Jump to content

Talk:Biblical Magi/Archive 2

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

No need to add conjecture about kings again

In the lede, there is a clear sentence about the concept of the Magi being incorrectly called kings:

Their identification as kings in later Christian writings is probably linked to Psalms 72:11, "May all kings fall down before him".

Then immediately starting the biblical account section it discusses it again:

Traditional nativity scenes depict three "kings" visiting the infant Jesus on the night of his birth, in a manger accompanied by the shepherds and angels, but this should be understood as an artistic convention allowing the two separate scenes of the Adoration of the Shepherds on the birth night and the later Adoration of the Magi to be combined for convenience. The single biblical account in Matthew simply presents an event at an unspecified point after Christ's birth in which an unnumbered party of unnamed "wise men" ("μάγοι") visits him in a house ("οἰκίαν"), not a stable, with only "his mother" mentioned as present. The New Revised Standard Version of Matthew 2:1–12 describes the visit of the Magi in this manner

The scripture that follows discusses the Magi. The next section, description, discusses the actual word used in the Koine Greek text. Finally in the religious significance section. The second paragraph explains how the tradition of referring to them as kings started. So to include the following paragraph in the description section is not required:

Although the Magi are commonly referred to as "kings," there is nothing in the account from the Gospel of Matthew that implies that they were rulers of any kind. The common tradition that the Magi were kings probably relates to Psalm 72:11 "Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations serve him"[1][2][3][4] Later Christian interpretation stressed the Adorations of the Magi and shepherds as the first recognition by the people of the earth of Christ as the Redeemer. The reformer John Calvin was vehemently opposed to people who referred to the Magi as kings. He once wrote: "Beyond all doubt, they have been stupefied by a righteous judgment of God, that all might laugh at [their] gross ignorance."[5]

It is already discussed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Psalm 72:11 (King James Version) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+72%3A11&version=KJV
  2. ^ "Magi". Encyclopedia Britannica.
  3. ^ s.v. magi. Oxford English Dictionary (Third ed.). April 1910.
  4. ^ Drum, Walter. "Magi." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 24 Dec. 2016 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09527a.htm>.
  5. ^ Ashby, Chad. "Magi, Wise Men, or Kings? It's Complicated." Christianity Today, December 16, 2016. http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/holidays/christmas/magi-wise-men-or-kings-its-complicated.html.
Without, at this point, engaging the underlying question, one reason why there would be this apparent repetition is that the lead summarizes the body and is generally unreferenced. The body of the article will generally give the point again, usually with more detail and definitely with a proper reference.
Since that custom is not exactly followed in this article, it's up to the consensus developed on the Talk page to decide what to do. Or am I missing your point entirely?  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
My point is that the addition is repetitive and not required. If consensus is that it is necessary, or at least references are needed, let's go with consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't actually spelled out at all clearly (which is why people kept feeling the need to "repeat" it - ie, say it clearly). Remember that this is, at this time of year especially, a very popular article. The broad theological interpretation of the kings as reps for the peoples of the earth was not mentioned at all, a remarkable omission, until I added half a sentence, which could do with refs and expansion. None of the refs used on the "kings" issue, new and old, nor the link with OT texts, are of ideal quality. The lead is too short for such a long article, and there is room to de-compress the coverage there, as well as summarizing other sections not mentioned at all now. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Seeing that it is apparently causing an immense amount of controversy, I would like to lay out the specific reasons for why I initially added in the disputed paragraph regarding the Magi's identification as kings to begin with:
1. The first reason why I added the paragraph was because the article never actually touches on the issue in depth. Although Walther Görlitz seems to insist that the issue is "already covered," a reader examining the page would be hard-pressed to find even the slightest trace on the matter in the article. The single sentence at the end of the lede is extremely brief and is completely devoid of any specific details or explanations. Furthermore, it is exceptionally vague. Its exact meaning seems unclear, but no further clarification is offered. It does not even directly state that Matthew never actually calls the Magi "kings." The paragraph Walther Görlitz describes from the beginning of the "Biblical account" section is even less direct. In fact, it barely even touches on the subject at all. It merely puts the word "kings" in quotation marks, which clearly does not qualify as an adequate explanation. Instead, it completely ignores the vast complexity of the matter and simply reduces the whole question of the Magi's identity to merely a matter of punctuation.
2. The other reason why I added the paragraph was because I felt that the issue over the Magi's traditional identification as kings was an integral issue that deserved to be covered in-depth and fully explained. Since the article clearly did not already do this, I felt it was necessary to add the paragraph.
I am not trying to offend anyone and I would like to offer my apologies if anyone has been offended by what I am saying. I am merely trying to explain why I feel that the paragraph I added is a necessary addition to the article and is in no way extraneous.Katolophyromai (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
No offence taken, but we should rework either the "new" text or the whole article to avoid duplication. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I do not think that reworking the new paragraph or the entire article will be necessary. As far as I can tell, you seem to be the only one who thinks that the paragraph I added is repetitive. I think that the new paragraph adequately fills the need for an explanation of the Magi's traditional identification as kings. Since the rest of the article does not really address the issue, I think it is fine if we leave it the way it is right now. I think that the sentence in the lede can probably remain the way it is since the lede is generally supposed to summarize the content of the article. I think that the paragraph from the beginning of the "Biblical account" section is probably also fine the way it is since it really is not talking about the Magi's traditional identification as kings and is really talking about the way that the shepherds and the Magi are conventionally portrayed visiting the infant Christ together rather than separately.
The only changes I think are necessary at this point are that I think the new paragraph probably needs better sources. Right now, the quotation from John Calvin is cited to the article from Christianity Today, but I would prefer for the quote to be cited directly to whichever of John Calvin's works it actually comes from. I also think that the citation should give the translator of the passage credit. Unfortunately, I am uncertain of which work the quotation actually comes from, which is why I was hoping someone else would be able to find out. Katolophyromai (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Calvin is cited again, rather dubiously used as a WP:RS, in the "religious significance" section, which actually is only about feast days etc. Actual content on the "religious significance" would be nice. In general the article, like much of Wikipedia, is strong on detailed points, but poor as an overview of the subject (as people have been complaining here for over 10 years). Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I did not see that paragraph. I must have accidentally overlooked it. Actually, the paragraph in the "Religious significance" section seems to cover the issue much better than either of the two passages Walter Görlitz is claiming as evidence that the subject has already been covered. It is still extremely vague and amorphous, but it actually does directly confront the issue (sort of). It does offer several more Old Testament prophecies associated with the traditional portrayal of the Magi as kings. It might be better if we took this paragraph out of the "Religious significance" section and moved to the "Description" section, where we could edit it together into the paragraph I wrote to create one passage addressing the matter. The two passages Walter Görlitz has quoted can probably be left mostly the way they are right now, although they may require some minor tweaks here and there.
I would probably not consider John Calvin as a reliable source of historical information, but it is worth including the quotation from him to show that he was opposed to the categorization of the Magi as kings, since this is relevant to the article.
I agree that the "Religious significance" section does require some improvement. We should not take out the feast days or the description of the Magi's relevance in Islam because both of those things are definitely important and should be included, but we need to add a better explanation of the Magi's overall religious significance. Katolophyromai (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Just noting this Massacre of the Innocents for future salvage. We should have some of this. Johnbod (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biblical Magi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biblical Magi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biblical Magi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Chuck Missler?

"Evangelical Bible teacher Chuck Missler has also written about this tradition." It's hard to see what this adds to the article; it seems to have been included as an excuse to mention this person. --94.119.64.0 (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems like an poorly written sentence based on a reliable source. It would be better to have a summary or a few points from the work than what's there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Not even that. As it stands, who cares? How is it encyclopedic, and why not add everyone whose written about it if they are notable? All we have is an article on his website. Without multiple reliable sources discussing it, it's not encyclopedic. I've deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

"gestures of respect"

this section is not sourced and seems to be original research. I suggest it be removed.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Richardson mcphillips: I've tagged it as it's not particularly odd. It should be revisited after a year or so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Catalan traditions

Some of the so-called "Catalan traditions" are followed in the whole Spain. Besides, it got not sense quoting Ibi's Cabalgata into this point, since it does not belong to Catalonia. You cannot made a separate point quoting things that don't belong there...

Lamb Novel References

Christopher Moore bases his novel, Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal, around Christ's search for the three Magi. This could be used as a reference in art if concensus sees fit.

The Magi as Kings

"This is likely linked to Old Testament prophesies that have the messiah being worshipped by kings." I moved this here: if there is a relevant O.T. prophecy, it should be noted explicitly, along with the the unexpected circumstance that the author of Matthew, whose narrative is constructed to link one OT "prophecy" concerning the messiah with another, missed such a rich opportunity, if the visitors were indeed expected to be kings. --Wetman 20:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to Brown's The Birth of the Messiah the verses commonly mentioned as being linked are Isaiah 60:3, Psalm 72:10, and Psalm 68:29. The issue of why Matthew adds so few OT references to the Magi story is one that is discussed among scholars. The main focus of this debate is on Numbers 24:17, which pretty clearly predicts a star but is also unquoted by Matthew. One view, supported by Schweizer, is that the author of Matthew never adapted the narrative to fit OT quotations, rather he adapted the quotations to fit his narrative. Matthew would have been more likely to make up a quotation that referred to magi than turn the people he believed were magi into kings. Brown feels that OT references were left out because the author of Matthew himself felt the story was somewhat incredible and doubted the accuracy of his material. C.S. Mann believes that Matthew did not want to associate astrology with the word of God.
The statement that "alternate traditions have as little as two and as many as twelve visiting Jesus" also comes straight from Brown, though he does not mention which traditions. - SimonP 21:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I hope you'll agree it was right to remove the statement: If the author of Matthew's intention was that the verses in Isaiah and Psalms should have been recognized by hearers of his narrative, then state so. Matthew's narrative is a string of fulfilled prophecies; scholars' discussion how this has come about might be summarized in a subsection. If the issue of why Matthew adds no explicit references to the Magi story is one that is discussed among scholars, a summary of the discussion is encyclopediable. If Brown's The Birth of the Messiah is a reference that comes up in Discussion, why not enter it among References or Sources or Further reading? Indeed the "Star prophecy" of Numbers 24:17 was not mentioned in Greek Matthew: can you see any political reason why it might not have been wise to make it explicit? --Wetman 22:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No I don't think it was right to remove the statement, but it seems to have been unclear. No one I have read believes that Matthew was indirectly referencing Psalms and Isaiah. The idea that the magi were kings only arose sometime after the Gospel was written. There is no evidence that the author of Matthew thought that the magi were kings. The sentence does not mean that "Isaiah and Psalms should have been recognized by hearers of his narrative" as the author of Matthew did not see any links to the OT as he did not consider the magi to be kings. It means that later readers, who were perhaps less familiar with what the word magi meant and were more willing to abandon realism, made the magi into kings to fit with the OT. - SimonP 22:26, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
SimonP has also returned to the article two fragments of fluff that he seems to admire: This is likley linked to Old Testament prophesies that have the messiah being worshipped by kings in Isaiah 60:3, Psalm 72:10, and Psalm 68:29. Early readers reinterpreted Matthew in light of these prophecies and elevated the magi to kings. "Likely linked" by SimonP apparently, but not by the author of Matthew it would seem, as he has stated already. Who is saying this link is "likely"? "Early readers" is the intellectual equivalent of "some", so often a disguise for ignorance or laziness, is it not? If the author of Matthew was not referencing Psalms and Isaiah, then Simon P's instancing of them is irrelevant. In addition, the reader of Wikipedia is still treated to the following owlish proposition: "Alternate traditions have as little as two and as many as twelve visiting Jesus." "Alternate traditions"! Scarcely an improvement, but SimonP must have it so.
--Wetman 23:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the article about The Biblical Magi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi) it mentions Psalm 72:11 linked to this event however this is not correct. This prophecy mentioned in this Psalm as well as the others cited as Isaiah 60:3 and Psalm 68:29 in the description area hold a different meaning. Example being Psalm 72:11 prophecy, citing Gill's Exposition of The Entire Bible "this will be fulfilled when the kings of the earth shall bring their honor and glory into the New Jerusalem, Revelation 21:24." 2607:FEA8:995F:FA8C:5D9B:ECDB:44FA:D55C (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Since it is just one of various interpretations, and the subject is based entirely on tradition, you would need a better source for the assertion that it is "not correct" than a single commentary's alternative subjective interpretation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Language

There are both American and international spellings used in the article, but more of the latter. It should be standardized on one or the other though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Black Face

Hello, in a picture of costume kids, one of them made a black face. This may be understood as racism. (Anhaabaete (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC))

Caspar has been traditionally understood as from Africa so I would not discount the option. The question is what picture? It likely has more to say about the culture and time than the subject here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, try to understand it as diversity! Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think of it as that. I'm sure that some misguided groups may still do so, and it might have been more prevalent in the past, but it's certainly not encouraged (as some other blackface instances are) and so I don't know that we need to address it, at least not without reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
But we do "address it", as of course we must, at several places, & many of the illustrations show it. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I suppose I hadn't actually looked closely. Yes, there's a dubious section on Spain and another just below it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
And in the names and art sections, and at least 2 more. It was a basic aspect of the story for at least 1,000 years. Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Which movie of Ben-Hur?

From the article: "In the movie Ben-Hur, Balthasar is an old man who goes back to Palestine to see the former child Jesus become an adult."

Which movie of Ben-Hur? There were several. -- Jmabel 19:08, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it is in the novel, but I don't remember the details. It certainly is in the Charlton Heston version. -- Error 00:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Isn't a characterization of the Christian mythology of Balthasar that references Ben-Hur ajust a little... I'm looking for the tactful word... help me here... The development of the details of the Three Wise Men from the merest hint in the N.T. is actually a serious and interesting chapter of the history of ideas and of iconography. ---Wetman 11:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

dubious addition

Someone recently added to the article "believed to be the very bright Jupiter-Saturn conjunction)". Believed by whom? By the wise men? By the author of the Bible story? By some random group of Christians? There may be some relevant individual who holds this belief, but I son't know who. Most scientists -- those who would study a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction -- presumably reject the historicity of the account of the Wise Men visiting the infant Jesus. Unless someone turns this into something clearer within 48 hours, I intend simply to delete it. -- Jmabel (17:34 PDT, Sep 25, 2004; failed to timestamp this when I wrote it)

48 hours have passed, no clarification, I'm removing it. -- Jmabel 02:36, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Justified. Part of the long tradition for establishing a "historicity" of all the Nativity events— a chronicle that just can't be neutrally discussed at Wikipedia. --Wetman 11:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


NPOV and Cleanup labels

These have been applied recently to this article (and to others) by User:CheeseDreams. That user's actual contributions to this entry may be assessed at the Page History. --Wetman 23:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What an amazingly trivial matter to raise a formal dispute over. Assuming, of course, that is what he/she is disputing. User:CheeseDreams, would you please clarify here on the talk page exactly what you are disputing, or I will feel free simply to remove those labels. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:52, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

The {} sign/s

As noted by User:Wetman and User:Jmabel above, the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} were placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning. They have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 09:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

duplication

This page duplicates Magus extensively. --Wahoofive 22:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That would make sense. --Wetman 20:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biblical_Magi/Archive_2&oldid=1081212435"