Talk:Magi

message: ===Majoos reference===
The "Majoos" article reference given in the external links was incorrectly listed as Persian, when it is in fact Urdu. I have corrected this, but there should probably a genuinely Persian link included there as well.
:The term is Arabic/Persian. All Urdu terms that are not Sanskrit derived are Arabic, Persian or Turkish.Malaiya (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from talk:Mage

message: The "Majoos" article reference given in the external links was incorrectly listed as Persian, when it is in fact Urdu. I have corrected this, but there should probably a genuinely Persian link included there as well.
:The term is Arabic/Persian. All Urdu terms that are not Sanskrit derived are Arabic, Persian or Turkish.Malaiya (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Majoos reference

message: I had always believed that the singular of Magi was Mage.  Can anyone confirm or deny this?  (Also cross posting to Talk:Magus)
*Strictly speaking, the singluar of 'magi' is 'magus' (per Latin grammar). The plural of 'mage' is 'mages' (per English grammar).  Radiant_* 11:37, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
I am wondering if magi/magus should be capitalized when used? Rnyediva 22:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mage and Magi

message: [Comment below moved from article, originally by 207.108.246.48 - RedWordSmith 17:09, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)]
(whoever wrote this is wrong. The term Mage is a short version of the word Magius 'In Latin meaning: One connected to the magic.' I myself feel insulted by this writers arrogance. The magic holds this Universe together and the God's only know where we would be without it. Mages are mearly those who have the metality, open-mindedness, and physical capability to weild it to one degree or another. The Four Orders (Darkness: Earth, Light: Water, Nuetriality: Fire, and the Grey: Air) existed many years ago and it is said will rise again. Note that this is only an opinion based on my own experience, knowledge, and being of the Gey myself. Note also that people should not go off a single religous book when there are hundreds out there that are even older then the ones listed in the previous writings. To say that these religouns are wrong, or false, is to be ignorant and saying that the Ancestors (founders of the world, and the most connected to the gods) of this world were wrong. Sorry if I got a little off the subject but I was trying to prove a point that made me feel as starongly as I do.)
(ANOTHER ERROR)  Zarathustra was a member of the Magian Order.  He redefined his beliefs and created the Zorastrian religion.  While the Zorastrian faith is an offshoot of the Magian Order, it is incorrect to say that all Magi were Zorastrians.  
(CLARIFICATION)  The gifts given by the Magi to the baby Jesus were assosciated with the funerary practices.  According to Egyptian beliefs, for the spirit of the dead to affect the mortal plane after death, it had to be able to return to its body to sleep at night, and it could then "go forth by day."  For the body to be preserved, five things were needed.  The first two are common:  natron salt found in natural deposits, and strips of linen.  These were easily obtained.  However, the remaining three items were expensive and rare.  These were myrrh, with which the inner wall of the
stomach had to be rubbed, frankincense, for fumigating the body, and a piece of gold that had to be placed within the body.  The Magi, believed to be of the Zoroastrian offshoot of the Magian Order, brought to Jesus the three items he would need to be mummified upon his death.  As this process was only done for those believed to be the children of, or in direct service to, the gods, they were thus acknowledging his being the son of God. 
(CLARIFICATION)  Some mistakenly claim that Magi did not use magic, and refer back to the fact that the Magi were openly against the use of Sorcery.  However, these people fail to realize that Sorcery is only one form of magic.  Sorcery is the practice of bringing about supernatural occurances through assosciation with and employment of demonic entities.  The Magi believed very strongly in the idea that, upon death, each person was held fully accountable for all of their actions in life.  As a result of this belief, they were opposed to any practice which would subjugate the Magi's will, or allow them to act in an inappropriate way through intermediaries.  This resulted in Sorcery being banned by the Magian Order.  However, other forms of magic were both accepted and promoted by the Magi.  Telepathy, for example, was a common practice amongst the Magi.  As the people of the time believed that all thought originated from the heart, they referred to telepathy as reading another's heart rather than their mind.  The mind, they believed, was useless matter.
I'm wondering why Zoroaster had "Pseudo" next to it. If I am correct "Pseudo" means like fake, in my opinion for respect for modern Zoroastrians, I would like someone to remove the word pseudo next to it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeavenlyKitsune (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors? 

message: An anonymous user added what was apparently an external link to a page in Arabic.  I set it up in the proper format, but I cannot make head nor tail of it.  Can someone verify that this link is pertinent and appropriate?  -- Smerdis of Tlön 05:16, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004 commments

message: I had always believed that the singular of Magi was Mage.  Can anyone confirm or deny this? (Also cross posting to Talk:Mage)
:It is.  Mage seems to be used mostly in fantasy writing and RPGing; magus for historical characters.  Smerdis of Tlön 23:59, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this related to the word [[Mage]] ? 

message: Much of the text in this article is coming from the assumption that there were three wise men - but this idea does not come from the biblical texts (I dare you to try and find it! :-) ). Here's some more info from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09527a.htm:
"The Gospel narrative omits to mention the number of the Magi, and there is no certain tradition in this matter. Some Fathers speak of three Magi; they are very likely influenced by the number of gifts. In the Orient, tradition favours twelve. Early Christian art is no consistent witness:
    * a painting in the cemetery of Sts. Peter and Marcellinus shows two;
    * one in the Lateran Museum, three;
    * one in the cemetery of Domitilla, four;
    * a vase in the Kircher Museum, eight (Marucchi, "Eléments d'archéologie chrétienne", Paris, 1899, I 197)."
Most likely this was an entourage of delegates from the Parthian empire, as travel during the period - especially with the valuables they were carrying - would have been dangerous. The number of visitors and purpose for the visit would be one explanation for Herod's reaction in Matthew chapter 2 (ref. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=matthew%202&version=31).
--RMann 23:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just how many were there? 

message: Does this article really need a reference to a popular anime series?  Seems like an overly geekly to a completely unrelated subject matter.129.42.208.182 21:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anime Reference? 

message: Does the Gospel of Matthew really say that the three wise men from the east were magi?  A tradition says they were magi, but is that actually in the gospel? Michael Hardy 03:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; they are called μαγοι in the Greek text of Matthew 2:1.  They are not called kings in the Bible, but they are definitely magi.  Aland-Black-Martini-Metzger-Wiegren Greek New Testament,  -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy issue

message: There are certain points in the article on 'Magus' which need explanation. When writing about the historical references to the story of the The Three Magi or The Three Wise Men of the East, the writer explains that 'since the seventh century in Western Europe', the names of the three magi are believed to be 'Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar' and that 'Syrian Christians call them Larvandad, Hormisdas, and Gushnasaph'. He, then adds 'None of these names is obviously Persian or carries any ascertainable meaning.'
It should be mentioned that many biblical names in the western tradition are complete distorations of the actual names and are influenced not only by translation and typographical mistakes but also by intentional plans to make the religious stories more understandable to certain groups of people. As a result, the best way to decide where these people had come from is to focus on the Syrian names which, in spite of the writer's claims, are obviously Persian.
The first name 'Larvandad' is a combination of 'Lar', which is a region near Tehran, and 'vand' or 'vandad' which is a commoan suffix in middle Persian meaning 'related to' or located in'. 'Vand' is also present in the names of such Iranian locations as  'Damavand', 'Nahavand', 'Alvand', and such names and titles as 'Varjavand' and 'Vandidad'. Alternatively, it might be a combination of 'Larvand' meaning 'the region of Lar' and 'Dad' meaning 'given by'. the latter suffix can also be seen in such Iranian nams as Tirdad, Mehrdad, Bamdad or such previously Iranian locations as Bagdad (God Given)presently called Baghdad in Iraq. Thus, the name simply means born in or given by 'Lar'.
The second name, Hormisdas is a variation of the Modern Persian name 'Hormoz' which was  'Hormazd' and 'Hormazda' in Middle Persian. The name refered to the angel of the first day of each month whose name had been given by the supreme God who, in old Persian, was called 'Ahooramazda' or 'Ormazd'. 
The third name 'Gushnasaph' was a common name used in Old and Middle Persian. In Modern Persian, it is 'Gushnasp' or 'Gushtasp'. The name is a combination of 'Gushn' meaning full of manly qualities or full of desire or energy for something and 'Asp', Modern Persian 'Asb', which means horse. As all scholars of Iranian studies know, horses were of great importance for the Iranians and many Iranian names including the presently used 'Lohrasp', 'Jamasp', 'Garshasp', and 'Gushtasp' contain the suffix. As a result, the second name might mean something like 'as energetic and verile as a horse' or 'full of desire for having horses. Alternatively, 'Gushn' is also recorded to have meant 'Many'. Thus, the name might simply mean 'the Owner of Many Horses'. 
I hope these short explanations open new horizons for studies of the historical overtones of the story. It should be added that, at the time, the most important political influences in the region were the Parthians from Iran and Romans from Asia Minor and Italy.
Saeed Reza Talajooy,
PhD Candidate,
University of Leeds,
srtalajooy@hotmail.com
:Thanks for this bit of information!  this is quite interesting.  I have amended the article accordingly, and done some reformatting and linking of your comments.  I moved your whole text to talk so that your note could be preserved as written.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 02:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving some remarks 

message: The characters led by Ardeth Bey (actor: Oded Fehr) in The Mummy Returns, not The Mummy as originally quoted in this article, are not actually Magi, but rather Medjai (not sure if that is the correct plural), spelled in Wikipedia as Medjay, tribal leaders.  A key here is that Magi were Persian mystics, whereas Medjai/Medjay are Nubians (in real life); in The Mummy Returns itself, this is confirmed by the fact that Ardeth Bey and company speak Arabic, not Persian.  Hence the deletion.  I have no inclination to add references regarding The Mummy Returns to the Medjay entry, nor reference to the Medjay in Oded Fehr's reference, though someone else is welcome to.
--Ted Gellar 6.08 p.m. EDT, 29 May 2005.
: He was a "magic-user" priest though, IIRC. That would fit in the article in fiction area, as he was a sorcerer. Mabey a a note on the "Medjay sorcerer" could be fit in. JDR 15:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of Reference to ''The Mummy''

message: This article is disorganized, in that the section titled "Magi" starts the whole article over again.  It was clearly intended to be the beginning of the article.  The two beginnings need to get merged. Michael Hardy 00:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The organization of the article was pretty bad in general. All fixed now! --Tydaj 14:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the "cleanup" tag

message: I have removed the following from the "fictional magi" section:
:A particularly well-known fictional tale of a magus is the novel The Magus by British author John Fowles, which was later made into a film with Anthony Quinn in the title role. 
For the record, I am a huge fan of John Fowles, and The Magus is my favourite book. However, its inclusion in that section is highly misleading. There is actually no magus in The Magus, except in the most abstract sense. The Magus is not about a magus, or about magic at all. It is about self-exploration, understanding life and love; becoming an adult.
In any case, there is already a disambig link to The Magus at the beginning of the article; besides being misleading, this section was also redundant. --Ashenai 22:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed the Fowles novel reference from "fictional magi" section

message: Since "Mage" directs to this page, a disambiguation between this page and the WhiteWolf game "Mage: The Ascension" is required, IMHO. TYVM. 198.107.20.174 20:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mage: The Ascension 

message: The Magi were a *Median* tribe and therefore inhabitants of *Media*. It could be said they were at a time inhabitants of the Persian Empire, but that is irrelevant. -----Someone didn't sign their post
*Actually, the Persians and Medes were Aryan cousins and at that time, there was a lot of intermingling of the two groups. Also, two of the Magi were ethnic Persians, and one was a member of the Empire, but perhaps not ethnically Persian.  
http://www.farsinet.com/wisemen/magi.html
http://www.paralumun.com/magi.htm
Of course, the spelling of the names vary, but the Magi have always been Zoroastrian. I have no idea how some have decided to make them Ethiopian, etc. Come on, people! There is no historical evidence for that at all, but plenty for the Zoroastrian Persian Magi. They were "Irooni"/Iranian. 
OT: (as will be seen in the photos of some links) I have never understood how (even under some Mongoloid control) the Chinese artists decided to draw/paint Iranians as Asian/oriental looking (eyes more Asian than the typical slightly almond-shaped of Persians, Celts, etc.) . There are some Mongoloids or Mongols to the far East, descendants of slaves in the deep South that have not really intermarried with the ethnic Iranians, and some Arab-Iranians (Arabs living in Iran) to the west. Most Northern and Central Iranians are Aryan, including the so-called Turkish Iranians who are only actually culturally Turkish and ethnically Iranian. I myself have Haplogroup HV2 which is Northern European (H) mixed with Mediterranean (V) - Spanish, French, etc., as are most white Iranians and many of their cousins - Greeks, Macedonians, Germans, Celts Italians, etc. I also found out HV2 is significant in Austria, Germany, Macedonia, and Sardinia, as well as Iran. It only proved what scholars and scientists have discovered about the ethnic diversity in Iran. Most of the HV2 and European Haplogroups in Iran are in the Northern and Central areas. The same goes for Northern India, also cousins to Iranians and Europeans. There will always be mixtures everywhere, but I don't understand why the Iranians were all depicted as Mongols by the hired Chinese artists. I guess the world is the same everywhere. The ruling group will portray history as they see fit.  Or, it could be that people just see things differently through their own eyes and what's relative to themselves. Oh well. The art is beautiful, (see the tiny painted figures in ancient Iranian art, especially from the Mongoloid period - some are super tiny!).
Anways, enough rambling. I think Balthasar and Caspar (Gaspar)- see various spellings of all men- these two are the Persians. I think Melchior was Mede, but part of the Iranian empire. In any case, Medes and Persians are ethnic cousins. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ihabitants of Persia

message: I can't find any explanation of why there is both a "magi" article and a "Biblical Magi" article. I'd like to propose a merger. I suspect most people looking up the word magi are interested in the Star of Bethlehem story. If the issue is article length, at very least the link to "Biblical magi" should be given prominently near the top of the article. In any case, article length should not be a reason to take out the parts of an article that readers are most likely to be interested in.Kauffner 02:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magi/Biblica magi: Proposed merger 

message: Perhaps it should be noted that "Magus" in modern times is used by various groups as a title of high rank. The Church of Satan holds it as their highest degree and the TEmple of Set holds it as their second highest. It was used by groups like the Golden Dawn (along with others that Crowley associated with) and is claimed by people who claim to have great magical knowledge. 64.5.145.74 15:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Usage?  

message: I couldn't follow a reference, because there was no reference section. I've added a section but there is a problem with some of the references. I think I managed to fix the one with a big lump of crap in the text, but it leaves a few with { { title } } - since I'm not familiar with that format - I'm leaving it for now in the hope someone else is! Mike 11:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: It is notable that many occult organizations use Magus as a high title, sometimes the highest attainable. Examples are the Hemetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the A.A., Church of Satan, Temple of Set, and a variety of others. This should be included in the article.WerewolfSatanist 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occultism 

message: "It's also believed by some Christians that the Jewish prophet Daniel was rab hartumaya (master of sacred scribes) and entrusted a Messianic vision (to be announced in due time by a "star") to a secret sect of the Magi for its eventual fulfillment (Dan 4:9; Dan 5:11)." The two verses cited have nothing to do with the statement quoted. Unless there's a source supporting it, I think this sentence should be removed. Makerowner (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable sentence 

message: Hi CreativeSoul (and others)!  You wrote:  
::I removed the biased sentence, "It is, therefore, quite likely that the sacerdotal caste of the Magi was distinct from the Median tribe of the same name." . It isn't likely that the Magis came from non-Iranian lands. ...
and this started an argument.  May I offer some thoughts on how to resolve this?  The problem is really one of "how to edit" a wikipedia article, daft as that sounds.
Firstly, CreativeSoul, you reckon that "it is... quite likely" is biased, and you say that you think different.  But this isn't the right type of objection.  We don't do original research here; we just quote other people.  Now, *I* don't like the first phrase either, but for a different reason.  Surely Wikipedia should not have an opinion on whether something is likely?  It should just state facts -- things which everyone agrees are facts.  So in this case, if "it is ... quite likely" is someone's opinion, then we need it to read like:
::Professor xxx says, "It is, therefore, quite likely that..."[1] 
with a reference.  That is a fact -- that professor xxx says this.  It doesn't mean it is true!  And if it is not true, the correct way to edit this is to add something like:
::Professor yyy however has said that, "Few modern scholars now believe that ..." [2]
and ALSO with a reference.
That way we don't actually express any opinion in Wikipedia.  We just find what the scholars say, and we give it.  If most scholars say that Zoroaster was Elvis (daft, I know), then we don't say "Most scholars think Zoroaster was Elvis."  It might be true, but WIKIPEDIA must not express that opinion.  We say "Professor zzz says that most scholars think Zoroaster was Elvis."
These are just my thoughts, but I think this is how we can resolve issues like this.  We make each statement a quote, or else a summary of a quote (with the full quote in the footnote). Of course it requires people to read the scholars, and so is harder work!  Roger Pearse (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: How to edit, how not to edit 

message: ::There is a cite error in ref 3, ref name="Gershevitch"Megistias (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite error 

message: There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Biblical Magi - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 16:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: The embedded image has Frankincense represents Africa, Gold represents Asia, and Myrrh and represents Europe. At school, like 50 years ago, I learnt differently: gold is a gift for a king, frankincense a gift for a priest, and myrrh a gift for a dead man. How does this interpretation stand the test of time?
Old_Wombat (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another interpretation of the Gifts of the Magi? 

message: What is the cause/event(s) for the separation from the pre/post 4th century BC separation? (Not for editing or anything, I just want to know for personal knowledge).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.139.200 (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th century BC separation? 

message: where did the magus link dissapear to? it is referenced in darius the 1st, and now has been merged, and gone, and changed
magi is different from  magus  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docdemort (talk • contribs) 11:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  where did the magus link dissapear to? it is referenced in darius the 1st, and now has been merged, and gone, and changed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411114823/http://www.cambridgesecurity.net/pdf/iraqi-mindset.pdf to http://www.cambridgesecurity.net/pdf/iraqi-mindset.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704163709/http://www.paradoxplace.com/Church_Stuff/Christian_Themes/The_Magi.htm to http://www.paradoxplace.com/Church_Stuff/Christian_Themes/The_Magi.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I checked the Hebrew original as to the references to the book of Daniel and the word Magi does not appear there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.187.164.72 (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as far as I can tell does make any claim about the Hebrew Bible and for that matter Hebrew is not mentioned in the article. It just says it was used in the Old Testament and cites the Septuagint of Daniel 1:20; 2:2, 2:10, 2:27; 4:4; 5:7, 5:11, 5:15. The Septuagint was in Greek and dates to the 1st and 2nd century. According the the Wikipedia article for the Book of Daniel those sections were originally in Aramaic. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Magi is not in the Hebrew Bible

message: I was just wondering why the word pseudo is next to Zoroaster in the article. Though I am not an actual Zoroastrian, I just want Zoroastrians not to feel upset, because if I am correct the root word "Pseudo" means fake. HeavenlyKitsune (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately we use it in the article, because scholars use it. That said, the use of it is a bit of a compliment. It acknowledges that Zoroaster may have existed, but the writings the Greeks were using were not likely to have been written by him. It would have been insulting to refer to him as mythical implying any writings attributed to him were fake. See Pseudepigrapha. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo-Zoroaster 

message: Dear 
Magi entry contains, in parts highly speculative and affirmative claims and lacks sources/citations.
e.g. Zoroastrianism only being a religion for the "Western Iranians" when in actuality during the different empires, and especially during the last Iranian empire, the Sassanid empire, it was a state religion until the muslim Arabian conquest. This is actually a consensus view among historians. Why is it mentioned as only a religion among socalled Western Iranians?
As evidenced by the long list of objections in this talk-section, there is clearly quite a few disputes about the contents on this Wikipedia-entry.
Another claim about Heraclitus not being influenced by Zoroastrian philosophy and astrology is simply not the case. There is clear evidence that he was in fact influenced by Zoroastrian thought and philosophy.
I found several claims which lack citations and are factually incorrect.
As per Wikpedia guidelines, I have marked the main article as "disputed".
I will make sure to help out with this section in due time.
All the best,
Ardeshir1st --Ardeshir1st (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute: Magi article is highly speculative 

message: I propose to merge Majus into Magi. I think that the content in the Majus article can easily be explained in the context of Magi, and the Magi article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Majus will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. pablohoney (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. The Arabic terms Majūs deserves a full treatment. It not only meant Magi, it also meant Vikings. Both usages get long articles in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. –Srnec (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose, majus is a localized slur and Magi is a historical people — having the same etymology isn't enough to support merging them. Zhomron (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal