Category talk:Christian saints from the Old Testament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Saints (Rated Category-class)
WikiProject icon This category is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Category page Category  This category does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Name of this category[edit]

This category was redirected to "Hebrew Bible saints" in August 2007, then moved back to "Old Testament saints" following discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 12#Category:Hebrew Bible saints. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs a definition and citations[edit]

This category has some nice boilerplate about "Old Testament" vs "Hebrew Bible" but nothing actually specific to this category. I have no idea what an "Old Testament Saint" is. Is this concept used by Protestant millenialists or Catholic/Orthodox calendars? Does it have any meaningful single definition or it it just some trivia someone is peppering random articles with? Is any major hero/prophet in the Old Testament eligible or is there a definitive list somewhere?

I checked a couple of the articles transcluded and the only reference in them to "Saint" is the name of this category. If the category is to be kept, then at the very least, each article need an explicit statement, with source, saying something like "The Christian Church of Ruritania (or whichever) considers the Prophet Baz (or whoever) to be a saint". Saint should link to saint, or maybe Old Testament saint or saint (Ruritania church).

jnestorius(talk) 00:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that each article should state which church considers the person to be a saint, with a citation. – Fayenatic London 13:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Saints by religion[edit]

Extract from page history, showing recent changes in head categories:

  • At 18:43, 24 November 2012‎ user:Laurel Lodged removed Category:Christian saints; added Category:Saints by religion
  • At 23:16, 24 November 2012‎ user:Fayenatic london undid revision by Laurel Lodged - These are saints to Christians; if the Jews have "saints", they wouldn't use the words "Old Testament" for them.
  • At 21:41, 25 November 2012‎ Laurel Lodged undid revision by Fayenatic london - They may be venerated by Christians but as they pre-date Christianity, the people cannot be Christian in any meaningful sense.

Clearly, the individuals were not known as "Christians" in their lifetime. However, Category:Christian saints does not appear on the individual biographies, but only "Old Testament saints", so I don't think user:Laurel Lodged's objection matters. I have added a category explanation so that it should be more clearly understood that this category refers to people venerated by Christians. The rest of Category:Saints by religion is sub-categorised by religion, and "Old Testament" is not a religion, so IMHO Category:Old Testament saints has to go back into Category:Christian saints. – Fayenatic London 13:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see how the category could be re-admited to Category:Christian saints if it was re-named and its scope strictly defined. For example, I would have no difficulty with "People from the Old Testament revered by Christians". Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I really do not know why I am even commenting here, except that I see this musical category situation as rather unusual, to say the least. Faynatic is right that OT saints just does not fly. There has been an unduly long discussion of it on the Christian saints category as well, and a number of users have pointed out the theological errors there and the Michael talk page. And terms such as "People from the Old Testament revered by Christians" or "OT saints" are just theologically error prone, to say the least again. History2007 (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "Faynatic is right that OT saints just does not fly"? Faynatic's position is the exact oposite to that - he supports OT saints and suppports categorising them in Christian saints. And how is "People from the Old Testament revered by Christians" not theologically sound? Which piece of theology has problems with such a category? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I meant "Category:Old Testament saints has to go back into Category:Christian saints.". History2007 (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
OK then. Under its current name or the re-name proposed above? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I would just call it Christian saints, in effect just having OT+NT in the same category. History2007 (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
What is your response to the objection that "They may be venerated by Christians but as they pre-date Christianity, the people cannot be Christian in any meaningful sense."? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
My objection can be technically stated as: "Aaaaaaaaaagh, I am tired of this!". Does that answer the question? Unwatching this page now. History2007 (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It may be safely said then that your thinking was somewhat muddled and when looked at in the cold light of day was found to lack internal consistency. That's OK. Happens to all of us. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
If you say that you know that feeling well Laurel, so be it. I do not know it. My thinking is never muddled. I used to be a logician. History2007 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The only possible reason I can see that the category might not better be renamed Category:Christian saints from the Old Testament or something similar is that there are, even if only unofficially and on a "popular" basis, some people venerated as "saints" in Islam as well. I know little if anything about that particular topic beyond what I said above, and am willing to look into it to some degree, but based on what I do know it is rather unlikely that the majority of the OT figures are regarded as "saints" in Islam, and it would certainly be possible to move such figures into a category for Islamic saints as well. John Carter (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I got a little lost in all the negatives there. What, in simple words, are you saying? And what has Islam hot to do with any of these categories? Let's just leave Islam out of it if you don't mind. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Further thoughts on Islam. The category Category:Saints by religion exists to contain saints of all religions, one of which is Category:Muslim saints.so there'd be no problem with an OT patriarch occupying both Muslim saints and OT saints if liked. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not think the Muslims use the term Old Testament, for although they regard Jesus as a prophet, they do not buy the NT assertions, e.g. the start of Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God". So they do not even say NT for their teachings come from the Quran which does not support Son of God, etc. History2007 (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Muslims use the term Tawrat for Old Testament (although that sometimes refers only to the Torah), and Injil for New Testament. I do not think anyone is suggesting that we should use this category as a sub-cat of both Christian saints and Muslim saints, even though there is some overlap (currently Enoch, Ezekiel and Samuel). I agree with Laurel Lodged that an Old Testament figure venerated in both Christianity and Islam should be categorised both as "Muslim saints" and this category for Christian saints. I think John Carter was arguing for the same, but with a clearer name.
I think it is fairly clear to Christians and others that "Old Testament" is a Christian term. Nevertheless a rename along the lines suggested by Laurel Lodged or John Carter would be welcome. John's suggestion Category:Christian saints from the Old Testament seems better, as the members include Michael and Gabriel who are angels rather than "people" in the usual meaning of the word (i.e. humans).
My answer to Laurel's objection is that the meaning is sufficiently clear. Just as Gabriel is a member of Category:Anglican saints, Category:Eastern Orthodox saints, Category:Oriental Orthodox saints and Category:Roman Catholic saints even though he cannot be stated to be Anglican (etc) in any meaningful way, it is clear that the categories mean he is venerated by Anglicans (etc). The same would apply to the broader term "Christian saints from...". – Fayenatic London 14:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I can support Fayenatic's suggested compromise above. Thanks for going into some detail on your thinking. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've now nominated this at CFD 2012 Dec 3. – Fayenatic London 20:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)