Epiphanalia

[Mike Davis]

God is the source of our reason and did not create chaos, but a rational
world, that can be understood through His laws written in Nature as well
as mankind’s hearts.

This week we have celebrated the Epiphany, when, St Luke tells us, some
‘wise men’ or ‘Magi’ came to offer gifts to the infant Jesus.

"Epiphany' means 'Shining through' or 'Revelation', so how was Jesus
revealed?

Although these people studied the stars they were far more scientists
than astrologers as some claim. They were watchers of the skies who
carefully recorded what they saw and were able to note deviations from
the norm, as all good science does. Their understanding of the
relationship with the skies (and clearly their beliefs) meant that God
was able to guide them to show what He was doing. Astronomy was common
in the countries to the East of Israel (lucky people had clear skies!)
and presumably enabled them to navigate across land (as well as sea?).
Note: ‘They returned by another route’.

Apart from the brief story in Luke, we know nothing about them and can
only speculate where Luke got his information from, Mary, perhaps?

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/01/2022 16:08, Mike Davis wrote:

> Apart from the brief story in Luke, we know nothing about them and can
> only speculate where Luke got his information from, Mary, perhaps?

Luke? In Protestant Bibles the story of the wise men is in Matthew
chapter 2.

Interestingly, the Greek says "magoi from anatolia". I presume our
"magii" is a Latinised version of "magoi" but in any case the Magi or
Mages were a well-known Persian phenomenon. A Mage was a member of the
Zoroastrian priesthood and most likely belonged to the Medes, a
sub-group who served as priests to the rest of the Median tribe.
Although by 4 BC the Magi were probably scattered all through Iran and
possibly even into the Roman empire, the original home of the Magi was
near Tehran. If that is where Matthew's Magoi came from, that meant a
journey of 966 miles as the crow flies, though in reality they would
almost certainly have come around the Fertile Crescent rather than
across the desert between the Euphrates and Palestine.

"Anatolia" is literally "dawn", hence "the east". On the other hand
Wikipedia notes that "their influence was also widspread throughout Asia
Minor", which is what we commonly think of as "Anatolia". Personally I
think the statement "we have seen His star in the east" precludes Turkey
as the home of these particular wise men.

It is interesting to note that, like all religious leaders with
supernatural powers, the magi were considered charlatans by thinking
men, probably because they were not above using sleight of hand to
impress the gullible. Nevertheless the men who came to Bethlehem were
not two-bit street performers, living from hand to mouth by conjuring
and producing fake astrological charts. Such people could never have
afforded gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. Our magi were clearly at
the top of their profession, possibly even in government employ.

If, as has been suggested in this thread, those gifts enabled the Holy
Family to survive in Egypt, that is reason enough for Mary to have
spoken of them to Matthew and others.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Mike Davis]

On 07/01/2022 20:38, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 07/01/2022 16:08, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Apart from the brief story in Luke, we know nothing about them and can
>> only speculate where Luke got his information from, Mary, perhaps?
>
> Luke? In Protestant Bibles the story of the wise men is in Matthew
> chapter 2.

LOL! Doh! I'd been making some notes on the infancy narratives and
thinking 'Luke' while wondering if he'd got the story directly from
Mary! ... then forgot to change gear!! ;-(

>
> Interestingly, the Greek says "magoi from anatolia". I presume our
> "magii" is a Latinised version of "magoi" but in any case the Magi or
> Mages were a well-known Persian phenomenon. A Mage was a member of the
> Zoroastrian priesthood and most likely belonged to the Medes, a
> sub-group who served as priests to the rest of the Median tribe.
> Although by 4 BC the Magi were probably scattered all through Iran and
> possibly even into the Roman empire, the original home of the Magi was
> near Tehran. If that is where Matthew's Magoi came from, that meant a
> journey of 966 miles as the crow flies, though in reality they would
> almost certainly have come around the Fertile Crescent rather than
> across the desert between the Euphrates and Palestine.

Indeed!

> "Anatolia" is literally "dawn", hence "the east". On the other hand
> Wikipedia notes that "their influence was also widspread throughout Asia
> Minor", which is what we commonly think of as "Anatolia". Personally I
> think the statement "we have seen His star in the east" precludes Turkey
> as the home of these particular wise men.

Agreed.

> It is interesting to note that, like all religious leaders with
> supernatural powers, the magi were considered charlatans by thinking
> men, probably because they were not above using sleight of hand to
> impress the gullible. Nevertheless the men who came to Bethlehem were
> not two-bit street performers, living from hand to mouth by conjuring
> and producing fake astrological charts. Such people could never have
> afforded gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. Our magi were clearly at
> the top of their profession, possibly even in government employ.
>
> If, as has been suggested in this thread, those gifts enabled the Holy
> Family to survive in Egypt, that is reason enough for Mary to have
> spoken of them to Matthew and others.

Good point!

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/01/2022 16:40, Mike Davis wrote:

>> Luke? In Protestant Bibles the story of the wise men is in Matthew
>> chapter 2.

> LOL!  Doh! I'd been making some notes on the infancy narratives and
> thinking 'Luke' while wondering if he'd got the story directly from
> Mary! ... then forgot to change gear!! ;-(

He he. I know fine that even the Douai version hasn't changed Scripture
to *that* extent.[1]

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

Note 1: In fact, I am not aware that it changed Scripture at all, just
cloaked it in obscure language. Despite the claim in the preface, "For
the better vnderstanding of the text and specially for the discouerie of
the corrvptions of diuers late translations, and for cleering the
controversies in religion," here's a sample from Ephesians 3:6:

That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the same body, and
partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel. (KJV)

The Gentils to be coheires and concorporat and comparticipant of His
promise in Christ Jesus by the Gospel. (Douai)

Talk about "clunky"!

[Mike Davis]

Only to C21st ears. For 1582 (for the NT) is earlier than the KJV, but
I don't know why you should be referring to that (nor making fun of
mediaeval spelling! My first NT was the Douai version, it was no
wonder that Catholics weren't encouraged to read the Bible!!

Even the US version (Douay-Rheims 1899) isn't too bad:
"That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and
co-partners of his promise in Christ Jesus, by the gospel:" Eph 3:6

When I went to Uni in 1957, my father bought me the Knox version, which
I grew to like:
"That through the gospel preaching the Gentiles are to win the same
inheritance, to be made part of the same body, to share the same divine
promise, in Christ Jesus." Eph 3:6 Knox

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/01/2022 21:54, Mike Davis wrote:

>> The Gentils to be coheires and concorporat and comparticipant of His
>> promise in Christ Jesus by the Gospel. (Douai)
>> Talk about "clunky"!

> Only to C21st ears.  For 1582 (for the NT) is earlier than the KJV, but
> I don't know why you should be referring to that (nor making fun of
> mediaeval spelling!   My first NT was the Douai version, it was no
> wonder that Catholics weren't encouraged to read the Bible!!

No, you won't find "concorporat" and "comparticipant" in Shakespeare,
nor even in earlier English and they have nothing to do with mediaeval
spelling. I suspect that the translators were adhering too closely to
the Latin.

[Mike Davis]

Well, I can't find any references to that version, so don't know which
version it is (the original 1582?) and am not defending it. But I do
suggest that it's not that difficult to understand. (But may explain why
Catholics were not invited to read the Bible by themselves!!):-

concorporat = co-corporate = same body.

comparticipant = co-participant (just the old form of that word)

Again I'd only argue that it's clunky 440 years later, you might just as
well ask mediaeval scholars to read today's text.

As an aside, I found this for Eph 3:6 -
Namely, that the Nations are fellow bnei HaYerushshah (heirs) of the
nachalah (allotted inheritance, Ps 16:5-6) and joint evarim of HaGuf
HaMoshiach [Gn 47:18; Ps 16:9-10; Job 19:25-27; Isa 53:11] and joint
partakers of the havtachah (promise) in Moshiach Yehoshua (Yeshua)
through the Besuras HaGeulah, [Ezek 47:22]

.. from the Orthodox Jewish Bible. Interesting?

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/01/2022 13:21, Mike Davis wrote:

> Well, I can't find any references to that version, so don't know which
> version it is (the original 1582?) and am not defending it. But I do
> suggest that it's not that difficult to understand. (But may explain why
> Catholics were not invited to read the Bible by themselves!!):-

Certainly if you speak and understand Latin the two words could be
teased apart - but they weren't part of everyday speech among the common
people.

> As an aside, I found this for Eph 3:6 -
> Namely, that the Nations are fellow bnei HaYerushshah (heirs) of the
> nachalah (allotted inheritance, Ps 16:5-6) and joint evarim of HaGuf
> HaMoshiach [Gn 47:18; Ps 16:9-10; Job 19:25-27; Isa 53:11] and joint
> partakers of the havtachah (promise) in Moshiach Yehoshua (Yeshua)
> through the Besuras HaGeulah, [Ezek 47:22]
> .. from the Orthodox Jewish Bible. Interesting?

Yeah, same sort of stupidity. And I'll bet that every time they used the
word "God" they spelled it "G-d". That way God can't accuse you of
blasphemy because you aren't really saying "God" and He's such a dimwit
he doesn't realise what you are actually saying.

Grrrrr.