From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Saints / Eastern / Oriental (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Saints.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Women's History (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

In need of translation[edit]

MATIA added the following, which I do not have sufficient Greek to translate. JHCC (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

And I don't have the sufficient english :) I 've added some of them in english but I could use some help. +MATIA 14:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've translated the phrase "Τελικά και ο Νεστόριος πείστηκε στη χρήση του όρου Θεοτόκος, προβάλλοντας την θέση της φαινομενικής μετάδοσης των ιδιωμάτων." into "By the end of his life, Nestorius had agreed to the title Theotokos, stating the apparent communication of the attributes (idiomata)." (now that I see it I'm not sure if it was "by the end of his life" or "finally"). +MATIA 15:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really know enough Greek for this sort of translation. Regarding Nestorius, I remember our priest reading us a prayer attributed to his later days in which he repents and acknowledges Mary as Theotokos. Wesley 12:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The Virgin Mary is from Northeast Africa, Ethiopia. Jesus was an African priest. Christianity is a European concept that has adopted African scrolls and writings. Information should be translated from the orgins of the people. 14:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Ragland

Funny, if you ask the Ethiopians they have a completely different opinion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reductions by Csernica[edit]

Csernica has removed the English translations from the introduction. I have reinstated them. The reason for putting in the heading what the word "Theotokos" means in English is becasue this is an English encyclopedia. Using Greek alone is not enough to introduce the topic of this article. It is quite ok for something mentioned in the introduction to be discussed in further detial in subsequent paragraphs. That is exactly what a good introduction does. Also Csernica may not be aware of 'Theotokos' being translated 'Mother of God Incarnate' but that does does not mean it is never translated this way. It is. There are more people engageing in theoloigcal conversations in English than Csernica is aware of. If someone thinks it is a pecular or contentious translation they are free to look for quotes or ask others for a quoted example. Just stripping information about things you do not know from articles is not a good editorial habbit.--Just nigel 08:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Then add a citation. It's a very bad translation, frankly, and not at all common. (One often comes across the phrase, not as a translation of "Theotokos" but as an additional epithet.) Also, it seems absurd to insert information in the intro that's given again just a few lines down; it makes for very tiresome reading. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Citation added as requested. I am in a cantacerous mood tonight, so in response to your "It's a very bad translation, frankly, and not at all common." I can't help myself but say you will have to take it up with the officials of the Catholic Church and Anglican communion who use it. This is an encyclopaedia for acurately describing what is beleived and spoken about 'Theotokos' not for editing to keep out things you consider bad. -- Have a good night, and ask me to be more gracious tomorrow. I'll try harder then. --Just nigel 09:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The citation does not support the claim. "Mother of God incarnate" is not here being used to translate "Theotokos" -- if it is, then it's ambiguous -- but is a separate title. If you read the article, you'll find that "Mother of God" (not exclusive of further qualifications like "incarnate") has its own tradition of usage even in Greek. See, for example, any Greek Orthodox icon of the Theotokos. The inscription abbreviates «Μήτηρ Θεού», "Mother of God". See also the hymn "Axion estin" which uses both epithets. There does exist a Latin equivalent to "Theotokos" which eludes me for the moment, but it just happens that their tradition favors "Mother of God" in prayers and hymns. Show me where it's clearly being used as you claim -- preferably in an English translation of a hymn where "Theotokos" is used in the original -- and I'll believe you.
But really, the trouble with putting this in the intro is that there are significant translation issues with this word, and to just give various translations without explaining the issues is misleading. That's why the Translations section immediately follows the intro. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You are right this Greek word is often translated "Mother of God". I agree and wrote this into the introduction. You are also right that there are significant translation issues with the word. I agree and that too is indicated in the introduction - both through the variety of translations listed and an explicit indication that "Mother of God" while an accurate transliteration has the potential to be misleading. The deatils of these translation issues and the context in which "Mother of God" can be understood or misunderstood are then spelt out in the body of the article. It is correct Wikipedia style for the introduction to include information spelt out in greater detail in the body of the article.
You assert the quote I cited does not support the statement 'Theotokos is translated "Mother of God incarnate"'. In good faith I can offer another similar, earlier, example from the Anglican and Catholic chruch "We agree in recognising the grace and unique vocation of Mary, Mother of God Incarnate (Theotókos)" 1981. I do wonder if your assertion is infulenced by your inclination to not accept it as a valid translation. There is no ambiguity here in my mind.
You also reveal your own preferance for an English translation of a Greek hymn. This again suggests your bias. I once again point out that "there are more people engageing in theoloigcal conversations in English than Csernica is aware of." such debate or veneration may even include styles or expression that you find unaceptable - so what? It doesn't stop it needing a place in an encyclopeadia that is trying to accurately describe how 'Theotokos' is used.
Also, Csernica, when you say things like "if you read the article" i feel you are trying to patronise me. This is troubling me. I suggests we focus on what is true not on what you do or don't like or do or don't know. --Just nigel 03:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I never said "Mother of God" was a translation of "Theotokos", and I very much do not agree with you that it is. I said "Mother of God" has its own tradition of usage independent of "Theotokos" and that's one reason why it's not a good choice for translation, quite apart from the problems raised by its failure to preserve the sense of the original. I suggested that you read the part of the article where it explained this for no other reason than to save myself some typing. The implication in your preferred intro, that "Mother of God Incarnate" is preferable to "Mother of God" is a POV claim you may not make so baldly. It translates "Theotokos" no better than the other, for the same reasons.
On the other hand, your continued insistence that I disagree with you out of simple ignorance is more than patronizing; it's downright insulting. Please assume good faith and believe me when I say I disagree out of some actual knowledge, as I have also said elsewhere in exchanges with you.
Neither phrase is in any way a "transliteration" of "Theotokos" as you claim above.
I'm afraid your new citation is no better. It reads to me as if one is intended as a gloss of the other, not a translation. Perhaps it's you who is being affected by your bias.
It is entirely reasonable, when saying that a word from one language translates a word in another, to ask for an example of a text where the one word occurs in the original and the other in the translation, when that translation is carried out by a reliable person. "Theotokos" is a Greek word. I would therefore expect to see "Mother of God Incarnate" used in its place in a translation of a Greek text, if a valid translation it be. That's not a theological issue at all. It need not be a hymn, which I mentioned simply because Greek-language hymns containing "Theotokos" are plentiful and many are translated. Any text will do. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did the phrase 'Mother of God incarnate' go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Just nigel (talkcontribs) 12:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Mother of God[edit]

I was wondering if anyone could comment at Talk:Mother of God on merging that article (which was only recently created, and doesn't contain much original content) here and to Mary, mother of Jesus. Any comments would be appreciated-Andrew c 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

comments merged from Talk:Mother of God -- Pastordavid 04:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is redundent with content found at Mary, mother of Jesus and Theotokos and Blessed Virgin Mary. I am of the theory that wikipedia should have detailed, and reliable broad articles, instead of a dozen small articles that could have been combined. This artice drags out three basic concepts and turns them into a few paragraphs. There is a lot of redundancy (I tried to reduce some). Also, there isn't a single source. I don't see what this article adds that a user couldn't find at any of the other 3 stated articles. Any existing content should be merged, andt his page restored as a redirect.-Andrew c 13:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am confused as to what unique information necessitated a seperate article for the Greek theological term - theotokos - and the English translation of it. At a glance I would say Merge Away. If there is a compelling reason not to, speak up please, because I just don't see it. -- Pastordavid 06:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
By now it has already happened, but just so you know, I too agree with the merge.--Just nigel 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. I figured 2 weeks (well a little less) was enough time for comment. Because this is wikipedia, all edits can easily be undone, so I felt bold enough going on with the merger after waiting a good while. -Andrew c 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This articles references the Catholic Church enshrining "numerous Marian dogmas." In point of fact, there are only four: the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity, the Assumption, and the Theotokos. That's it. Only two more than the Orthodox. That hardly qualifies as "numerous."
I believe there are three more. It is, of course, a matter of dogma that the Lord was born of Mary while she was yet a virgin, but I can't recall any dogma of her perpetual virginity. That she remained a virgin all her life is also a matter of Tradition, enshrined in our hymnology and the writings of the Fathers, but not (IIRC) dogma. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

To merge these articles would be missing the entire point of Theotokos and its importance in the history of the church. Take notice of the specific role it played within the Council of Ephesus (i.e. the founding of doctrine that most of the church follows to this day). If you relate this entirely to Mary (a figure that plays a very small role within both orthodox and evangelical circles) then you're missing 99% of the debate in which this term is used. The term roots itself in Mary in an effort to preserve Jesus' purported human nature (i.e. proving that he was born of a human). At the time of the widespread debate within the church people were questioning Jesus' nature. Some, such as the Monophysites, believed in a singular nature, while others were convinced of a two-part nature. My point is this: Mary is not the source or center of this term and its usage but rather used as the proof of Jesus' human birth within the context of a much broader debate. Placing it solely within the body of her article would misconstrue and dilute its value and history. (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)refutatus

Mother of Allah[edit]

I noticed that some Arab Christians used the expression Mother of Allah when talking about the Theotokos. It would be interesting to find sources on this and perhaps include it in the article. ADM (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's probably because "Allah" simply means "God" in Arabic. I can't say I'd consider a difference in the language used to be particularly notable. Farsight001 (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree. "Allah" is a literal translation of God in Arabic, so there is no conceptual difference I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Embryo/Foetus of Jesus[edit]

With the development of modern embryology and neonatology, there is a debate within the pro-life movement on whether the embryo and foetus of Jesus should be proclaimed as fully divine and whether it could be venerated as such. This is an interesting theological perspective that is directly related to the Theotokos doctrine, which was promulgated at a time when people did not have the same kind of scientific knowledge about un-born, pre-born and newborn babies. ADM (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mary's other kids[edit]

I think this should be mentioned as it is scriptural and people get in a right state over it.

family of Jesus Mat 12:46-50 Matt 13:55 -56, Luke 8:19-21, John 2:11-12, John 7:3-5, Acts 1:13-14. There are clear distinctions here about the family and disciples, Also they Recognise Jesus's family as being such. I think we need to look at the truth verses tradition even if it costs us in the end, we need to be right before God —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthsuma (talkcontribs) 14:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to get people "right before god". It appears you are trying to insert your own personal interpretations of biblical verses into the article. I'd ask you to review some of our policies and guidelines WP:NOR and WP:PSTS. We need to use care when adding primary sources, and in most circumstances, instead, cite scholars who hold these interpretations. Furthermore, you should take care in writing encyclopedic content. You should follow basic rules of grammar. Your addition to the article was not even a complete sentence, and has poor sentence structure. Anyway, I don't want to discourage you from editing in any way. I just want you to be familiar with our rules, and encourage you to make your contributions that much better. Finally, touching on my first point, you should review WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not about The Truth, but instead about presenting all notable points of view, in due weight. We don't take sides, or say one view is better or truer (though we can say if one view is held by more people. however, in this case, Catholic + Orthodox adherents clearly outnumber)-Andrew c [talk] 15:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a question[edit]

Why didn't you input the protestant's opinion of this article, and how these Consensus made? If someone tell the reason, I can refer on the making of Korean article. - Ellif (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)