|WikiProject Christianity / Jesus||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Visual arts||(Rated C-class)|
Really lame edit war
Sorry to be "picky" again, but User:Bbltype asserts that "Several sources also give 'Alexamenos worshipping God' as a translation". However, only one source giving this translation is actually cited.
In addition, the sentence
|“||In standard Greek, the word ϲεβετε is the imperative of the verb "worship", leading to a translation of the entire sentence as "Alexamenos, worship God" which suggest this to be a grammatical error||”|
is both incorrect ("Alexamenos, worship God" is perfectly grammatical in both English and Greek) and itself contains a grammatical error.
We are probably on course for a mention in WP:LAME at this rate... Anyway, thought I'd say hi and give us a chance to cool off.
- I invite you to please do a little research to discover how many sources cite "Alexamenos worshipping God". As for ϲεβετε being grammatically incorrect for the context of the statement, that is also cited by many scholars which could be discovered very easily. As for being picky, we all can do it from time to time. It probably isn't necessary for this article and would be good to be fair in the process of making sure that accurate information is conveyed to researchers. Bbltype (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't my job to 'do a little research to discover how many sources cite "Alexamenos worshipping God"'. It's the job of the editor who adds that statement. If the references currently supplied in the article do not show that there are multiple sources giving that translation, then that claim should not be in the article. You might want to reread WP:V. Grover cleveland (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- ...as easily visible in the Greek etymology, Onolatry means worship of donkey. Isn't ass a word with other bad meanings, or not? I changed it because Onolatry has also a good meaning, for many other old peoples. :)bye, --Egonon (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I reverted this as not supported by the refs at all. Further refs for a consensus that the 3rd century is the most likely date can easily be found - , ,  and books by specialists in art or epigraphy should be given preference over those on wider topics. Looking at these references, the article's claim that "The inscription is accepted by the vast majority of scholars to be a mocking depiction of a Christian" seems rather overstated in fact. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
False contradiction with "however"
"However, several other sources suggest a declarative statement "Alexamenos worshipping God", or similar variants, as the intended translation."
The opposition implied by "however" is false and unnecessary. The previous sentence "Alexamenos worships (his) God" is declarative as well. The use of the present active participle in English picture titles corresponds to the use of the present in picture titles in many other languages. Thus, there is no disagreement about the meaning of the Greek text between sources with "worships" and with "worshiping", just a stylistic choice in English. The Greek form in question is absolutely not a present active participle.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Do scholars talk about what "Alexamenos" (Αλεξαμενος) means?
It seems to me to be two Greek words and/or names, with a typical Greek -os ending: alech/alex and amen.
So maybe, "Smart Alec who (stupidly*) says Amen"?? LOL.
-- * Or, easily, quickly.
Amen/Ammon/Etc. was also the name of a "god". I didn't check a Greek lexicon to see if I could find Αλεξ or Αλεξα, but it's interesting that the graphic splits this supposedly-one-word onto two lines. If read correctly:
Alexa is a woman's name in several languages. And of course, Alex is a man's name.
Just some thoughts in Talk! Thanks!
Scholarly acceptance of the idea that the drawing mocks a Christian in the act of worship
The text as I found it claimed that "the vast majority of scholars" accept this idea. It quite properly was marked with a "citation needed" flag. Since nobody ever actually goes around and does a statistically valid poll of scholars on anything, that way of phrasing it is pretty much unsustainable. However, there are sources, regarded as highly authoritative, that do accept the idea. One of those is the Catholic Encyclopedia. I've changed the text to point to the CE's article on the Incarnation as support. I hope that solves the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poihths (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)