Talk:Christmas

Betrothal

Ancient Jews did not have betrothal, they had marriage (Kiddushin) and consummation of marriage (Nisuin). So, Joseph and Mary were never betrothed, they were married. Whether their marriage was consummated or not is another matter. See [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering that they were not ancient Jews, they were from the fist century and it was common for 100 years prior to that period: See Talmud Kiddushin, Mishna 1:1 and the main article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What you say above does not make sense. Ancient, as in antiquity or ancient history, means the period before the Middle Ages. The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906, states that "Betrothal or engagement such as this is not known either to the Bible or to the Talmud, and only crept in among the medieval and modern Jews through the influence of the example of the Occidental nations among whom they dwelt, without securing a definite status in rabbinical law." Speaking of Erusin: "In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce." Therefore Erusin or Kiddushin mean (present-day, Western-style) marriage and they are mistranslated as (present-day, Western-style) betrothal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What you say may make sense to you, but history is divided into more that "after the middle ages" and "before the middle ages". Ancient Jews in my history books means before the common era. I have seen the Jewish Encyclopedia definition as well. I have no problems understanding that a term common in the 15th century was used in early translations and more recent scholarship may use a term that is more accurate to the word used.

How would you suggest that we translate the word used in Matthew 1:18 "μνηστευθείσης" (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/1.htm)? The root is "mnésteuó" (mnesteuo http://biblehub.com/greek/3423.htm). It is commonly translated as betrothed in English (KJV, NASB, ESV) although some modern translations use other words: "engaged" (NET, MSG, WEB) "pledged to be married" (NIV and its variants) "espoused" (KJ21) (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 1%3A18&version=NET;MSG;WEB;NIV;KJ21). You will likely see edit warring over the term so you had better back-up any edits with the Koine Greek and explanation of the term, even if only in a note. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What I said is that ancient Jewish betrothal does not mean the same as modern Western betrothal. The koine may really mean engagement. But that is another argument that the gospel is historically inaccurate, unless there is good evidence that 1st century BCE Jews had engagements before getting their Erusin/Kiddushin. Since apparently Joseph and Mary got married in the 1st century BCE. I know that the way I put it is WP:OR, but maybe there are reliable sources which made this point. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The original word has a meaning and it's not entirely clear what it means in modern English. If you don't want to offer a suggestion, I can't help you. There is no OR at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I quote from the article you quoted, Tgeorgescu:1). "kiddushin (commonly translated as betrothal)". Doesn't add "wrongly" translated as betrothal, why? 2). "However, the root word also connotes something that is set aside for a specific (sacred) purpose, and the ritual of kiddushin sets aside the woman to be the wife of a particular man and no other" (emphasis added). That's pretty much looks like betrothal to me...3). "In the past, the kiddushin and nisuin would routinely occur as much as a year apart. ...There was always a risk that during this long period of separation, the woman would discover that she wanted to marry another man, or the man would disappear.." (emphasis added). So, as I see it, there was a long period of being legally married on one hand, but one the other hand living apart in a period of time anything could happent. 4). "Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as we understand the term in modern English...Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man...However, the spouses do not live together at the time of the kiddushin, and the mutual obligations created by the marital relationship do not take effect until the nisuin is complete" (emphasis added). That is, be married typically or not, true married life begins with the consummation of the marriage (as it's so much, and legally so, happens today). Wolfymoza (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you again, what English wording do you suggest? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't suggest a word, but it could be mentioned that "betrothal" could be kind of a misunderstanding or mistranslation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Then state that. If you want, you could propose your change here and seek input. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified March 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Christmas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310013925/http://www.historytoday.com/dt_main_allatonce.asp?gid=12890&aid=&tgid=&amid=12890&g12890=x&g9130=x&g30026=x&g20991=x&g21010=x&g19965=x&g19963=x to http://www.historytoday.com/dt_main_allatonce.asp?gid=12890&aid=&tgid=&amid=12890&g12890=x&g9130=x&g30026=x&g20991=x&g21010=x&g19965=x&g19963=x
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081207061529/http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu:80/oct1979/v36-3-bookreview15.htm to http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1979/v36-3-bookreview15.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Just one obvious mistake

With respects to the nativity explanation you cite Mathew's account they were not astronomers but astrologers The word used in the Greek text is Magi. Here are some quotes from other Wikipedia articles Magi (/ˈmeɪdʒaɪ/; Latin plural of magus) is a term, used since at least the 6th century BCE, to denote followers of Zoroastrianism or Zoroaster. The earliest known usage of the word Magi is in the trilingual inscription written by Darius the Great, known as the Behistun Inscription. Old Persian texts, pre-dating the Hellenistic period, refer to a Magus as a Zurvanic, and presumably Zoroastrian, priest.who was perceived by the Greeks to be the "Chaldean", "founder" of the Magi and "inventor" of both ASTROLOGY and magic, a meaning that still survives in the modern-day words "magic" and "magician". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.53.95 (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

please change on history section:

Although the dating as December 25 predates pagan influence, the later development of Christmas as a festival includes elements of the Roman feast of the Saturnalia and the birthday of Mithra.[51]

to:

Although the dating as December 25 predates pagan influence, the later development of Christmas as a festival includes elements of the Roman feast of the Saturnalia and the birthday of Mithra [51] a Persian divinity.

Naranji (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done It's linked to Mithra, but I will update it to link to Mithraism, as that's the Roman variant. While it was based on a Zoroastrian, not necessarily Persian, god, the Roman form diverged. It was quite distinct as it was absorbed into the Roman pantheon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Time for a rewrite?

With 11,000 words of main text, this article is in need of serious culling. No doubt many readers come here to answer the question, "Why is Christmas on December 25?" so this issue needs some attention. The scholarship in the last thirty years has all been debunking the Sol Invictus theory and arguing in favor of the Incarnation-on-March-25th-plus-nine-months theory. As far as sources go, New Catholic Encyclopedia recommends Susan Roll's Toward the Origin of Christmas (1995) and Thomas Talley's On the Origins of the Liturgical Year (1991). In popular works, you often see the theory that the holiday is based on Saturnalia. I don't believe there is any scholarship to support this idea. This is what I am working on. Pandas and people (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)