says something like This Article Does Not Meet Quality Standards, or whatever it says. 68.81.105.126 13:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

perhaps this can help or be of assistance, something i wrote in the 1990's... In that the so-called Jupiter/Saturn conjuction was 10 deg from each other, about the width of two Moon diameters. But there's more to this, what also took place on this date (March 1, 7 BCE at 1:21 AM in Bethlehem, Judea) was a New Moon, a Sun/Moon conjunction in early Pisces.

The Magi knew that in late Feb, early March the Sun, Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, & Venus would line up across the sky in a very tight bunch in the sign of Pisces. They reported to Herod that they had seen 'his star' rising in the East for approx 2 yrs. That would imply Saturn. Herod deliberated with his temple priests, who informed him of the prophecy. He in turn told the Magi and off they went... But that's the reason Herod killed those males 2yo and under..just to make sure.

Saturn is the planet -and CAPRICORN the sign- generally associated with the Hebrews...this is how the Magi knew where to search... however, as there are 12 tribes of Israel, there too are 12 signs of the zodiac... PISCES is the sign associated w/ the house of David!!

See: David Womack's 12 Signs, 12 Sons: Astrology in the Bible, Harper & Row, San Francisco 1978.

Supplemental info....I did some chart tweaking, 'cause according to BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS, don't you love that phrase? sounds so authoritative, the Wise Men came to pay their respects some months AFTER Jesus' birth...and it's said the Wise Men followed HIS star to Bethlehem where it stood over his location. Well, as some have suggested maybe that's the day/time that some certain planet went Stationary Direct or Stationary Retrograde. So I decided to use Saturn going SR.

Results are interesting...Saturn goes Stationary on July 5th, 7 BCE (-6 BCE) at 446am and that's nearly the exact same moment it conjuncts Bethlehem's MC (Mid-heaven), within just minutes, at 442a. And Jupiter conj the MC at 450a. So on this date, there's twooo VERY bright star/planets shining down on Bethlehem. Also, the Sun is about to rise/conj the ASC (Ascendant). Uranus opposes Pluto & quincunx Mars (do I hear a clashing of swords??). Jup & Sat quincunx Venus: No love lost there, with Jup/Sat in Pisces -the spiritual Avatar, quincunxing Venus in Leo -the ruling, pompous king/governor. Amazing. Too much astrology? edit it out.. but NOT the part re: Saturn 'standing still'. 76.218.248.127 (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Gifts and Kings

Which Magi gave which gift? I recall from Sunday School that there is an association, but it's not listed here. It would be very helpful to have a linked list, i.e., Melchoir gave x, Balthasar gave y, and so on. If anyone knows, please add to the names list, perhaps in parentheses. Theonemacduff (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

ok, doing Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Time of visit

I've removed the attempt to make something of the difference between "baby" and "child" in English translations, re the interval between birth and visit, as Jesus is already "παιδίου" in Luke 2:17 at the point the shepherds visit. In English and Greek, babies are children too. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Magi name?

Why is this even entitled "Magi". The only reference to these visitors (in Matthew) is the word "βασιλέως" (Prince, King leader). Why this other word "Magi" even warrants an entry is beyond me. There is no mention of number or of proper names. Also, much of the article is idle speculation. This needs to be replaced by an unbiased article that is based on the evidence at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.64.91 (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but "βασιλέως" is used at least twice in reference to King Herod.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Not yes, no. You're completely misinformed. The Magi are called "magoi" in Matthew (four times - Greek text of Matthew 2), as the article says, and not "βασιλέως" at all - that was a much later tradition. "βασιλέως" in Matthew 2 refers to Herod. The article covers Christian traditions not idle speculation. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Good point. My "yes" should have been a "no." --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Religious significance: Saints

The article does not yet mention that the Biblical Magi are saints in Roman Catholicism, as far as I know. --Neitram (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and in Orthodoxy and probably by some Anglicans etc. I've added a bit, but more could be done. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll save the revert for now, but it's unreferenced. Find one or I will have to revert it. The information should include who canonized them since their names and the number of them is not recorded in scripture they had to come from some source and that they performed miracles had to be attested as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Bullshit. They pre-date the canonization process as saints. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
No listings at Catholic Saints.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
That list is joke as far as completeness is concerned. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Understandable (?) confusion here: Saint Caspar.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
No references there, so this should be cleared-up soon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
How is that a confusion? They may not still be on the Vatican's lists though, like many early saints. But they are still treated as saints by many Catholic sources - for example here. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
A blog is not a reliable source, but I see your point. So they're not officially saints but they're treated like them. Can a source, a reliable one, be found to support that? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
They were undoubtedly "officially" saints for over 1000 years, & I supect still are, but many saints about whom little is known have been declassified, as it were, by the Vatican in recent decades, which might include them. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

If they were saints over 1000 years ago, we are more that free to explain that, with a reference. We may also discuss their decanonization as a result of Vatican II as well. Of course that would need to be referenced too. I know, I'm such a broken record when it comes to references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Were they de-cononized or taken off the calendar? I think there's a nuance here. I think I read on one of our pages that declaring saints used to be a prerogative of a local bishop. If that's the case, odds are we'll never get a direct reference to a declaration of the "three" as saints.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
No you won't - they are named and described as saints in the famous mosaics in the Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo of about 550, well before any formal process of central canonization. That they were saints is now referenced. Whether they still officially are I don't know (or much care). Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Typo in subheader

Traditional identities and sybolisms should be symbolisms. 72.240.249.238 (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I even removed the plural. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Undue Prominence : Austrian artist Gottfried Helnwein

Is the work by this artist a significant fact about this subject ? Definately it would be of interest to someone interested in the artist, but if all events of such minor interest were included in this entry it would be unweildy. I suggest removal to discourage any further misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.248.224 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Reading the article I can not believe that this has persisted so for long. I will comment in new section below. Nodekeeper (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Kings of where?

Did persians have that many kings? I thought there was no persian empire at that time.

East doesn't tell much. What lands could have had three kigns (I mean, there were not that many kings out there anyway, huh)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.219.64.35 (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

As stated in the article, the term "King" is simply a traditional speculation. There is a high likely-hood that these were Priests of different orders or scholars or perhaps prophets of distant lands. One outlandishly radical theory I heard from a Sunday School teacher of mine was that these three "Kings" were in fact from the American Continent. (Book of Mormon) His theory derived from the fact that there are three prophets in the books, alive around the birth of Christ which simply disappear and are not heard from again. And, seeing as how they knew of the sign of the star (Helaman 14:2-6) it would make logical sense. I never made up my mind one way or the other, but it makes sense and I figured that I'd present the argument.
Also, in case you're wondering the three afore mentioned prophets are: Alma the Son of Alma (Alma 45:18-19, Samuel the Lamanite (Helaman: 16: 7-8), and Amulek (the missionary companion of Alma) who simply is no longer mentioned in the Book of Mormon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethearia (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
This is Mormon folklore &/or private speculation, and not recognized as doctrine under the Priesthood Correlation Program. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

3 wise kings came from?

The clue could be in Matt 1:16, When Herod slew all children whose age was less than 2 years. This means the Magi priests came from a place that was at least 2 years away. That leaves only few regions like Iran or India.

We also get a clear indication about use of astrology which is discouraged by the Church

What does the above line have to do with the Magi's location? Herod was told that a king of kings (Jesus) had been born. Therefore, in order to protect his seating on the throne of Judea, he ordered the execution of all newborns. This has nothing to do with the Magi's or their locations....Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 07:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The magi arrived in Bethlehem some weeks after the nativity. Herod was somehow able to determine that the nativity occurred within the last two years. But this tells you nothing about where they were from. Matthew probably got the word "magi" from the Septuagint's version of the Book of Daniel. That would suggest he was thinking of Babylon. They are magoi apo anatolon (magi from the east). Kauffner (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Well...actually, Jesus is refered to as a "young child" and therefore it would have been at least a year, if not two between the time of the Magi seeing the sign and their arrival at Mary and Joseph's house.
As stated in the article, the term "King" is simply a traditional speculation. There is a high likely-hood that these were Priests of different orders or scholars or perhaps prophets of distant lands. One outlandishly radical theory I heard from a Sunday School teacher of mine was that these three "Kings" were in fact from the American Continent. (Book of Mormon) His theory derived from the fact that there are three prophets in the books, alive around the birth of Christ which simply disappear and are not heard from again. And, seeing as how they knew of the sign of the star (Helaman 14:2-6) it would make logical sense. I never made up my mind one way or the other, but it makes sense and I figured that I'd present the argument.
Also, in case you're wondering the three afore mentioned prophets are: Alma the Son of Alma (Alma 45:18-19, Samuel the Lamanite (Helaman: 16: 7-8), and Amulek (the missionary companion of Alma) who simply is no longer mentioned in the Book of Mormon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethearia (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
This is Mormon folklore &/or private speculation, and not recognized as doctrine under the Priesthood Correlation Program. - 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Buddhist monks

There should be, I believe, some reference to the theory that the wise men were Buddhist monks travelling from the Indian sub-continent in search of the first male born after the death of the former lama in India. This theory also unifies with the unknown years of Jesus' life. The theory is that the monks took Jesus to Kashmir to learn the Dharma and the laws of Buddhism. This, again, links in with Jesus' teachings of the poor inheriting the Earth, originally a Buddhist concept, along with the miracles of walking on water and feeding many with little; two miracles also attributed to the Buddha and are present originally in Buddhist tradition.
This is not original research and here are some links and citations:

Tommydude2112 (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Most of your links seem to refer to the missing years rather than the Magi.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not really supported by reliable sources though and the language used to describe them does not support this theory. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Kandahar

Kandaha in Afghanistan is named for Alexander the Great - He founded it on his conquest of the East — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.170.83 (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Bias in Article

The article claims that "most" scholars regect the story of the magi as fictitious, with no citations or proof given. When I tried to correct this by deleting the unsupported assertions, and clarifying that it is those who reject traditional Christian belief who deny their historicity, the changes were immediately edited out by a regular at Wikipedia...this is SOP here, as evidenced in so many articles. You don't have to support your claims, as long as your statements subvert Christian belief or the moral order of society. Sad.

Please read any of the numerous references given at the end of this article. - SimonP 02:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I just did...no specific citation is given for these broad claims, such as the supposed majority of scholars who reject the historicity of the magi. Normally, statements of this type are quite simply unsupportable; one would have to do a global poll of "scholars" after giving some reasonable definition of whom would qualify as such (scripture scholars alone, or historians? If historians would be included, would they have to specialize in the time period in question?). The mere assertion that "most scholars" believe this or that is worthless, even if there is an academic source for the assertion, unless the methodology behind the claim is given. However, in this case there is no clear academic source -- merely a bibliography at the end of the article.

The bias is even more clear, given the fact that no counter-arguments to this claim are given, although the supposed neutrality policy would require it.

I think you misunderstood me, I meant the books, not the websites. For instance see Raymond E. Brown's work, which is quite clear on this matter. - SimonP 03:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that you are not answering the criticism. Just like most anti-Christian editors you ignore the point being made and just reply to a minor point -you misunderstood me, this is the work- ... this work may be clear in itself, but it is hardly represents the opinion of "most scholars". There are many works which discredit Brown's intellectual musings (three layers to John's Gospel and other such idiocy). Much more is expected from you as a senior editor, address ALL concerns and don't just brush them away. Sure, things are working out in this case, but this is a lesson from the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.192.139 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Relics

Need a section on the relics, location, importance, and all that blarney. Not 'Tombs' - Relics. Yes. Also this needs to be fixed: " ...although none of the traditions is considered as an established fact or even as particularly likely by secular history." this is nonsense - "secular history" is simply a denial of everything religious and thus not relevant here. Scientific examination of the relics would be relevant as would examination of the information which led to St Helen finding the relics. The very fact that the 3 are mentioned in the gospels is strong evidence, but "secular history" does not see the Gospels (as well as many other writings) as authoritive historically accurate text, thus "secular history" has blinkers on and is selectively blind. Sadly Wikipedia is dominated by diehard atheists who's minds are closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.192.139 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Without going into various reasons why religious 'relics' are generally rubbish, even your claim that there are three 'wise men' mentioned in the Bible is wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Country of Origin

This entire section is about old texts (at least 8 centuries) that represent traditions in thinking about the origin of the magis. The following contemporary speculation seems inappropriate, as it doesn't represent any centuries-old tradition. "Long before the time of Christ, India had trade relations with Palestine; much of the commerce between the Orient and the Mediterranean civilizations (including Egypt, Greece, and Rome) passed through Jerusalem", so it is very likely that Wise Men could have been "great sages of India", as Paramahansa Yogananda wrote in his “The Second Coming of Christ – The Resurrection of the Christ Within You” (2004, pp. 56–59). I propose this addition be removed. --Xtalkprogrammer (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no right answer. The history of the location of the Magi is entwined in a great many national traditions so it should be explained, even with centuries-old documents. What do others think? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This is like trying to nail down a puddle of mercury. In this case, we have a source that properly attributed. Should it be footnoted? I'd say leave it in place.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Melchior

it is perhaps of certain value noting that in Hebrew, the name: Melchior/Melchichior (which I would rather spell: Malchior), has a particular/specific & sensible meaning-sensibility which may not exist with other language translations. In Hebrew, the name is spelled: מַלְכֵיאוֹר, meaning: My King [מַלְכֵי="Malchi"/Malki]-(The) Light-[אוֹר=Or]-as (linguistically inferred; self-understood, in Hebrew, to mean: My King equates/is equal to the light)-as, so much in the image of Christ's birthday involves/hinges around the idea of light-staring with the Star of "Betlehem" (Bet-Lehem) & continuing with other verses from the New Testament (most likely, inspired by regional-cultural influences of preceding more ancient civilizations).

However, if said Magi/King's persona was historically/traditionally admired or venerated (which is plausible), his name could have been pronounced repeatedly (at least twice, in a sequence) to change the order of syllables, making the name sound: "Malchior"/Malkior & rendering the meaning thusly: Or [אוֹר=Or] Malchi [מַלְכֵי="Malchi"/Malki] which immediately & directly takes the unequivocal Hebrew meaning of: The Light of My King!

AK63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Wise men were not present at the baby's birth.

The three wise men were not present at the baby's birth. Mary was supposed to name him Emmanuel (not Jesus) as was predicted in Isaiah 7:14. Luke 1:31 is a lie for a couple of reasons. Jesus is the English word of Joshua or Yeshua in Hebrew. Luke 1:31 is talking about Zechariah 6:11-12 when Joshua the son of Josedech had an filthy garment (unclean soul) until God gave him a new raimant (cleansed soul) and mitred hat which symbolically gave him righteous judgment. (Zechariah 3:3-8; Zechariah 7:9) The three wise men met the baby when he was 2 years old after King Herod was killed. He was not a baby--he was a toddler who could walk at age 2. It was predicted that there would be two anointed prophets. (Zechariah 4:11-14) Those two are Baptist John who had the spirit in him while he was still in his mother's womb and Emmanuel who had to receive the spirit of God after Baptist John baptized Emmanuel and a dove appeared and a voice announced that he was he was his begotten and born again son. (Luke 1:15; Matthew 3:16-17; Hebrews 5:5-6) These two prophets were killed by the Herodians and Pharisees as predicted. These two anointed prophets have the power to destroy those who destroyed them in like manner. (Matthew 21, 23-33-38; Mark 12:7-12; Revelations 11:4-6 full chapter.) Please do not rejoice in their deaths. Emmanuel did not come to sacrifice. He came to teach the sinners to repent. Baptist John and Emmanuel were TWO WITNESSES! (Matthew 9:13; Matthew 3:7-12) Now go and study this.2602:304:CE4E:DF40:21BE:EAE4:70C:5076 (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)SB

Wikipedia does not use original research (including primary source based original research). Talk pages are for article improvement, Wikipedia is not a pulpit to preach from. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Like the Bible, the article does not say that the three wise men were present at the baby's birth. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"King Herod was killed" Do you have a source supporting the claim that Herod the Great was killed? Based on our sources he died of natural causes, chronic kidney disease and Fournier gangrene. Dimadick (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biblical_Magi/Archive_1&oldid=1146421238"