Revelation of the Magi

[_Daniel Peterson]

Some may find this item of interest:

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=13909007&autostart=y

Incidentally, I don't believe the text to really come from the Magi. Nor do I think it was ever as completely "lost" as the HarperCollins marketing people have portrayed it. But it may well be quite early -- late second to early third century -- and it offers an interesting window into a strain of early Christianity.

[_Ray A]

"And I am everywhere because I am a ray of light, whose light has shown in this world from the majesty of my Father, who has sent me to fulfill everything that was spoken about me in the entire world and in every land by unspeakable mysteries and to accomplish the commandment by my glorious Father, who by the prophets preached about me to the contentious house in the same way as for you as befits your faith, it was revealed to you about me."

Let me complete the connection for you:

7Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.
8As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;
9As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;
10And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.
11And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;
12Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—
13The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (D&C: 88)

It’s okay, no need to reply. Let’s just leave it at that.

Note my sig.line.

[_Daniel Peterson]

In view of the very weird and very hostile response that was first posted here in this thread and now sits in the "Terrestrial Forum," I think I'll reveal more details of the sordid, embarrassingly self-promoting events that led to my involvement in the KSL-TV story mentioned in the opening post, above.

On 27 December 2010, I received an e-mail from Carole Mikita, the chief religion and culture reporter for KSL-TV, who has interviewed me before and who said that she had seen a 23 December 2010 ABC Nightline interview with Brent Landau about his relatively recent HarperCollins book, The Revelation of the Magi. She had found the interview intriguing, and wondered whether I would be willing to speak with her about the book, which she was now reading. I had been given the book for Christmas, but had not yet read it. I thought, "Why not?" So I said yes, I read the book, and her interview with me took place in the conference room of the Maxwell Institute on Monday morning, 3 January 2011. She interviewed Dr. Landau subsequently, by telephone.

The resulting story appeared, quite appropriately, on KSL's evening news on 6 January 2011, which is mainstream Western Christianity's "Day of Epiphany" (marking the visit of the Wise Men to the infant Jesus). Accompanying the video of the KSL-TV story on the KSL website is a brief article written by Carole Mikita, and another brief story by Ms. Mikita may have appeared in the Deseret News on Saturday, 8 January. (I haven't yet seen it, if it did, since I was busy all day yesterday with other matters.)

Yesterday's very weird and very hostile response (as it is set forth in several quite vehement posts) seems to presume that I was familiar with Michelle Healy's 6 December 2010 USA Today article about Professor Landau's book, but that I delayed mentioning that article until I could contrive a way to insert myself into it. This is not true. For one thing, I don't read USA Today; I had never heard of the USA Today article until yesterday's very weird and very hostile response called it to my attention. The very weird and very hostile response also seems to presume, if I can understand it, that Carole Mikita's article is identical to Michelle Healy's earlier piece, with the exception of my involvement. This doesn't appear, however, to be true at all. (According to what she told me, she heard of the book from the ABC Nightline story. I never heard her mention USA Today.) But readers here are perfectly free to compare the two articles. If there was plagiarism, it ought to be pretty obvious, and it seems to me that that would be an issue to be raised with Ms. Mikita and her employers.

[_moksha]

The urge to slam Dr. Peterson or any other Mormon academic type should not come at the expense of truth or reason. The true genesis of this article should allow everyone to to see the wisdom of refraining from put downs without knowing the facts.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The urge to slam Dr. Peterson or any other Mormon academic type should not come at the expense of truth or reason. The true genesis of this article should allow everyone to to see the wisdom of refraining from put downs without knowing the facts.

Thank you.

This particular assault on me was vitriolic, of course. (Knowing its author, I wasn't surprised by that.) But I was quite surprised by the specific content of the attack, which still strikes me as deeply strange and entirely wrong-headed.


P.S. Incidentally, the very hostile and very weird response has now sunk all the way down to the "Telestial Forum":

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16381


.

[_mfbukowski]

I would be interested to hear more about the argument in favor of the magi NOT being Persian Zoroastrians, since they had prophecies about the coming savior, and the appearance of a star to herald the birth of the "Sun of Righteousness" would be very consistent with their religious tradition. They of course were worshipers of the sun, and fire, and light in general.

I have speculated for some time that Zoroastrianism may have originally begun with a legitimate dispensation of the gospel which later went apostate, since there are many many parallels with our beliefs.

Is there more in the book about that, or does he base the whole argument on the etymology on the Syriac word for "Magi"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think that Professor Landau is arguing that the magi in this text cannot be Zoroastrians or Persians. And I would agree with him on that point. They don't seem to be depicted as Persians.

I suspect (though I may be wrong) he doesn't believe that the New Testament magi were historically real at all.

I myself have always thought the Zoroastrian explanation a fairly good one.

I agree with you, by the way, that Zoroastrianism is intriguing, and I don't rule out the possibility that Zoroaster was, to some degree at least, a genuine prophet.

[_mfbukowski]

I think that Professor Landau is arguing that the magi in this text cannot be Zoroastrians or Persians. And I would agree with him on that point. They don't seem to be depicted as Persians.

I suspect (though I may be wrong) he doesn't believe that the New Testament magi were historically real at all.

I myself have always thought the Zoroastrian explanation a fairly good one.

I agree with you, by the way, that Zoroastrianism is intriguing, and I don't rule out the possibility that Zoroaster was, to some degree at least, a genuine prophet.

Very interesting stuff!

Thanks!