Talk:Virgin birth of Jesus/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Joseph's reaction ?

I'm looking at the edits made recently in this file, together with the following extract from the latest version of the article: Others,[who?] while not denying the existence of two independent written witnesses to the tradition, say that the miraculous aspect of the conception appears to rest on a "single attestation", that of Mary, and that the attestation of the angel to Joseph on the miraculous nature of the conception would not be accepted by many scholars as historiographically valid... > My question is: Could Joseph's reaction to the "news" not be regarded as a form of "independent testimony"? Admittedly, this would depend on whether we are prepared to give Joseph the benefit of the doubt, i.e., by discounting the possibility that he (and Mary) were being hypocritical.--DLMcN (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC) ... Putting it differently, my suggestion is that the whole of that^ piece which I have italicized, should really be removed. --DLMcN (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Esoglou just edited that so we should wait for him to clarify. But what we think (i.e. whether we are prepared to give Joseph the benefit of the doubt) should not matter and references should determine it. Yet, a thinking reader may ask "attestation of the angel"? Angels are not historical, so the whole discussion is somewhere in the clouds anyway for those who think. But in Wikipedia thinking is not allowed, and WP:V rules. History2007 (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that 'Asking too many questions' and 'Making too many suggestions' were crimes which could incur the death penalty in communist Vietnam. And looking at my wording^, those are indeed offences of which I am (starting to be) guilty... Anyway, if you really >think< that we need to mention it, then we could certainly say that Leslie Weatherhead (Yes, him again!) argues strongly that Joseph's reaction was not at all compatible with the hypothesis that he was Jesus's biological father. However, my resources in this field are limited, and I am sure that other editors could find better ones. But my vote still goes in favour of deleting the whole sentence, unless of course someone manages to supply the reference requested by Esoglou. --DLMcN (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the concrete attestations that we have access to are the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. We don't have access (except through these two writings) to Mary's attestation, Joseph's or the angels'. I think the remark about Mary's being the only attestation must have been an original-research and really irrelevant idea, inserted by whoever thought it up. Unless a reliable source can be cited for it in relation to the double-attestation argument, it should be removed. It really has nothing to do with the view that, since the two attestations that we have are independent of each other (neither one copied from the other), it appears that even before these two Gospels were written, and thus even closer to the alleged event, belief in a virginal conception of Jesus existed among Christians. The point of the double-attestation argument is precisely that the virginal-conception idea can't have been an invention of these two writers (whose accounts differ in so many other particulars), so its origin must have been earlier and therefore more likely to be an original tradition. Talking about the credibility of Mary (as recounted by Luke) or the conclusions to draw from Joseph's reaction (as recounted by Matthew) presumes that Luke's and Matthew's accounts are strictly historical, not even partly theological. Such talk may perhaps have a place elsewhere in the article but not in connection with the double-attestation argument, where it isn't relevant. The article mentions as a counter-argument to the double-attestation view the view that the virginal-conception idea was an invention of the two writers, who on the basis of Old Testament prophecies independently came up with the same idea. That is relevant. Esoglou (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised at History2007's restoration of the passage: I thought he too did not favour keeping such matters as the "attestation of an angel".

Or is it unclear that both DLMcN and I think it should be deleted? Esoglou (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I must be confused. I just reverted based on the 2 people agree comment. If you want it out, go for it. I do not like it at a logical level, but the WP:V angle was in favor of the angel, or maybe the angel was in favor that angle... Anyway, I will self revert. You guys agree on it and fix it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have now looked at the Lachs work on Google Books and I see no evidence on the cited page that he must be classified among critics of the double-attestation argument. Perhaps there is evidence elsewhere in the book. I have no access to the cited page of the Ashe book. Esoglou (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually one of the explanations for the divergence of the accounts is in the article already:

"James Hastings and separately Thomas Neufeld have expressed the view that the circumstances of the birth of Jesus were deliberately kept restricted to a small group of early Christians, and were kept as a secret for many years after his death.[25][26] Ronald Brownrigg suggests that the narrative in Luke was obtained via a path from Mary, while the narrative in Matthew was obtained from a path on Joseph's side.[27]"

That school of thought states that they heard it through different channels. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not have access to Lachs or Ashe, but the passage does look much better now than it did a few days ago. --DLMcN (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Occam's razor

There is a new section now called Occam's razor. It only uses Matthew as a source, a WP:Primary usage that amounts to WP:OR. But even if WP:Secondary sources are added to it, is this argument not psilanthropism in any case? It seems to be just another psilanthropist argument, and should not really be in a separate section by itself. Moreover, for it to be so argued needs some notable supporters that use that argument. As discussed before on this talk page, Joseph Priestley, Samuel Taylor Coleridge etc. were notable psilanthropists and they were included. For this to remain someone of an equal level of notability needs to be mentioned, and needs WP:RS secondary sources, and in fact much of it shoudl appear in the psilanthropism page with a reference to that from here. History2007 (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been a few days now, and we have not had a response. Unless RS sources (not blog type items) that relate to notable figures presenting that argument are added, we will have to zap that. History2007 (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph reinstalled, with two more references. No objection if it is conflated within psilanthropism. Arrivisto (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, but as is the references you added had no page numbers and as far as I can tell Dawkins does not state Occam. Does Hitchens? They certainly reject not only virgin birth but all supernatural events anyway, but it does not seem like they make the specific Occam argument you presented. And Dawkins is by far a more quotable source given that at least he is a scientist and represents the views of the scientific atheists rather than Hitchens who generally relied on clever word play rather than anything else. So my suggestion is to get a precise objection from Dawkins and use that in the psilanthropism section, as the view of a "leading scientific atheist" which Dawkins certainly is. So I added Dawkins to the psilanthropism section. History2007 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"born of a woman, born under the law"

Ola Pico sorry but this doesn't make sense. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the phrase "born under the Law" is a statement about the circumstances of Jesus' birth. Rather, it's saying, in a roundabout way, that he was a good Jewish lad, "under the Law". Focussing on the word "born" is putting an emphasis where none was intended (Paul was interested in Jesus's Jewishness, not how he was born). This, of course, is only my interpretation - we need to look up a good commentary on the Epistles. PiCo (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a separate comment from the para above. On the little reading I've done on this subject, and focussing on OT texts (I'm not really very interested in the NT), it seems that the Isaiah passage might be the ultimate source of the virgin birth meme. For Isaiah, speaking to Ahaz, it would have been a matter of some young woman who was pregnant and about to give birth, and he was telling Ahaz that God would save Judah from Israel and Syria before the child was about seven years old. A little later, in exilic and early post-exilic times, this came to be read as a prophesy on the restoration of the Davidic dynasty, and attracted extra verses of mesianic character. Then in Second Temple times the Davidic restoration was forgotten and the passage was reinterpreted again, to refer to the restoration of Israel (the holy community, not the kingdom), through a supernatural messianism. Wile Jesus was actually alive he was accepted as the messiah, and I don't think anyone would have cared much about how he was born, except that he had to be Davidic. Then Matthew, writing half a century after the death of Jesus, tapped into what by then must have become a very well-deveolped body of belief about the nature of Jesus' messiah-ship - and the Isaiah passage, through the LXX, received its final interpretation at his hanbds. ("Final" because he was the first - propbably - to write it down - written texts gain an authority that oral traditions lack). PiCo (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

PiCo ... > Maybe In ictu oculi is just suggesting a slight modification in the wording of your last edit; e.g., by adding the italicised portions in: "[The Pauline Epistles]... refer to Jesus' mother without stating that she was still a virgin when He was born". --DLMcN (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC) .. [a minor point !]--DLMcN (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I also think it is a minor issue, but suggest that it should be settled by looking up a few references rather than discussion. History2007 (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the passage that Inictu says makes no sense (I've removed all the refs so it reads easily):

The Pauline epistles, the earliest surviving Christian writings, refer to Jesus' mother without stating that she was a virgin. Instead Paul focuses on contrasting the birth of Jesus with the fall of Adam, and presents Jesus as the "firstborn of all creation", and a second Adam, in Colossians 1:15-16 Some see the silence of Paul on virginity as implying that he knew of no account of the virgin birth of Jesus, while scholars such as Raymond Brown reject the "argument from silence" and state that Paul's letters were composed with a view to ecclesiastical problems with which he had to deal, not to give a narrative of the life of Jesus.

I'd like Inictu to expand on why he feels this isn't making sense (and by the way, I'm not the author of most of it, just the first bit). Maybe the whole thing could be collapsed like this:

St Paul, whose epistles are probably the earliest surviving Christian writings, mentions Jesus' mother (without naming her) but makes no reference to a virgin birth. Some scholars see Paul's silence as implying that he knew nothing of the story later recorded in Matthew and Luke, while others argue that, as the epistles were not composed to give a narrative of the life of Jesus, no conclusions should be drawn from the absence of the miraculous circumstances of his birth.

Still needs sources.

PiCo (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Isaiah

Regarding oldid 518264618 - I've provided a book reference and a reference to footnotes to the Orthodox Jewish Bible, as published by the translation author on the OJB website. Are there any concerns with that specific reference remaining?

--50.53.99.98 (talk)

There is no evidence that the concerns went away. As another editor said: "personal website not a reliable source" per WP:RS, of course. History2007 (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Would this serve as a better source? - Gordon, Dr. Cyrus (1953), "Almah in Isaiah 7:14". The Journal of Bible & Religion vol. 21, p.106 ? --50.53.99.98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There are other problems. It looks like you found one source that contradicts the existing claim and changed the text to reflect the new source. Instead of changing the existing claim to match your claim, and assuming your new source is notable and is not a fringe theory, then better is to add your claim as an alternate view -- this does not have to be a situation where there can be only one viewpoint expressed. And then in your edit you have the passage that starts " It is, however, not clear why Isaiah" which feels very out-of-place relative to the rest of the paragraph. It feels like you are attempting to shoe-horn in your preferred interpretation instead of properly integrating this information in an encyclopedic manner. SQGibbon (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Matthew and Isaiah, Marduk and me

Curses, foiled again!

Seriously, I don't think you can talk about Matthew's virgin prophesy without talking about Isaiah at the same time. It all belongs together. PiCo (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I beg to differ on that. OT material stands on its own, and then is referred to in the NT. One can refer to the OT from the NT, but the OT was there long before.History2007 (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, as per History2007. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Marduk will thank you. History2007 (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Marduk sent me a message by seraphim, he says that there's no mention of a virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14, and that the Septuagint is the first to raise it, then Matthew. In other words, the OT material wasn't there at all until the Septuagint and Matthew inserted it. PiCo (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Did Marduk have a source for that? Or did Matthew tell a seraphim to cook the OT books like the 3rd paragraph here... Would be interesting... History2007 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A source for saying that Isaiah doesn't mention any virgins? Yes - it's in the article, in the section that deals with Isaiah. The academic source would be Marvin Sweeney, probably the leading scholar today on matters concerning the OT prophets, but many others are available: an "almah" was a young girl who hadn't yet had her first child, not one who hadn't had sex. There was no equivalent in Greek, so the LXX translators used "parthenos", which is exactly equivalent to English "virgin". I'm impressed by the breadth of your reading - Count Tolstoy and Isaiah, forsooth! PiCo (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I know the Isaiah issue. But the "inserted it" statement seemed like Mathew went all around late at night and rewrote the documents, while saying "interpreted it differently" is another story. History2007 (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What "inserted it" statement? Matthew took the LXX Isaiah "parthenos"as he found it; he did, however, insert a few words elsewhere, notably changing "you shall call" to "they shall call." But what statement is this?PiCo (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I know the Isaiah issue. But then why even discuss it here, why not just add two sentence that: "Professors X, Y and Z say that Matthew wanted a specific portrayal so he used wording to achieve that effect. However professors A, B and C disagree with that". My main objection was the removal of Brown, by the way. Is there any scholarly consensus on this or are they just offering differing views? Is there a "majority view" that agrees on one perspective vs the other? History2007 (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There is consensus that the word almah has nothing to do with virginity, if that's what you mean - I can provide a source from Sweeney saying that. A girl could be pregnant and still be an almah, as is the almah in Isaiah 7:14.

Our article says that Brown says that "the translators of the Septuagint may have understood the Hebrew word almah to mean virgin in this context" - presumably the context of Isaiah 7:14. But so far as I can see Brown doesn't say this at all. On that page (page 92) he says that "a knowledge of the Hebrew and the LXX of Isaiah 7:14 gives no indication of a reference to a virginal conception"and that it's unlikely Matthew cam by the idea through that verse; he then says that if the idea already existed then Matthew may have reinterpreted Isaiah as foretelling it. But there's no mention of what the translators of the LXX may have thought. The book is here - this link is to the front cover, you have to do a search for page 92.PiCo (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, this is really straightforward and may not even need discussion. What I encourage you to do is this:

• You can tag Brown as failed verification, so someone will check it. If they do not can remove it in a week or two.
• You can add "scholarly consensus" per WP:RS/AC but can not do your own survey to determine consensus, need a source that says there is consensus - and pref if it is heavy or not
• You can state what the majority view is, again per WP:RS/AC, but must also include opposing and minority views per WP:NPOV.

You know more about this than yours truly, so I am sure you can do it right. The main issue I have is not to have the existing sources zapped all of a sudden and not to rely on personal surveys of scholars, but to follow RS/AC. So if you include both perspectives per policy, why should anyone object? I think even Marduk would be pleased with that... History2007 (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing log

• I recently made a large revision of the lead - aim was to make it more concise without losing anything, also make sure sources are good. Any comments/suggestions? PiCo (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• I made a new section quoting the two virgin birth texts; also moved some portals and illustrations to reduce clutter PiCo (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Historicity

I don't see that the cited pages of Machen and/or Gromacki actually say what the text says they do. There is no idea of two (only two?) explanations, nor a straightforward exposition of either of them. We should look for better references. Myrvin (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC) The LaVerdiere one doesn't work either. Myrvin (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Postmodern interpretations

I am not sure of the scholarship behind these proposed additions. It would seem that a view from "Postmodern Christianity" would fall under WP:FRINGE. Elizium23 (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's different from you reverting the edits because "postmodern thinkers" were only Peter Rollins - whoever he is. I don't really understand what he's saying, but he appears to be a real Christian writer. Myrvin (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Rollins source fails WP:RS as it is self-published without any noticeable editorial oversight. Elizium23 (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The second source is a transcript posted to a blog; the third source links to the purchase of a book on the vanity press of a megachurch. All three of these sources fail WP:RS and we are left with citations based on something Rollins said. It's a house of cards. Elizium23 (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

He seems to be published by Paraclete Press and SPCK Publishing. Maybe there are refs there. Myrvin (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Latest changes

The latest changes by an unnamed editor seem to be changing the text principally to promote the idea that 'parthenos' was a correct translation of 'almah', and they both mean 'virgin'. We need proper quotes from the Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible, rather than an unpaged reference for this unlikely idea. The words 'in context' are weasel words that say very little. Myrvin (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The rest of the anonymous editor's changes, which removed reliably-sourced content in the name of "neutrality", seem equally problematic. I agree with the wholesale reversal. Huon (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Analogies and explanations - pagans.

I am suspicious of the two citations for the sentence: "As part of the conflicts between Christians and other groups during the 1st and 2nd centuries, statements were made by both Jews and pagans that the Christian virgin birth narratives had been derived from pagan sources.[82][83]". 82 on page 326 talks about pagan conflicts, but nothing about the suggestion that the virgin birth is derived from pagan sources. I can't get access to 83. Myrvin (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am also unsure about the statement about Justin. "Justin argued at length against the pagan connection and noted that the word virgin does not even occur in the pagan sources.[85]" Here [1], J's Trypho says that it is terrible that Christians talk about a virgin birth just like the pagans do. J says that the pagan stories come from Satan. Then J says that the pagan stories are not about virgin births at all. Machen (not J) writes that this is obvious since the word virgin does not occur there, even though J says that it does. Machen suggests that J is using the pagan stories of a virgin birth to bolster the Christian idea. Also, the word 'connection' is much too vague. Furthermore, "The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia " has several volumes. "the Old Testament issues" is vague too. Myrvin (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for that part, haven't got down that far. On source 82 (The Roman World 44 BC–AD 180, Martin Goodman), I also can't anything on page 326 about Jews and pagans alleging that the virgin birth was filched - it's about the peculiarities of the Jewish religion. Like you I can't access source 83 (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, vol.1). Back to the Goodman book, I get hits searching for "virgin", one about Greco-Roman virgin goddesses (no mention of Christianity), and the other about a Church Father who felt the Jews were quite wrong to deny that Isaiah 7:14 referred to Mary. But I'd avoid discussing the views of the ancients in detail - we need modern scholars. Machen is a respectable scholar, but very out of date (died 1937). PiCo (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The stuff is BP (before PiCo). I always disagree with you about the ancients - I find them fascinating. Also, 1934 isn't all that old. Anyway, I'm mulling it all over. It needs rewriting. Myrvin (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I find the ancients fascinating, but not reliable. I need to know what Brown says about Machen, for example, and what Lincoln and Hurtado and Casey say about Brown. But back to the fascinating ancients, I'm currently reading James Frazer about the Kings of Fire and Water in 19th century Vietnam (he says Cambodia, but he's wrong). The held, between them, a sacred sword and a sacred reed, with which they could bring about the end of the world if they chose, and they lived in seven towers on seven hills, moving each year to a new tower, and when the seven years were up they were executed and a new king appointed. There was a great deal of competition at those moments, mostly devoted to hiding in the forest.PiCo (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliability isn't generally a problem. We don't necessarily take the ancients at their word. This whole thing about the virgin birth is by some ancients, after all. What we normally have is some modern saying what the ancients said, and criticizing them - or agreeing. That is the case with Justin and Machen. Machen says that Justin made up the idea that the Greeks had virgin births in their myths, so that he could say that one more virgin birth isn't too much to swallow. However J muddies the water by saying that these pagans got the idea from Satan, and they weren't really virgin births anyway, so Jesus is the only one.Myrvin (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR and other major changes need consensus

@PiCo: You did not seek consensus for the WP:CITEVAR changes. They will need to be reverted. Your recent edits have introduced (and re-introduced) many errors. Please refrain from any more changes until other editors have time to consider these things.
Thanks. —Telpardec  TALK  13:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the problem - is this about the style of citation? What are the errors? PiCo (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

CITEVAR is the principle that if an article already has citations, editors should adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it. There is a part that says: "While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed." That last part is lax – it allows editors to temporarily add new references in an alternate style – which is probably why no one noticed or objected to your use of harvref "harv" references. One of the worse drawbacks of the harv system is that it is difficult to work on references while editing a section, if the references are not there. Ordinary references are one click away, with a ^ return link back to the place referenced. Harv references force the reader to go to a third location, with no return link. I hate dead ends. —Telpardec  TALK  02:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's true that harvref has its drawbacks, but so does every system, which is why there isn't just one. Personally I find the long form makes articles very difficult to edit - the text is full of the details of books, and that makes it hard to follow. I don't mind if you change my footnote style, but please leave the bibiliography, as I use it for finding books quickly (it's alphabetic). PiCo (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A master list of useful books on a user sub-page or local hard drive seems like a better idea. Before and after the Bibliography was put back in, I timed this article's download time on my slow dial-up connection. It was about 22% longer with the 46% additional bloat. (Images account for the difference.) The "Show preview" view displays the text without all the ref-details and clutter. I have more error-checking to do. Cheers. —Telpardec  TALK  01:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll put the master list on my own Talk page, which should solve the problem. I've deleted two sections, not because I disagree with them, but because they give too much space to matters that can be dealt with much more easily elsewhere and in fewer words. Docetism is indeed important, but it can be covered in a few sentences. (Psilanthropy is actually the mirror-image of docetism, but they cqn be dealt with together). For the pagan myths supposedly behind the virgin birth, the modern thinking is not that these myths directly influenced the stories in Matthew and Luke, but that Greek Christians and even Hellenised Jews, having been raised in thatcsort of culture, were more ready to accept such a story. In other words, we need to be clearer.PiCo (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought you had agreed to the Justin section. We discussed it below. I have reverted your deletion. You go too far. Myrvin (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not after a permanent deletion, I'm just concerned about the length of the article - it seems to grow and grow. PiCo (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been the main editor for months PiCo. Anyway, the article is pretty well the same size as it was 12 months ago. Do you think you might have become a little obsessed with this, not very large, article? Myrvin (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

English variety

I was under the impression that this article was using American English, which uses "z" in some places where British English uses "s", and "ter" rather than "tre". (see MOS:ENGVAR and WP:ART1VAR)
Confirm? —Telpardec  TALK  07:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen many disagreements here —Telpardec? I can find "formalised" and "hypothesized". I can't see any 'tre' / 'ter' problems. It doesn't look as if, in the past, a preference was set. Myrvin (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The OED prefers the z for both, while Chambers accepts either.Myrvin (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There was a "tre" spelling in a past version. I'm OK with American. —Telpardec  TALK  19:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"Honorifics"

—Telpardec: I see that you have removed what you call 'honorifics', by which you mean: "According to biblical scholar xxx", should be just "According to xxx". Are you following a rule or guidance here? I was once told to put such things in. Myrvin (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Honorifics. Titles. Puffery. (Aren't we all insignificant dust specks in the universe?) Generally, a wiki-linked name is sufficient introduction. Attribution, ("according to [name]" and "[name] said" or other variants), is sometimes needed for clarity.
Cheers. —Telpardec  TALK  19:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so this is your personal preference. Just so we know. Myrvin (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I took advice on this. See User talk:WhatamIdoing#Describing authors. I have put the description back. Myrvin (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

bloat revert summary continued

Edit summary: Undid revisions 666997138 and 666997621 by PiCo - unnecessary bloat causes longer download time problems - it is disruptive to restore obsolete citations - see talk

• The bibliography addition was a bloated older unimproved version of the citations, and still included the un-used books that had been removed to the Further Reading section. The addition also included a separate copy of the Further Reading section. And the addition was added above the current Further reading section, which made a total of 3 copies of the un-used material. The references that are being used have had ISBNs added and other refimprove. The addition was a step backwards.
• The book templates had about 40 extra bytes of blank white space per line added, bloating the text so much that the equal sign was to the right of the mid-point of the default text area. Sample:

|publisher                                                 = Westminster John Knox Press 
|year                                                      = 2009

instead of a more modest:

|publisher = Westminster John Knox Press 
|year      = 2009

FWIW. —Telpardec  TALK  22:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Mark 6:3

"Then they scoffed, 'He's just a carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. And his sisters live right here among us.' They were deeply offended and refused to believe in him." - Mark 6:3 (NIV)

It is highly unusual that Jesus is referred to as "son of Mary" rather than "son of Joseph" here. Mark may not have described the virgin birth, but could he be implying it with this verse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wittgenstein123 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The earlier

Considering this edit, if it meant that Christianity was an earlier tradition than Islam, that is correct and should likely be restored and reworded. On the other hand after reading the article sequentially, it could have suggested that the virgin birth doctrine was from very early Christianity, which is questionable. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding: This is a quality article (maybe it eventually could reach GA status), not too long, precise, easy to read and represents good scholarship, etc. Congratulations to all contributors, —PaleoNeonate – 08:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Jewish writings on Isaiah 7:14

Since Isaiah 7:14 is one of the bases of the prophetic foundation for the virgin birth, it would seem prudent to include all the ancient Jewish writings that speak to this verse. Misty MH (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that information ("all ancient Jewish writings") would be useful as a note (list) alongside citation(s), with a summary paragraph / section highlighting some interpretations of that verse by ancient Jewish thought, and perhaps some responses to the claim by period (1st-3rd century AD) Jewish minds, and modern Jewish minds. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Heavy POV and contentious edits

PiCo seems to be an authority on certain items, sharing their POV as 'fact'. Although it seems they are adding and editing content in 'good faith', they unfortunately have devolved into edit warring and contention, not discussing on the talk page when first invited to do so. One recent edit summary: <<That the KJV is not a good translation is a fact, not an opinion>>. Another questionable edit where they deleted a portion of the article due, again, to their POV. It is constructive to 'add' what other authors have considered about any given translation, or interpretation. It is not constructive to delete or alter articles according to WP:POV. -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

HafizHanif, thanks for opening the discussion. I'll just deal with the two points you raise:

First, whether the King James Bible can be regarded as authoritative. Some, of course, say that it is the directly inspired Word of God, but this isn't the general view among scholars. It dates from the early 17th century, when very little was known about early manuscripts - the Dead Sea Scrolls had not been discovered (relevant here because Isaiah is one of the Dead Sea manuscripts), and before the discoveries at the monastery of Mt Sinai (extremely relevant, as these are still the oldest available New Testament manuscripts). I've replaced it with a translation by a modern and highly respected scholar, Brevard Childs.

Second, the material on or from Aquinas. He's even older than the King James Bible, and though he'held in high regard by conservative Catholics even today, he's extremely dated. He could be mentioned in passing, but something more inclusive is needed.

These two passages are fairly recent additions to the article - they weren't included when it was comprehensively re-written some years ago. All articles tend to attract new material, some of it constructive, some not. From time to time it's necessary to cut as well as to add.

Anyway, let's continue to talk about this.PiCo (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree. The view that Textus Receptus (source of KJV translation) would be reliable is quite WP:FRINGE. Scholars working for major universities don't hold such view. KJV in a masterpiece of English literature, but it is not a reliable translation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The claim that the Textus Receptus (TR) being reliable is fringe is false. The New King James Version (NKJV) was translated by some scholars who may have disagreed with the idea that hodge-podged Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies (NU) – or the texts they are based on – are superior. Some people trust the TR more than the NU-Text or even the Majority Text. And translators used the TR as the basis for the NKJV, published in 1982. Misty MH (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the arguments over translations, but there is an effort to argue over words instead of noticing that despite the use of one translation or another, the message is generally the same. My intention was to mention that, on its face, the edits were done in pursuing this current climate online between KJV only and everyone else. It is ridiculous, I concur. However, to delete or narrow content in what seems like an effort to minimize a 'catholic' view should be considered. The mention of a modern scholar's take, and considering that as 'more correct', is the same argument that can be made with the ancient source of Aquinas as an effort to, again, reinterpret previous ideas.. instead of simply adding new content (without deleting previous content). Isn't this the aim of objectivity and inclusion of various points of view, the oldest with the newest? -- HafizHanif (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Also a bit surprised about the opinions of what is 'trustworthy' regarding any single translation. POV. What is the translation often found in most wikipedia articles? I suggest using that one (uniformity wiki-wise). Another suggestion is utilizing an English translation that is widely read and used, since wiki is a starting point for run-of-the-mill inquiries, and thus a broader audience needs to be considered. This latter suggestion speaks to seeking a more modern translation than the KJV since the English vernacular of today is not what it was those centuries ago. I'm sure to some religious minds, steeped in dogma about words / translations / favor to one translation in opposition to others, this may sound heretical. Let us remember wiki is as general and objective as it should get for the internet... a starting point for someone looking for useful and accurate information, and perhaps an entry into deeper research when they click on sources / citations. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The Executive Editor of the NKJV, Arthur L. Farstad, addressed textual concerns in a book explaining the NKJV translation philosophy. While defending the Majority Text (also called the Byzantine text-type), and claiming that the Textus Receptus is inferior to the Majority Text...

— New King James Version

From the horse's mouth. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Paul's knowledge?

I was reading some of the sources in the article, and it appears to me that there may be some undue weight here. In the 'Christian tradition prior to Matthew and Luke' section, the article says;

"In short, a virginal conception plays no part in Paul's theology and it is almost certain that he was unaware of any such tradition."

The reference here is Lincoln, where it's said that Paul's silence not only reveals that the virginal conception plays no part in Paul's theology (former part of the sentence above) but that it's "almost certain" that he was unaware of any such tradition (latter section of the sentence). When I was reading some of the other sources, however, I found this view contradicted by Bruner, who gets cited in the lead of the page. On pp. 38-39, Bruner argues that given that the Pauline, Markan, etc sources always only treat Jesus' genealogies through the women in the family, this silence could _possibly_ imply knowledge of the virgin birth tradition, a far cry from Lincoln's claim that he was "almost certainly unaware" of any such tradition.

Hence, there needs to be some clear evidence produced that the latter of the above sentence in the page given Paul's silence is the majority position of scholarship, otherwise, it needs to be attributed to Lincoln and contrasted with Bruner's position, since anything else would simply be undue weight.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I've read Bruner as you suggest and I can't see that he amounts to a contradiction of Lincoln. Lincoln says it's "almost certain" that Paul was unaware of the virgin birth tradition, not that he was definitely unaware, which to my mind covers Bruner's arguments on pages 38-39. As you point out yourself, Bruner is pointing only to a possibility. I see no need to change this part of the article.PiCo (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I seem to have missed your response. It doesn't matter that Lincoln says it's "almost certain" that this or that happened -- this is still Lincoln's personal viewpoint, unless clear evidence can be provided that this is the consensus position. The fact that Bruner argues for the possibility of Paul being familiar sheds doubt on this claim. It appears as if you're utilizing your own personal interpretation of the scholarship rather than what it actually says here.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Bruner does not argue what you seem to believe he argues, and Lincoln's comment is not a personal opinion, it's the assessment of a scholar regarding the consensus of his peers.PiCo (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

To editor PiCo:, two problems. Firstly, you removed the ref from Bruner I added that says the accuracy of the virgin birth story is a matter of theology. This is exactly what Bruner says. He quotes a number of scholars saying just this, including Davies-Allison who writes that if belief is maintained, "it will have to be on the basis of strictly theological considerations". Perhaps, if you're more comfortable with that, we can uses Davies-Allison's wording. In fact, in pg. 37 Bruner writes that "most" interpreters agree that it "can be believed for theological reasons." That's precisely what Bruner says. Bruner also explicitly argues that it's possible Paul and others are familiar with the virgin birth on pg. 38 on the basis that, unlike any other geneaologies Paul traces, Jesus is the only one he doesn't trace through a male, and concludes that the silences of Paul and others "may not be all that silent" (pg. 39).

As for your claim that Lincoln's statement is an assessment of the consensus, this is blatantly false and nowhere does Lincoln claim his view is as an assessment of the consensus of scholars. That's your own addition to the book, which is WP:OR.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Bruner does not say that the "accuracy" (historicity) of the virgin birth is at issue; what he says is that if you believe in it, you have to do so because of your theological position, not because of its historical accuracy. I see no reason to add to the article a statement that people believe in the virgin birth because they believe.PiCo (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not you see a reason is irrelevant. This page is on the "Virgin Birth of Jesus", not the "Historicity of the Virgin Birth of Jesus". As Bruner shows on pp. 37-39, it's notable enough that a large number of scholars make precisely this point. I also assume that, through omission, you're conceding the point on Lincoln.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Lincoln's study is just about the state of the art right now - a major work, superseding those that came before. Bruner says that the historical foundations of the virgin birth story are very slender, and he isn't making an argument that theology trumps history, which would be ridiculous.PiCo (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You didn't address anything I say. Leave out your personal opinion on the importance of Lincoln's work, that's not particularly convincing. Lincoln never claims his opinion is consensus, and Bruner certainly suggests Paul knew about these traditions. The fact that so many scholars emphasize the theological importance of the truth of the virgin birth makes it notable. You simply are not responding to anything I say and are just giving more of your opinions.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

No, Bruner does not suggest Paul knew about these traditions. In fact he says explicitly that Paul is silent. In this he is correct. (He goes on to say, again correctly, that Paul speaks of Jesus as born of a woman, and says he finds this curious - but God knows why, given that every man is born of a woman.)PiCo (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's get back to the point you made at the head of this thread, that "Bruner argues that given that the Pauline, Markan, etc sources always only treat Jesus' genealogies through the women in the family" on his pages 38-39). What he says is this:

• Paul speaks of Jesus as "born of a woman", and he finds this curious - but as I've pointed out (and it's the majority scholarly, even scientific, view, not mine), everyone is born of a woman; and
• Mark mentions Jesus as "son of Mary," which he also finds curious. So do I. But a more parsimonious explanation would be that Jesus was a bastard. Not entirely unknown, even in patriarchal societies - I was once in Western Sahara among the Arguibat Arabs, who are not exactly liberal, and I came across a man who was born to an unmarried mother. It happens. (If you must know, I was working with the UN on a census of the tribes. Ok, so you don't believe me. That's up to you.)

He also says that neither Paul nor Mark mention the father's name, but they do mention the mother's name. This is not true - Paul never mentions the name of Mary.

He says that Jesus's human origins are only ever traced to women in the entire NT oeuvre, and cites Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4. Romans 1:3 says that Jesus was descended from David, who was not a woman, and Galatians 4:4 is where Paul says Jesus was born of a woman, just like everyone. (What Paul is actually saying there is that Jesus was fully human - he wants to stress that, because he believed that Jesus, a man like all, was raised by God to the highest throne in Heaven. It's pretty impressive, but it's not about the virginity of his mother.)

Then he talks about John 1:13, " children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God" - fine, except John is explicitly talking about Christians, not Jesus.

All that is on page 38. On page 39 he gets into some extremely esoteric reasoning that leads him to the conclusion that if Adam could have NO human parents, then Jesus could surely have had only one. To accept this requires not belief in Jesus, but belief in a historical Adam. Perhaps you can go with him on that one, but I can't.PiCo (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

PiCo, everything you wrote is a red herring. Perhaps you mistook this Talk page for a place to debate whether or not the virgin birth is true. Besides that nothing you write is indisputable (and that you misrepresent Bruner a wee bit), Bruner outright says that Paul's silent "may not be all that silent" since despite everyone else in the NT, only Jesus' lineage is traced through a women. No one asked you if you were convinced. This is what a WP:RS says and there's not the slightest hint of evidence that Lincoln's interpretation is the consensus. Throughout this conversation, you've consistently been guided by your personal opinions rather than Wiki's policies on how to handle this page.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is getting nowhere. To summarise my point: our article says that Paul was almost certainly not aware of the virgin birth story and makes no use of it in his theology. Bruner says the story rests on "very fragile" foundations (or words like that), which is much the same. You want to make out Bruner saying the opposite, which I find disingenuous. If you want to take this further you'll have to try other avenues, such as RfC.PiCo (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

As you might know, I'm a bit new to Wiki. I'm not sure how to make an RfC. My point is that there's no evidence Lincoln's interpretation is the consensus, and that Bruner directly argues that Paul's silence "may not be all that silent" given the fact that only Jesus, out of all people, have their genealogies traced through a women (if Paul were trying to emphasize his humanity, he could have easily done it with a human father). This doesn't misrepresent Bruner in any way. If this somehow isn't convincing and precisely what the sources say, then I ask you point me how to make an RfC.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC means "request for comment" - it's a request to uninvolved editors to ofer unbiased comment, and is useful when a discussion between just 2 editors is going in circles, as this is. I gather Alephb is a friend of yours, so perhaps he could guide you on how to go about making the request. PiCo (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Section on “Comparison of Matthean and Lukan nativity narratives” is awkward and potentially misleading.

So I’ve never edited a Wikipedia page, but wanted to get thoughts on changing this section. I found it awkward and potentially misleading.

- Firstly, it mentions that “Matthew and Mark agree...” this is simply erroneous. It should read “Matthew and Luke.”

-Secondly, this section is improperly titled “nativity” narratives. The nativity was a good nine months or so after the events this section describes. This may be a bit of a nitpick, but for the sake of academic accuracy, it seems sloppy to call these these “nativity narratives.”

- Most significantly, though, there is a chart outlining the “differences” in the accounts of two entirely separate events, with the description suggesting the stories overlap in some ways but have very different details. This is irrelevant and potentially misleading, outlining the differences as if to suggest that Matthew and Like were trying to relate the same event but came up with radically different details.

It seems sufficient, and more forthright, to simply describe the straightforward observation that Matthew and Luke are relaying two entirely different stories purporting to describe two entirely separate events... Matthew described an angel’s announcement to Joseph after the conception, while Luke describes a separate incident wherein an angel announced the upcoming conception to Mary.

As this section currently stands, it is like saying that Matthew’s account of Jesus feeding 4,000 people, and Luke’s account of Jesus feeding 5,000 agree on some details, and have some overlap, but despite the overlaps, the two stories are very different. Of course they are different, they are describing two entirely separate occasions. And a chart outlining the “differences” between these accounts would potentially give the false impression that Matthew and Luke disagree on key details of the same story, rather than relate they are telling two different stories.

Thoughts? Dfisher40 (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Dfisher40. To respond to your points:

• Firstly, it mentions that “Matthew and Mark agree...” this is simply erroneous. It should read “Matthew and Luke.”
  Yep, it should. Feel free to change it.
• Secondly, this section is improperly titled “nativity” narratives. The nativity was a good nine months or so after the events this section describes. This may be a bit of a nitpick, but for the sake of academic accuracy, it seems sloppy to call these these “nativity narratives.”
  These sections of the two gospels are conventionally called the nativity narratives.
• Most significantly, though, there is a chart outlining the “differences” in the accounts of two entirely separate events, with the description suggesting the stories overlap in some ways but have very different details. This is irrelevant and potentially misleading, outlining the differences as if to suggest that Matthew and Like were trying to relate the same event but came up with radically different details.
  I'd suggest you read the two books given as sources, especially Lincoln.PiCo (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.clearquran.com/downloads/quran-in-english-must-read-passages.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sam Sailor 10:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Conception of Jesus

The conception of Jesus is not mentioned in the Gospel of John. I do not understand how this article could positively claim it involves "no divine intervention" in this case. There is a theological exposition of Jesus' nature and then he appears in full adulthood. Please delete the claim because it is demonstrably false. Elizium23 (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that the editor who reverted me did not bother replying here. "does not involve divine intervention" - impossible to be in the source, because it would be a lie. The source says that no mention is made of it, yea or nay. That is the truth. Elizium23 (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Where to put Quranic section

User:BiblicalScholarship, my feeling is that the new section on Quranic material should be kept separate from the biblical material because it's so secondary - it's several centuries later than the two gospels and based on them (and no doubt on later Christian tradition). It boils down to a way of looking at the VB tradition itself: I see it in literary/historical terms, meaning as a story that came into the Christian writings in the late 1st century and was elaborated thereafter. The Quranic material is part of that elaboration. I gather, rightly or wrongly, that you see the tradition as existing outside these written witnesses, so that the Quran is on equal footing with Matthew and Luke. Of course I shouldn't impute views to you, but I do feel that it we put the Quran up immediately after the gospels it implies in some way that we're investigating a historical fact rather than a religious tradition. Achar Sva (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: My personal feelings are unimportant, but if you must know, I am NOT a Muslim. My question, of course, is should the sources and their discussion be confined to only the New Testament? Because that is how the article reads right now. The analysis is ONLY confined to Matthew and Luke. Should it be this way? Is it not kind of limiting? --BiblicalScholarship (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't suppose you were a Muslim. I don't think I've explained my point clearly: I don't see the gospels or the Quran as sources, but as texts, so that what's being discussed in the article as written is not the VB as a fact (or possible non-fact) but as a narrative. As such it exists only in the bible - the Quran is a different narrative, and discussion of what it has to say would have to concentrate ultimately on why this particular text was written and its theological meaning for its authors. Achar Sva (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: I am sorry, but I am still having a hard time trying to understand your position. This article is about the Virgin Birth of Jesus, which both Christians and Muslims believe. Christians believe it because of their texts, Muslims believe it because of their texts. Why do you think that this article should disregard the Muslim texts and only focus on the New Testament? --BiblicalScholarship (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

My position is that the gospel accounts of the VB were the original written texts (Lincoln says, and I think scholars would generally agree with him, that the gospel writers composed these independently on the basis of traditions already circulating in their time). The Quranic text is late (600 years late in fact) and totally derivative (based on the account in Luke). It's worth mentioning, but far more valuable is to say (a) where the Quran found it, and (b) what changes have been made, and what they mean. Incidentally, there were quite a few other accounts of the VB in between the two canonical gospels and the Quranic version, and also after. If you want to go into all that please do so, but you'll need more research.Achar Sva (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it is unfair to leave out the Islamic belief in the virgin birth, but other than that, I really do not have qualms about the details. BiblicalScholarship (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting leaving it out, just that it should go at the end of the article. Look at the section headings:

• 1 New Testament narratives: Matthew and Luke

*1.1 Matthew 1:18-25

*1.2 Luke 1:26-38

• 2 In Islam
• 3 Historicity and sources of the narratives
• 4 Cultural context
• 5 Theology and development

Each of these - historicity and sources, cultural context, theology and development - is talking about the gospel stories, not the Quranic one. It makes more sense to have the section on the Quran after these. Achar Sva (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should be separate from the examination of the Gospel-related narrative. Because the Islamic stories of Mary and Jesus and Abraham and anyone else who is in the Christian Bible, are intentional ruptures with tradition. They were deliberate attempts to change the backstories completely from how they were popularly understood. In truth, the people known as "Isa" and "Maryam" in the Quran are completely different people because their story is so drastically different. There is no continuity of narrative or character development here, and so the Quranic analysis should be as separate as possible. Elizium23 (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Revert

@Joshua Jonathan: You seem to have reverted my edits. Do you want to briefly explain what you found problematic in them? --BiblicalScholarship (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(Just to clarify: Joshua Jonathan reverted an edit which deleted this sentence regarding authorship of the virgin birth narratives: "both are anonymous (the attributions to Matthew and Luke were added in the 2nd century), and it is almost certain that neither was the work of an eyewitness.")Achar Sva (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: I don't see why it should be there. Do you? --BiblicalScholarship (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to offer a comment at this stage - you pinged Jonathan, and I'll give him the right to comment first.Achar Sva (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Repetitious pov-pushing at multiple pages Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Well if it is User:GoogleMeNowPlease, he's certainly being a lot more polite these days :) Achar Sva (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Revert (Virgin Birth in Islam)

How are my edits now? If there is a problem can I be helped please. The information I have submitted is correct and unbiased. Thank you Seanabbs 10:26, 1 May 2020

@Seanabbs: three times diff diff diff you added info on Islamic views on the virgin birth, using WP:PRIMARY sources as a reference, while removing sourced info. Your latest edits changed

Muslims accept the virgin birth, affirming that Jesus was "incarnate of the Holy Ghost by the Virgin Mary," as the Nicene Creed formulates, but not that he was "Very God of Very God, begotten, not made." Mohammad appears to have gained his knowledge of the story through the late 2nd century Gospel of James rather than through the canonical gospels.

into

References

The problems with these edits:

• You removed the info and refrence from Akyol
• You us ea WP:PRIMARY source, namely a hadith, as a reference
• You make an unsouyrced statement: "Similarly to [...] and it is." This is WP:OR and unverifiable
• The info on Suram Maryam may be acceptable; it's also from a primary source, but it is info on this primary source

I've re-inserted diff the sourced info. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The section is the Islamic view... Muslims will reject anything that indisputably contradicts the Quran. We aren't talking about the Christian respective view, we are talking about what Muslims believe. This is ridiculous and I am hope there is no evangelical Christian tone being taken against my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanabbs (talk • contribs) 08:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It is finished now. I have cited secondary sources. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanabbs (talk • contribs) 08:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Seanabbs: this is a secular encyclopedia, not a religious institute. You are vree to reject anything that you thonk contradicts the Quran (or your understanding of it), but we don't WP:CENSOR sourced info because of religious preferences. See WP:RS and WP:TRUTH. And I'm a buddhist (sort of), by the way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

At least one of the two references, which I have cited is written by none Muslims. I will not change what you put. However I do want my citation referenced. It is a secondary source. Apologise for suggesting your faith joshua. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanabbs (talk • contribs) 1 may 2020 (UTC)

@Seanabbs: you've got a point about the Christian tone; see this correction by me. It's much more interesting than Evangelical or whatever Christian nitpicking; it's about the origins of Islam, and the connection with Judaism. Checking the sources, instead of downright reverting, can be very usefull! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I very much appreciate your efforts Joshua. I would like to reinclude a secondary reference pertaining to the belief that Jesus was supported by the Holy Spirit. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanabbs (talk • contribs) 1 may 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my removal of Zaghloul, Hatim. Jesus of Islam. pp. 12, 42.: no publisher, no year of publication; I guess this is self-published, which makes it non-WP:RS. NB: please sign your answers with ~~~~; it will turn into a signature when you save your edit. See Jewish Christianity and the Origins of Islam on the possible Jewish-Christian origins of Islam. A reasonable €85 (augh.....). Or see Jewish Christianity and Islamic Origins; do we already have an article on this? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I understand, I should know better with regards to referencing, I am a university student! I have removed the Sahih Bukhari reference as it was noted, this is a primary source. I have replaced it with a secondary source published by the University Press of Florida; this source explains the following: "The Islamic view holds that Jesus was God's word which He directed to Mary and a Spirit created by Him, and Jesus was supported by the Holy Spirit."

I once again did not mean to irritate you. I appreciate your patience, and hopefully we are both content.

No neutral article. The commentary of a Jewish rabbi is controversial.

I think it is too controversial and not neutral the commentary of a Jewish rabbi that makes about the gospels. According to him: "The two narratives (of the Gospels) were intended for a Greco-Roman audience for whom stories of virgin births and the impregnation of mortal women by deities were well known in the 1st-century" I suggest looking for another kind of scholar as the Jews have a completely different opinion of the New Testament, therefore the information is not neutral. What he says is a Jewish rabbi's point of view, not a neutral point of view.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 23:14, 29

Here is what was removed: "The two narratives were intended for a Greco-Roman audience for whom stories of virgin births and the impregnation of mortal women by deities were well known in the 1st-century, for the ancient world had no understanding that male semen and female ovum were both needed to form a fetus, and was a cultural milieu conducive to miraculous birth stories. Such stories are less frequent in Judaism, but there too there was a widespread belief in angels and divine intervention in births. Theologically, the two accounts mark the moment when Jesus becomes the Son of God, i.e., at his birth, in distinction to Mark, for whom the Sonship dates from Jesus's baptism,Mark 1:9–13 and Paul and the pre-Pauline Christians for whom Jesus becomes the Son only at the Resurrection or even the Second Coming." Some other changes made but only minor.Achar Sva (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Recent revert

User:BillsYourUncle: you complained that your edits were reverted. In the edit summary I said this was because they broke links to sources plus they tended towards meanings not intended by those sources. I;ll go through them one by one:

• The modern scholarly consensus is that this idea, explicit only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, rests on very slender historical foundations was broken into two sentences: This idea is explicitly stated only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. The dominant view ... The first of those sentences has no source, although it does have a source in the original form.
• From the same sentence: The modern scholarly consensus is ... was changed to The dominant view among modern scholars is.... The source uses the word "consensus", which is stronger than being simply dominant, as well, of course, as using the crucial word used by the source.
• The Gospels of Matthew and Luke ...are very different was changed to the two provid[ing] unique details. The original wording has a different meaning - it's more than details that are provided.
• Matthew underlines the virginity changed to Matthew underscores the virginity. The two words mean the same thing, so why change?
• Matthew's narrative statement that Joseph had no sexual relations with her until after the birth (a choice of words which leaves open the possibility that they did have relations after that) has been changed to This choice of words has led to a debate over the intended meaning of this statement, with some commentators arguing that it leaves open the possibility that they did have relations after that point. This leaves the impression that the majority of commentators/scholars feel that the words do not imply continuing sexual relations after the birth, and this in turn is not what the source says.
• Luke's nativity story as an original part of the gospel is seriously disputed has been removed from the visible text, despite being sourced.
• The statement that Mary's pregnancy is to be effected through God's Holy Spirit has been changed to created through - one does not create a pregnancy.
• The line The earliest Christian writings, the Pauline epistles, do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and assume Jesus's full humanity has been edited out with the explanation that it is unsourced, despite being clearly sourced to Lincoln.
• The line: This raises the question of where the authors of Matthew and Luke found their stories has been changed to This raises the question of where the descriptions in Matthew and Luke came from. The original is clearer, in that it reminds the reader that the gospel-writers used sources.
• The sentence It is almost certain that neither [gospel]] was the work of an eyewitness has been deleted, despite being sourced and despite being important to a discussion of sources.
• In view of the many inconsistencies between them [[the gospels]..." has been changed to read In view of the many differences..., despite "inconsistencies" being the word used by the source.
• It follows that the two narratives were created by the two writers... has been changed to two narratives were each written individually.., despite the source using the word "created".
• I have rewritten some passages to give more detail and bring them closer to the sources, and so don't include them here.

I hope you can see from this why your edits were reverted, both by myself and another editor. You are of course welcome to discuss further here.Achar Sva (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Francesca Stavrakopoulou: Virgin birth of Jesus is a mistranslation issue.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou: Virgin birth of Jesus is a mistranslation issue. [2]. Should it be mentioned in the article? (attributed ofcourse) Cinadon36 11:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It's in the third paragraph of the section on historicity and sources. Achar Sva (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You are right that there is a relevant discussion but the argument of mistranslation is not presented.Cinadon36 20:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

We don't try to put everything in one article. The translation issue is covered in the articles on Almah and Isaiah 7:14. Achar Sva (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

But it is relevant to the topic of the article. I agree on not adding indiscriminate trivia info on articles but this is apropos and should be included. Cinadon36 22:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead - it will be a test of your ability to make succinct edits. Use sfn for source formatting please. Achar Sva (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon: it's not a claim made by Stavrakopoulou, it's a widely accepted finding. You'd better off using the material already available on the Almah page or the Isaiah 7:14 page. Achar Sva (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look. Cinadon36 07:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this article insinuating that the Roman Catholic Church ceased to teach the virgin birth as official doctrine after Vatican II?

I'm not sure what the original source said, but that's obviously incorrect. The RCC continues to profess the virgin birth and declare its denial (adoptionism) as a heresy. The lede is at least misleading and should be changed. 69.14.139.2 (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, the source makes no mention of the Catholic Church. I deleted it. Achar Sva (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mdirkers.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Palestine

I have explained about block evasion at User talk:Fides2022. Discussion can continue if necessary in a new section when that issue has been handled. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We have an article on the Timeline of the name Palestine. The name has been in use since the 5th century BC, used by writers such as Herodotus, Aristotle, and Josephus. The Romans did not coin the term, it was in use long before them. Meanwhile "Judea" is the name of a minor sub-region in Palestine. We should not be using anachronisms and invented names. Dimadick (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC) This is both incorrect, and irrelevant. In the 1st century, the only Roman official name for this province was Judaea (Roman province), which included the subregions of Judea, Samaria and Idumea. There was no Roman province in the 1st century with the name "Palestina" in its title. This is indisputable (refer to the List of Roman provinces, where no Roman province is in existence called "Palestina" until 135 AD). Roman Judea was the name for a much larger portion of the area than Palestina was. The entire Roman province was called Judaea. As for the use of "Palestine" by those writers, it was unofficial (not then name for any Roman province) and often only in reference to a specific small subregion of the coast, associated with ancient Philistia. When referring to the name of the Roman province, especially in its entirety, Josephus for example only ever uses Judaea, or smaller subregions like Samaria, Idumea, Judea, and others later incorporated into Judaea, like Galilea, Perea, the Decapolis and Gaulanitis. He never refers to any official Roman jurisdiction called "Palestina". The areas covered in the Bible do not mention "Palestina" anywhere in the Gospels, or in Josephus. The areas mentioned are only Judea, Samaria, Galilea, the Decapolis, Gaulanitis and Perea. "Palestine" is not a name used for any of these areas, whether in the Gospels or in Josephus' works. These writers also clearly referred to the entire region by its only official 1st century Roman name of Judaea. Yehud Medinata, Yehud (Judea) in the Hasmonean Dynasty and Roman Judaea were not the name of a "minor sub-region in Palestine", but for most or all of the region. There was no official Roman use of the name of Palestina until the creation of Syria Palestina by Hadrian after the Bar Kokhba revolt in the 2nd century. Fides2022 (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC) "Official" use is irrelevant in geography. Palestine (region) covers a much larger area than Judea, which translates to the southern areas of modern Israel and the West Bank. Dimadick (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Official Roman use is what matters in geography of antiquity, since the region in the 1st century was a Roman province and under direct Roman authority, and which was only referred to as Judaea. The entire province at this time was called Judaea (Roman province), with subregions of Judea (proper), Samaria and Idumea. This Roman political entity in the 1st century only goes by that name. There is no use of "Palestine" at this time (in the 1st century) in any of the period sources to refer to this entire Roman province. Also, in the centuries prior, most or all of the region was also called Judea or Yehud, as in the Yehud Medinata and during the Hasmonean dynasty and Herodian dynasty periods. Fides2022 (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC) It was not only referred to as Judea. The name Palestine appears in the writings of Ovid, Tibullus, Pomponius Mela, Pliny the Elder, Dio Chrysostom, Statius, Plutarch, and the Roman Judean writers Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. Palestine was used long before the province of Judea's brief existence. Dimadick (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC) We even quote Josephus describing his "Antiquities" : "...these Antiquities contain what hath been delivered down to us from the original creation of man, until the twelfth year of the reign of Nero, as to what hath befallen us Jews, as well is Egypt as in Syria, and in Palestine." Because his audience already knew the name Palestine. Dimadick (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Yes it was, in the 1st century. That name of "Palestine" was never used by the Romans for the name of this province, with its specific territory, in the 1st century. That is an indisputable fact. The evidence according to most scholars is that the name "Palestine" in the 1st century only referred to a specific coastal subregion, especially by the writers of that period like Josephus and Philo. There is no mention of any Roman province called "Palestina" in the 1st century. The province itself is only ever Judaea (Roman province), and the procurators and prefects of this province in the 1st century are all in use of Judaea in their titles, and never "Palestina". Furthermore, the areas in the Gospels like Galilea, the Decapolis, Samaria, Gaulanitis and Judea (proper) are never associated with the name "Palestina" in any of the sources. But, they are included as part of the larger Roman provinces of Judaea or Syria. You have no evidence of any Roman province or region called "Palestina" in the 1st century, in any of the sources, because there is none. It did not exist. Fides2022 (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC) The Roman province of Judaea did not have a "brief existence". It lasted for over 140 years. But prior to this, the land was long called Yehud, from which the Latin "Judaea" is derived from. It is another indisputable fact that when the Romans first conquered this region, they called it Judaea (Roman province), and only called their province that for over 140 years, not "Palestina". It had been Yehud in the preceding Herodian dynasty, Hasmonean dynasty and was called Yehud Medinata under Persian rule. There was no use of "Palestine" for this region by the Persians and Babylonians, but only Yehud. And prior to that there was the Kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel stretching back to the Bronze Age. In the time of Jesus and the events of the Gospels, the only Roman and Latin name for this Roman province and region in the 1st century is Judaea. That is unquestioned. Samaria and Judea were part of the larger Roman province of Judaea, as were Galilea, the Decapolis and parts of Perea in later times. There is no evidence at all that any of these subregions were part of any non-existent jurisdiction called "Palestina" int he 1st century. It was a Roman province, and so we use the Latin Roman name, which is only Judaea in the 1st century. Fides2022 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Josephus, when referring to the Roman province as a whole, only ever uses "Judaea". He never uses "Palestina" for that purpose. He refers to Palestina in a specific, limited context for a subregion of Judaea. One mention of "Palestine", doesn't negate the hundreds of other references by Josephus and Philo for the region only as Judaea. Fides2022 (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Josephus in his "Antiquities" also clearly distinguishes "Palestine" as a specific coastal region as distinct from the wider area of Judaea as a whole, and associated with the ancient subregion of Philistia: "...the children of Mesraim, being eight in number, possessed the country from Gaza to Egypt, though it retained the name of one only, the Philistim; for the Greeks call part of that country Palestine."" Fides2022 (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Josephus clearly describes that Judaea incorporates this entire region, in "The Jewish War" 3.3.5: In the limits of Samaria and Judea lies the village Anuath, which is also named Borceos.[14] This is the northern boundary of Judea. The southern parts of Judea, if they be measured lengthways, are bounded by a village adjoining to the confines of Arabia; the Jews that dwell there call it Jordan. However, its breadth is extended from the river Jordan to Joppa. The city Jerusalem is situated in the very middle; on which account some have, with sagacity enough, called that city the Navel of the country. Nor indeed is Judea destitute of such delights as come from the sea, since its maritime places extend as far as Ptolemais: it was parted into eleven portions, of which the royal city Jerusalem was the supreme, and presided over all the neighboring country, as the head does over the body. As to the other cities that were inferior to it, they presided over their several toparchies; Gophna was the second of those cities, and next to that Acrabatta, after them Thamna, and Lydda, and Emmaus, and Pella, and Idumea, and Engaddi, and Herodium, and Jericho; and after them came Jamnia and Joppa, as presiding over the neighboring people; and besides these there was the region of Gamala, and Gaulonitis, and Batanea, and Trachonitis, which are also parts of the kingdom of Agrippa. This [last] country begins at Mount Libanus, and the fountains of Jordan, and reaches breadthways to Lake Tiberias; and in length is extended from a village called Arpha, as far as Julias. Its inhabitants are a mixture of Jews and Syrians. And thus have I, with all possible brevity, described the country of Judea, and those that lie round about it.[15] Fides2022 (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Finally, and maybe even most importantly, none of the pages in the citations entered in the discussed paragraph here of this article on the Virgin Birth use the word "Palestine" in discussing Jews in 1st century Judaea. Not a single one. In conclusion, Judaea (Roman province) is the only correct term to refer to this province in the 1st century, when many Jews still regularly used the Hebrew language natively (see Hebrew language#Displacement by Aramaic, especially in southern Judea and religious sects, despite Aramaic being predominant (and not Greek). Fides2022 (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Note that this account is evading an IP block. Doug Weller talk 06:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC) And in any case, we go by what the sources say, we do not change their words because we think that they have named a geographical location incorrectly. Doug Weller talk 06:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC) The source (Baker, p.490) uses the work Palestine, and we should follow that. Achar Sva (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Almah/parthenos translation

The description as a "mistranslation" is POV. Scripture translators have considered this a perfectly acceptable translation. Others see it as controversial. Elizium23 (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

But Almah does not mean virgin. Pet the main article on the term: "scholars agree that it has nothing to do with virginity". Matthew invented a tale of virginity that did not exist in Isaiah 7:14. Dimadick (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that modern scholars are smarter than that pesky Matthew dude! Elizium23 (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not about being smart, they have more sources and better methodology. Cinadon36 06:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The word "almah" conveyed the concept of a woman of childbearing age who had not yet borne a child. As girls were married at 12 or 13, it followed that the almah was a virgin, but the primary idea was fecundity, not virginity. Greek culture, of course, was Western, and so virginity was the primary meaning of "parthenos". Achar Sva (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Source being misquoted

[41] claims that the Barker source is supportive of the fact that Jews in Palestine no longer spoke Hebrew around the turn of the millennium, and instead read scripture in Greek; this is a misquoting of the material. On page 490, Barker is discussing the fact that Jesus likely relied on an Aramaic targum, and not a Hebrew Isaiah scroll. Page 490, the page cited, has only one paragraph referring to Christian interpretation of Isaiah: it reads:

"One complete scroll of Isaiah and part of another were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, so it is reasonably certain what was in an Isaiah scroll in the first century ad . With some significant exceptions, which will be noted when the passages are discussed in detail, the Hebrew text is the one generally used today. But having the words is not the same as knowing how those words were understood, and for this we are dependent on the Targum, a translation of Isaiah into Aramaic. When Hebrew was no longer the everyday language of Palestine, readings in the synagogue were translated, not as a literal, word-for-word rendering but rather as a free translation incorporating a variety of other material, showing how Isaiah was understood at that time." (Barker 490).

I added a failed verification tag, and encourage others with a scholarly background in Biblical criticism to engage with this article.

Please sign your contributions. As for the substance, I agree that that paragraph is a poor source for the statement that 1st century BC Jews didn't read/speak Hebrew. A better one is needed. But the sentence to which footnote 41 is attached says this: "Matthew presents the ministry of Jesus as largely the fulfilment of prophecies from the Book of Isaiah", which is nothing to do with the use of Hebrew; are you talking about something else? Achar Sva (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)