Talk:Biblical Magi

Relics

Need a section on the relics, location, importance, and all that blarney. Not 'Tombs' - Relics.

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)

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)

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)

qestionable 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)

"Astrologers"

"...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)

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)

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? (?)

• Read the article -- Jmabel | Talk 00:21, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

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)

duplication

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

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

---

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))

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)

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! :) Garrett^Talk 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)

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)

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)

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...

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))

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)

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.

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))

"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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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