Talk:Immanuel

Archives
May 2006-November 2007

Confusing article

I found this whole article confusing. It seems to jump into a controversy half way through without explaining the basics. I don't feel qualified to rewrite it because I came to the page looking for a simple explanation of the word/name and I didn't find it. It's really badly written.

Stub or disambiguation?

Is this a stub for expansion? As it is now this is nothing more then a disambiguation page. If any attempts at expansion will be reverted, what is the point of having Emanuel (disambiguation)? -- SECisek (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the recent addition to the article because it basically asserted the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 as fact, and presented a number of arguments to that effect. This is a highly contentious issue between the Christian and Jewish traditions, and therefore such assertions are clear violations of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If you wish, please rephrase the content appropriately before reintroducing it to the article. Nimrand (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It made no such assertion and info was added under a heading that clearly stated Christian usage. Add a section on Jewish usage. NPOV means all POVs are fairly represented, not all POVs are equally repressed. I will work on the text. -- SECisek (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I guesss I wont since I see you reverted it again with out bother to discuss. Are you spoiling for an edit war? -- SECisek (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I posted my reasons for reverting it on the discussion page before reverting it a second time.Nimrand (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jewish usage

I was going to stub in the section myself, but a google serch turns up nothing other then Reform congregations and people who have it as a proper name. Can somebody point me to a website describing traditional Jewish use of the term. -- SECisek (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I swapped the Christian and Jewish usage sections because it made more sense to put the Christian usage first - more filled in, alphabetical, other pages (Emanu-El) more focused on the Jewish usage. I also added a note on the Emanu-El page at the top to link to Immanuel and Emanuel more clearly. I will try and do more work on the Jewish usage at some point. - JerseyRabbi (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Isaiah 7:14 article might give you some leads. From that text "Jewish tradition states that the "young woman" was in fact Isaiah’s wife and the birth of the child is recorded later in Isaiah 8:3."Nimrand (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

New Jewish Usage Post

The new posting on the Jewish interpretation strikes me as a strong statement without any reference. To say anything in Judaism is simply divided into groups doesn't appear to based on any facts. The subsequent post may be true, but without any reference or citation, how can anyone be sure it isn't just one person's personal opinion. A NPOV is more than saying "I'm right." The poster seems very confident about his posting (see his post on my User Talk), so I am certainly going to avoid a revert back-and-forth and simply placed these citation tags. I encourage the poster Mateek to cite his entries to give them greater force (and perhaps to tone down the rhetoric - asking for citations and removing postings without them is standard appropriate encyclopedic editing). I look forward to finding out on what his interpretation is based. - JerseyRabbi (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(Note: Mateek responded to my comments within the body of my post. Without seeing the original post it is quite difficult to understand to what he is replying, so I have reposted my original post above and his full response (including my words) below.) JerseyRabbi (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The new posting on the Jewish interpretation strikes me as a strong statement without any reference. To say anything in Judaism is simply divided into groups doesn't appear to based on any facts. [I don't think the existence of divided groups in Judaism is worth discussing. Calling that unfactual is insulting. Mateek (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)] The subsequent post may be true, but without any reference or citation, how can anyone be sure it isn't just one person's personal opinion. [Does common reading comprehension need citation? Mateek (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)] A NPOV is more than saying "I'm right." [You're the Reform Jew Mateek (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)] The poster seems very confident about his posting (see his post on my User Talk), so I am certainly going to avoid a revert back-and-forth and simply placed these citation tags. [I appreciate your flexibility. Whoever created this article should be heavily applauded for explaining the two-word make-up of the source of this article. Mateek (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)) I encourage the poster Mateek to cite his entries to give them greater force [1st Citation: I only know of two branches of understanding. If an author knows of more, feel encouraged to add to this group of understandings. 2nd Citation: Finding citation in a woven text from a body of work known to contain secret codes, containing names and unthreatening references, may be difficult, but is a worthy endeavor. 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)](and perhaps to tone down the rhetoric - asking for citations and removing postings without them is standard appropriate encyclopedic editing). I look forward to finding out on what his interpretation is based. - JerseyRabbi (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest or investment in getting into an argument over this issue. Wikipedia requires citations for factual statements made in an article. The less known the statement, the more it requires a citation. "Common reading comprehension" does require citation when it comes to biblical interpretation. There are 70 faces to each verse of Torah, Jewish tradition says. If this is one of the metaphorical "70", find someone else who said the same thing in a book or article or even a web site and cite it. I will leave this article to others to edit these comments and find appropriate citations for them. - JerseyRabbi (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the unsourced material added by an anonymous user (or is by Mateek?) about 3 opinions in Judaism. There was ample time for the person who added to provide sources but none were provided. The added material is not found in standard Jewish commentaries. Googling produces some Christian missionary pages that seem to mention such ideas but these then belong in the Christian section. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Mateek is resorting to tricks and performing the occasional anonymous edit to revert back to his nonsense and issue threats, guys please help. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

According to his website he believes he is a Biblical prophet. tsk tsk Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR complaint

This article has been discussed at the 3RR noticeboard. I am concerned about possible sockpuppetry, so if anyone notices any more policy violations in the editing of this article, please let me know directly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the Sockpuppets are right here. MY IP'S SHOWED UP INSTEAD OF MY SIGNATURE TWICE, BY A WORN OUT WIKIPEDIA COOKIE, AND INNOCENT OMMISION of my signature. I told EdJohnston he failed miserably as an Admin, if he even was one, because he had the authority to just step in and give Wikipedia readers a better understanding. Instead, he's helped make Jews look foolish, or simple minded, for coming up with only one interpretation without regard for present day common usage of the word. One reply he made to me was, "It does not take rocket science to be sure you are logged in to Wikipedia under your own name when you file a 3RR report..." I was. A cookie must have worn out. When I hit 'Save' an IP appeared by itself. I haven't logged myself out EVER in the middle of editing. Mateek (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Source on the Jewish Interpretation

I got this source from the Isiah 7.14 article: The Second Jewish Book Of Why by Alfred Kolatch 1985. Based on how it is used in the Isiah 7.14 article, it would seem to support the original text of this article that keeps getting overwritten by Mateek. I don't have a copy of the book, so I can't know what exactly it says. But, if someone has access to a copy, it might be a helpful citation for this article. Also, it seems to me that the idea that Immanuel is an "End of Days" prophet is, at best, a minority viewpoint, since I've yet to see any citation of it and it hasn't even been proposed on any of the other articles that cover this subject. Nimrand (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In The Second Jewish Book of Why, pp. 66-67, Kolatch reviews some theories on Isaiah 7:14 in the context of the question "Why Do Jews reject the Christian dogma of the virgin birth?" Kolatch takes a common approach: alma doesn't mean virgin, the definite article implies an already pregnant girl standing there, betula is the word for virgin, etc. While this is in obvious sympathy the Jewish interpretation section as it previously was, it mostly shows Mateek has a minority opinion.

Since we have been asking for citations from reputable sources on this posting since April 15 without any response but reverts, sockpuppetry, and a whole lot of nastiness, I am going to remove the statements and I encourage other users to help me keep them off the page unless reputable citations are included. Should 3-revert violations continue, we should continue the process already in place to respond to them. JerseyRabbi (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try find some stuff to add to the section like more detail on Rashi with references as well as other views, if I remember the Ramchal had a different view to Rashi interpreting almah as meaning in particular a harem wife making Immanuel a son of Ahaz whereas Rashi instead equates the almah with the "neviah" (prophetess/prophets wife) mentioned a few verses later. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Minority opinions seem to be encouraged by Wikipedia, but not by this group. I resent being involved by obvious clowns in regards to VIRGIN or A DIFFERENT WORD. I think the Sockpuppets are right here. MY IP'S SHOWED UP INSTEAD OF MY SIGNATURE TWICE, BY A WORN OUT WIKIPEDIA COOKIE, AND INNOCENT OMMISION of my signature. I'm interested in how JersyRabbi got involved again suddenly when I filed a 3RR Noticeboard post against Kuratowski's Ghost. Meanwhile, Immanuel couldn't be a 'End of Days' prophet? The two-literal-word name couldn't be esoteric or semantic, in an Isaiah text woven into the past and future? Does anybody dispute the use and presence of the future tense in Isaiah? Mateek (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not cloud the issues. The alternate Jewish opinions that are at the subject of the debate have been unreferenced since day one. References have been requested since day one. Where are the references? Saying your opinion is right and that others are wrong still leaves your post unreferenced. Please find legitimate references for your post. Without such support, any opinion can be removed otherwise Wikipedia becomes a giant blog of unsourced, unverifiable claims. Please post legitimate reputable references. You may want to check out Wikipedia:Reference, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:When to cite for guidelines on this matter. JerseyRabbi (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To Mateek's point about encouraging minority opinions, a consequence of Wikipedia's NPOV policy is that articles must acknowledge notable minority opinions. But, that does not mean that it must give those opinions equal weight to that of majority opinions, or that it must acknowledge all possible opinions. In any case, all opinions must be cited to, at the very least, establish their notability.Nimrand (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Isaiah

Not a user but wanted to point out that the article beginning with Isaiah didn't write the book of Isaiah is pretty irrelevant to the article itself. Kind of ridiculous to start the article with pointless stuff like that. Edit: It also seems the person who wrote the beginning actually has never done any research on Isaiah but rather repeated the opinions of a liberal scholar as opposed to taking an unbiased view. The Isaiah controversy should be restricted to the Isaiah article, not brought here as it just confuses and is irrelevant. 100.40.30.59 (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.30.59 (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

DSS

I've reverted this addition to the article (it was in the "Interpretation" section):

According to the oldest surviving scriptures, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the word Immanuel is presented as a single word proper name (Original scripture)(Translation)(Original Scripture included)[1][2][3]. Furthermore, the original scripture mentions that it is "he" (Yahweh) who calls the child Immanuel, not "she". It is only in later versions, where Immanuel became two words, and the maiden names/calls the child.

So there are two points being made here, one that the name Immanuel appears as a single word in the DSS, the other that the "original" (presumably DSS) mss say "he" (YHWH) names the child, and that it's only in later versions that this is changed to the girl naming the child.

To take the first point first, the references given are to translations of the DSS. This is not the way we do it - we avoid original sources, and rely on reliable scholarly sources instead. This is because we are not qualified to interpret original sources, we aren't scholars. So, please use modern scholarly sources.

Second, but still on the first point, what does it matter if "immanuel" is a single word in the DSS? It doesn't mean a thing - Immanuel is both a phrase and a name. A parallel case is the modern name Philip - in the Greek original this is a phrase, "lover of horses", but it served as a name. Same with Immanuel. If you can find a modern scholarly source that can explain the significance, ok, but at the moment this is OR (original research).

On the second point, the question of who does the naming is already taken up in the section headed Matthew 1:22-23. It's in the second paragraph of that section, which I'll repeat here:

It was common in Jewish writing of the time to reinterpret the scriptures in order to signify a new meaning.[7] This is what Matthew has done with Isaiah 7:14: the Hebrew has the child being given the name Immanuel by "she" (presumably its mother), while the commonly-used Greek translation of the time (the Septuagint) has "you" (presumably king Ahaz, to whom the prophecy was addressed). The change from "she" or "you" to "they" allows Matthew to have Joseph give the name "Jesus" to the child, thus signalling the God-born Messiah's formal adoption into the House of David, while at the same time he is "Immanuel", God with us, the Son of God.[8]

The two references/sources are Michael White's "Scripting Jesus" (footnote 7) and R.T. France, "The Gospel of Matthew" (footnote 8). These are both reliable sources (meaning they're both biblical scholars).

So to summarise, point 1 about the word Immanuel being a single proper name in the DSS is meaningless (everyone agrees on this anyway), and point 2 is already covered from reliable sources. PiCo (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply:

You say "This is not the way we do it - we avoid original sources, and rely on reliable scholarly sources instead." ...

You are saying that the original scripture is less reliable than the opinion of a scholar interpreting its meaning hundreds of years later (,and based on an altered text)? Perhaps the scholars ought to rewrite the Bible. Why do people bother reading the book, when all that's important is what scholars say it means.

The statement that was added offers nothing more than facts. No interpretation, no opinion. It includes a reference to the Original Scripture of the oldest surviving authentic biblical documents from the Museum of Israel, the Holy Land. It includes a translation by a scholar, Peter W. Flint, authorized by the Museum of Israel. No interpretation, just facts. So, you are basically censoring hard facts from an ... Encyclopedia; The place for facts.

Now, it is for the public to judge whether the facts matter or not. You are deleting the addition, because, as you say, you are interpreting that these facts do not matter. It seems to me that the facts do matter, but exactly because they contradict your interpretations of these passages, you censor them.

Philipos. The perfect example why it matters that Imannuel is a single word, and not immanu el. You gave the example. Let's work with that. Let's say text A wrote "and they will call him philo ippon" and text B wrote "and they will call him Philippon". Are these two equivalent? The first is a characterization "friend of horses", while the second is a proper name having a meaning: "Friendofhorses". (Same with Eastwood, Freeman or Johnson vs. east wood, free man and john's son). :And that is exactly why it matters. Because a proper name having a reference to a meaning, is different than a characterization with the same meaning. A characterization is not a name.

You are claiming that it doesn't matter that the original text has God naming the child, while in the later text, the virgin names the child. And you write that this is written in the passage you cite. It is not. The passage merely says that "she" was sometimes translated to "you", nothing more. Again, you don't like the importance of the fact, that's why you censor it.

Is it the same if the prophecy says that the mother will name the child, than if it says God will name the child? We are talking about the most powerful thing there is, according to the scriptures, God's own will! The scriptures say that this what God will do. He will name a virgin's child Immanuel.

That was changed to the virgin will name the child god is with us. Are these two the same? I think not.

The only problem with these facts is that they raise questions about the interpretations given to the later texts, and that is precisely why you censor them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.168.161 (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You say: "The statement that was added offers nothing more than facts." But it doesn't, it offers opinion. Your opinion. Let me explain:

The statement you added is: "According to the oldest surviving scriptures, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the word Immanuel is presented as a single word proper name." Then you give some sources:

• Your first source is the website Digital Dead Sea Scrolls, a brief introduction to the Great Isaiah Scroll by the Dr. Adolfo D. Roitman, Lizbeth and George Krupp Curator of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Head of the Shrine of the Book. He doesn't say anything about the word Immanuel being presented as a single word - in fact he doesn't say anything about the word Immanuel at all.
• Your second source puts a translation of the Great Isaiah Scroll next to the standard Masoretic Isaiah so we can compare them for differences: Immanuel is presented as a single word in both.
• Your third source seems to be the work of religious crank - it's a personal website, not a scholarly source.
• Your fourth source is another comparison of the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic text: again, the name Immanuel appears a single word.
• Your fifth source does draw attention to a difference between the GIS and the Masoretic text: "Immanuel ... in the Masoretic is written as two words meaning "God [is] with us" and in Q the two words are written as one word, thus acknowledging it as a proper name, Immanuel." The source seems to be someone called Fred P. Miller, and the website seems to be a personal one. Mr Miller might well be right, but I think he's wrong - the Masoretic text also regards Immanuel as a proper name. The problem is that Miller doesn't seem to be a reliable source - this seems to be a personal website, and Miller seems to have no standing in the profession of biblical studies. What books and articles has he published, what professional position does he hold, etc). Please note that the problem is Miller's implication that the Masoretic text doesn't regard Immanuel as a personal name - I'd like to hear this from a recognised scholar, not from the website of an amateur. And of course, there still remains the question of whether it matters - even Miller doesn't put any emphasis on it.
• Your final source is Miller again - as before, I'm not convinced he's a reliable source, and I honestly can't see the relevance anyway.

So, most of the sources you give don't support the statement that Immanuel is a single-word name. The one that does (Miller) doesn't seem to be a reliable source as Wikipedia uses the term, and we're still left wondering what significance this might have.

The final part of your statement is this: [T]he original scripture mentions that it is "he" (Yahweh) who calls the child Immanuel, not "she". It is only in later versions, where Immanuel became two words, and the maiden names/calls the child.

As I noted above, the question of who does the naming is already covered in the article. The source for that is the commentary on Matthew by R.T. France, one of the leading Matthew-scholars. If you can find another reliable source, of equal or greater authority, then by all means tell us and we can change the article.

Incidentally, the Dead Sea version of Isaiah is not, as you claim, the "original" version of the book - there is no original version. It is, indeed, the oldest manuscript, but that's a different matter. Please read (carefully) what Roitman says - his piece is extremely good. PiCo (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

a) Verify with your scholars: http://www.arkcode.com/photo4_15.html (paragraph 2: Immanuel is one word in the DSS vs. two in the Masoretic)

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/31_selections.html (same observation, different group) http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-8.htm (Miller again: same thing)

b) There is no opinion offered in my addition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.168.161 (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

c) There is no mention in the article of God naming the child. That is because the article refers to the Masoretic text, and texts derived from it. There is only mention of the king or the virgin naming the child, and that is an entirely different story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.168.161 (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

d) The first reference offers the exact copy of the DSS. The second is a translation. The Miller references also offer copies of the relevant parts from the DSS and the Masoretic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.168.161 (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Point (a): you're offering personal interpretations of primary sources. Find sound secondary sources. Also tell us why this is significant, if true - at the moment the reader's reaction is "so what?"

Point (b): You say you offer only facts, not opinions; but your addition says: "According to the oldest surviving scriptures, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the word Immanuel is presented as a single word proper name." That's an opinion (yours) until you find a secondary source for it. You also want to say: "Furthermore, the original scripture mentions that it is "he" (Yahweh) who calls the child Immanuel, not "she". It is only in later versions, where Immanuel became two words, and the maiden names/calls the child." That's also opinion (who says that the DSS "the original scripture", who says the DSS says that he/Yahweh names the child?) You need reliable secondary sources. Of the sources you offer, only the Shrine of the Book website seems to qualify as a reliable source, and it doesn't support what you say.

Point (c): You seem to be under the impression that God names the child in the DSS Isaiah (Great Isaiah Scroll). This isn't so. The Great Isaiah Scroll simply says "he shall be named Immanuel." In any event, our article is about the standard Masoretic text - the DSS can be mentioned as a variant, but only through a reliable source. God knows there are enough sources out there if you look - have you tried Tov?

Point (d): The DSS is a primary source, in Hebrew - we can't use it "raw" like that. We can use the translation, but it doesn't seem to support your point (i.e., it says that both the DSS and the MS have Immanuel as a single word, and it doesn't have God naming the child). PiCo

Have you looked at the message on your isp user page? (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The refs I provided in a, were possibly not visible (?). My apologies:

1)from http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/31_selections.html

"This passage from the Dead Sea Scrolls has a few differences from the Masoretic text (as used today in all Hebrew Bibles and which most translations are based on). In the top line the word יהוה (YHWH) is underlined, this is the name of God. In the Masoretic text the word אדוני (adonai) is used instead.

In the bottom line, near the middle is the word וקרא (v'qara) meaning "he will call". In the Masoretic text this word is written as וקראת (v'qarat) meaning "she will call".

On the bottom line near the left end is the word עמנואל (imanuel). This word is the combination of two words - עמנו אל (imanu el). Because these two words are grouped together as one we know that it is a name. In the Masoretic text this name is written as two separate words - עמנו אל (imanu el)."

2)The other two refs verify the two vs. one word.

3)Who is the reader that says "so what?", other than you? Are you the self-appointed representative of all readers? Plus, I did explain the significance above. Is it the same if the text says "God will name the child Immanuel", than if it says "the virgin (or anyone else) will name the child god is with us"? If you think yes, then what can I say.

4)I do not wish to offer an opinion in an Encyclopaedia. Opinions, scholarly or not, have no place in it. Only facts do. I am pointing out a fact which may be significant. If I could simply type the Isa 7:14 text in Hebrew, and let the two versions (DSS vs. Masoretic) simply appear here without a comment, I would.

The same way, that if there is an article about let's say "veni vidi vici", the first thing that should appear is the original text (and its different versions).

5)Is the DSS the oldest untranslated biblical copy or is it not? It is simply a fact. Inconvenient, but a fact. So, yes, it is easier to ignore the DSS. The later the version the better. It's like Windows.

6)You should add what the scholars say about Immanuel, the prophecy and Yehoshua.

Your problem with editing this article comes down to a need to understand what Wikipedia is about. Please register a user-name, then when you get a welcome message from an Admin, ask that admin to direct you to the policies you need to know about. You need especially to understand NPOV (stands for neutral point of view), OR (original research), and RS (reliable sources). Almost all the sources you quote are not RS in Wikipedia terms - Jeff Benner, for example, is a self-taught Hebraicist with no academic credentials, affiliations or publications. That doesn't stop him from being right, but it does stop us from using him as a source.PiCo (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You are right about the sources, other than that of the Museum of Israel and Flint. So, until I find another one to verify, this rests. However, I don't see anything in the original research saying you can't post a small passage from published OR, if it is uninterpreted. Given that the article is on Immanuel, the relevant passages from Hebrew, without interpretation, are fair game. I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.168.161 (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not so neutral

The last paragraph begins as "The gospel of Matthew was probably written in the last two decades of the 1st century, by a highly educated Jew who believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah, "God with us"." There must be a more neutral way of writing it. I tried adding "Experts suggest that" to the beginning, but it was not considered neutral. So, the problem is, how can we word it more neutrally?68.100.116.118 (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems totally neutral to me. What about it isn't neutral?   — Jess· Δ♥ 10:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)