Talk:Immanuel

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.

Came here for this. The scope of the article is all over the place. The first sentence makes it seem as if the article is about a name, but then the infobox seems to be about a biblical character, and then the article itself kinda goes on an acid trip rambling about biblical stuff that's not centered around anything in particular. I'm renaming this to make it about the biblical character, for starters, and making some tweaks, and we'll see how this goes from there. --uKER (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2019 (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)

Why, it speaks as most probable that Mathew is a forgery. The experts are not infallible. Why not simply say that it is generally accepted or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.116.118 (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's universally accepted among credible scholars that large parts of the Bible, including the Gospel of Matthew, weren't written by the people Christian tradition says they were. There's no need to water down the wording based on the fact you dislike that. It says "probably"; that's as much recognition of experts' fallibility as we need. Rwenonah (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Which Virgin?

It's long been common knowledge that the application of virgin in this context is a mistranslation from the septuagint, the hebrew word Alma means only a young unmarried woman, that she "should" be a virgin too is simply implied by jewish law, not by the word itself! The constant use of virgin in this article is a blatant preference of religious bias but it does not represent factual reporting. --5.146.47.75 (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)