Talk:List of names for the biblical nameless

Notes

I took down the architect of the Temple of Solomon, since he is indeed named in the bible- see Kings 1, Chapter 7.
I also suggest taking down Nimrod's wife, for the reason that she is not at all a biblical figure. The scriptures make no mention of such a person, not even by implication (in contrast to the patriarchs' mates, who, while not directly mentioned, their existance can be deduced from the fact their children are mentiond). The very dubious source cited makes for another concideration. Harvest day fool 18:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I Kings 7 calls him Hiram of Tyre; the full name Hiram Abif is not set forth. This is a judgment call. The legend that has Semiramis being the wife of Nimrod was something I added later, mostly on account of its notoriety. Smerdis of Tlön 20:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, he is most certainly not a nameless biblical figure. Harvest day fool 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The serpent

The unnamed serpent in Genesis is named as Satan in Revelations

70 Disciples

I don't know how to add things to articles, but there is a wikipedia article that gives a list of names of the 70 Disciples sent out by Jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventy_Disciples 128.100.110.88 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Were they not referred to as the 72 others? Sent out two by two? Should they not be included too? Yes, indeed they are in there as Seventy Disciples, But why not here on this Article Page ??

MacOfJesus (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Poem of the Man God, Maria Valtorta.

All the names of these were given to Maria Valtorta, if you believe that she was granted these. Her books in five volumes are popular (Centro Editoriale Valtortiano)(Grafica PieroLuigi Albery)(Copyright 1989 03036 Isola del Liri, Fr. Italy). Many of them agree with what is given in the article page. (Sorry can't quote). I highly recommend.

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Veronica

The lady who offered Jesus the towel on the road to Calvary, should be added to the article page. Maria Valtorta calls her Nike. "Veronica" became to be known as veil or towel, which was called after her.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I view "nameless", as a person who came once and "disappeared", but may have been briefly named, but nothing else. Such as Simon of Cyrene, father of Alexander and Rufus.

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

St. Philip the Apostle and the Ethiopian

Acts 8: 26-40.

This person, one of the first from the continent of Africa to be Baptised, if not the first, is not mentioned by name and should be in the article page. He was "an officer at the court of the kandake".

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Damned rich man

This is a parable of Lk 16: 19-31. It is truly stretching reason to seek the name of the rich man, "Dives", as the Latin indicates that his name means literally: rich man. Whereas Lazarus means literally: poor man.

Would you perhaps interrupt Jesus in giving the parable of the man who fell upon robbers on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem, to ask where exactly on the road did this happen, a bit like a modern policeman?

MacOfJesus (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Martyrdom of the seven brothers and their mother

StAnslem, has removed this reference as it is not in the Hebrew Bible. However, it is in the Catholic Bible in the Second Book of Maccabees, a book of the Bible, Chapter 7: 1-42.

I therefore ask you to return this reference. The Books of Maccabees 1&2 are essential Books of The Bible for a Catholic.

Canonisity of The Bible goes back to The Council of Trent.

If you treat this Article page from a narrow point of view then we should not have any entry on the page.

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This has implications for the whole article, of course. What should be the scope of this article? Do we want to include Deuterocanonical books? As it stands, we have a section on "Hebrew Bible/Old Testament", which doesn't seem to include them. They may be in (some versions of) the Old Testament, but they are not in the Hebrew Bible. StAnselm (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at similar articles, it looks as if most of the lists of biblical things exclude the deuterocanonicals. See List of burial places of Biblical figures, List of major Biblical figures and List of minor Biblical figures. StAnselm (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for coming back on this. The Deuteroconical Books plus The Book of Wisdom are for the large majority an essential part of the Bible. The History of their deletion I have mentioned already, Biblical canonisity, because of their reference to The Resurrection, and one of their clear first declaration is on the mouth of one of the seven brothers. The Book of Wisdom was never deuteroconical, and again has clear references to The Resurrection. In the first Bibles this was the first Book of The New Testament.

After that I don't know where to begin?

If you look at this talk page I question the name saugth for some in Our Lord's parables, as though they were real literal people, but I did not take the step of deleting the entry.

MacOfJesus (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Woman with seven sons is at least covered, thanks to StAnselm writing an article on her. But the simple fact is that we can't include the Deuterocanonical Books within a "Hebrew Bible" list, because they are not part of the Hebrew Bible. One of the issues here is that most "Hebrew Bible" articles represent a compromise between Christian and Jewish points of view, and Jews do not recognise the Deuterocanonical Books as canonical.

In cases where it is important, we could add a third section for "Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books" (i.e. 1. Hebrew Bible, 2. Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books, 3. New Testament, as is done in Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible), but in this case, are there really any Biblical Nameless in the Deuterocanonical Books other than the Woman with seven sons? -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

From the Ethiopian Oriental Orthodox Church canon, one of the oldest, Jubilees has always been canonical; and this book also has tons of names for the wives of the patriarchs. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, an Encyclopaedia is meant to be comprehensive coverage of subjects. If we take things in a narrow field as standard then they militate against the very ethos of an Encyclopaedia. For if we take it that we should accept the standard as the Hebrew Bible then we should have nothing on the Gospels, Saint Paul, etc. If we take the standard to compromise, and take a middle road, this of itself negates the notion of Encyclopaedia. I would like to see an article page of Jubilees, as there is aleady one on the Gospel / Acts of Pilate, associated with the same. In fact there is such an article page.

So what is so out of place in an entry here of the seven sons and mother?

This article page is by its name full of unknowns; what is so out of place?

As I have said already Deuteroconical is not the same as Apocryphal, and Deuteroconical Books does not / did not include The Book of Wisdom, which is not included in The Hebrew Bible. The nameless people that occur in The other Apocryphal books would not be out of place on this article page.

Hence, I ask that this entry on the article page be returned, it was not out of place. Particularly so as the name is: "..Biblical nameless".

Often the reason for keeping the names out, originally, was out of need to protect against persecution. This is evident in the Letter to The Hebrews or because the point being made is a contentious one. This point is particularly apt in understanding the Book of Job.

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Concensus

An Encyclopaedia is a vehicle for a comprehensive coverage of subjects.

The name of this article page is: List of names for the Biblical Nameless.

Removing some because the book is not in some Bibles but is in one of the largest Christian group's is truly questionable; which borders on sensorship.

The page should be expanded to include Apocryphal Books too.

An enquiring mind coming to an Encyclopaedia expects to find a comprehensive coverage not a consensus opinion with a narrowing of the scope of coverage.

Have you studied the history of the Deuteroconical literature? Why they were deleted and by whom? And for what reason?

An Encyclopaedia must be all embracing in its coverage, and its scope of coverage. This is not what "a consensus opinion" is meant to handle.

MacOfJesus (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things. (a) The fact that the Jubilees is canonical in some Christian churches really complicates matters. How many unnamed people are there in Jubilees? Are their names found in other sources? Sometimes it is important to narrow the scope. Yes, we want comprehensive coverage, but (i) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and (ii) the information is already in the Woman with seven sons article. (b) This is largely a matter of definition of the word "Bible". We don't have to go with the Catholic definition just because it is one of the largest Christian groups. Of course, we shouldn't try to exclude the Catholic definition either. (c) Which comes to the issue of where we go from here. The woman with seven sons cannot be included under "Hebrew Bible" - I'm happy with another section on Deuterocanonical books, but only if we attempt a comprehensive list of unnamed people in those books. StAnselm (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The answer is in the history of the Deuteroconical literature, why it was deleted, and for what reason. This literature belonged to the Bible originally, it is not an add-on to or a seperate from.

There is no indescriminate literature here, for even in the Apocrypha, as distinct from the Deuteroconical literature, it was viewed in connection to the Books of The Bible. In the case of Gospel / Acts of Pilate it was meant to be a definite witness to the Gospels.

The answer is in the reason for an Encyclopaepia. Who are we trying to protect? And from what? If the Deuteroconical literature was actually part of The Bible and was deleted, then we do need to study its history.

MacOfJesus (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Might I (again) point out the obvious fact: people from the Deuterocanonical Books cannot go into a "Hebrew Bible" list, because those books were never part of the Hebrew Bible – they were not written in Hebrew.

I agree with StAnselm that a three-way split (1. Hebrew Bible, 2. Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books, 3. New Testament, as is done in Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible) makes sense, but only if someone volunteers to write a comprehensive list of unnamed people in the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So why have a Hebrew Bible list for the Biblical nameless only? Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical are utterly seperate and have a different history. There are already quite a number missing, of the nameless, as it stands, from The Hebrew Bible. I could indeed add all these, but why should I, if someone deletes the entry / entries for some arbitary reason?

I could not agree for Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical, in this view, to be lumped together. They have a different definition.

MacOfJesus (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you found names of other anonymous people in the Deuterocanonical books? Are you prepared list them? StAnselm (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a number missing from the Hebrew Bible, in the article page at it stands. There are quite a number of questions of sources that Scripture Scholars have identified.

Yes, I can name quite a number from all of these but I do not like the notion of others coming back and deleting my work, who have not studied the work themselves or the history.

MacOfJesus (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Scripture for me is a life study. Naming just the unnamed, would be a rather simple task. But I would want to put in people who were named once and then disappeared. I would want to place in material that we are unsure of in its author. So would I be opening a can of worms? I want to study / write of Scripture from a serious point of view. So why name only the nameless? Would this make anyone study Scripture? Or satisfy curiosity only?

MacOfJesus (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If we have not agreed on what is a Bible, then why begin in this task?

MacOfJesus (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that one of the few certain things about Wikipedia is that people are fully able to delete or alter anything which you type in – for factual, grammatical, or other reasons. The final form of an article will be the result of consensus.

You also don't appear to understand that this article is about one specific narrow topic. Some of your other concerns appear to relate to completely different articles.

The overall question "What is the Bible?" is one which has already been addressed in various Wikipedia discussions – and it properly belongs in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I do understand clearly. It is my personal policy not to delete other's work, but to revert (sorry, refer) to it on the talk page, etc. I think there are too many differences between us with little or no empathy, at this stage. There is little or no agreement yet, to make a working relationship. The name of the article page seems to evoke a wider field, particularly so as there is no mention, in the title, to Hebrew Bible.

MacOfJesus (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a quite clear discussion of how Wikipedia defines "Biblical" at Bible. A lot of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, methods, and approaches have been worked out over the years. As I said, the main discussion point for general Bible-related issues is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible.

And I assume that when you say "revert," you mean "refer." -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

1. The name of this page is: List of names for the Biblical nameless. The adjective; Biblical, certainly indicates a much wider field not a narrower one.

2. A working empathy / agreement needs to be clear, and this would appear to be common sense.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bible is The Word of God, and that for me incorporates The Deutroconical Books and The Book of Wisdom, and these in their correct places, not relegated to an appendage area. This then is a matter of conscience not a matter of concensus opinion.

So I could not see a section entitled Deutroconical & Apocrypha, grouped together as one section, giving credence to them as appendages, whereas Deutroconical are an essential part of The Bible for me. I have written about these subjects already in Biblical Canonicity.

MacOfJesus (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)