Talk:Mary (mother of Jesus)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Older Discussions

Regarding these sentences:

According to some traditions, she died at an advanced age, surrounded by the apostles. Catholic teaching, however, is that she was bodily assumed into Heaven between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension, either from Jerusalem or Ephesus.

The first sentence is based on the Eastern Orthodox feast the Dormition of the Theotokos. The second suggests that the Roman Catholic tradition is different, but I think they are the same. The Eastern Orthodox also teaches her bodily assumption, but that the assumption happened shortly after she died a normal human death. Is the Catholic teaching that she was assumed bodily before death, like Elijah, or that she died and was then assumed bodily into Heaven? If the latter, this could probably be reworded slightly, possibly by introducing both sentences with "According to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition", since the tradition arose long before the schism and is still shared by both branches. May as well make the most of what the two have in common. --Wesley

I'd always assumed it was like Elijah, with her still breathing as she went, but I see that the encyclical doesn't specify -- so I dodged the question the same way the Pius did, by not mentioning her death one way or the other. What do you think of my rewrite? --the Epopt
When in doubt, dodging is good! I do think it's an improvement. From the Eastern Orthodox POV, it would be important to mention that she died first. If Catholics agree on that point, perhaps it could read:
According to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition, between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension, in either Jerusalem or Ephesus, while surrounded by the apostles, she died, and was bodily assumed into Heaven shortly thereafter.
In Eastern Orthodox theology, Mary serves as a prototype Christian. As such, all Orthodox Christians seek to die in the midst of the Church as she did, and to be raised to new life in Christ as she was. So theologically, her natural death is almost as important as her assumption into heaven. The story I heard was that one of the apostles (Thomas??) arrived too late to be at her side before she died, and asked to venerate her body. When they opened her tomb, it was empty, leading to the tradition of her bodily assumption. Don't mean to be too nitpicky though; I think I'd rather preserve a sense of agreement on the point than say something like "Catholics say A and Orthodox say B" on this subject. --Wesley
The Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm specifically says official Catholic belief is that Mary died and was assumed (perhaps as much as 40 days later.) But since she was free of original sin and not subject to death as a penalty, she died of love. --rmhermen
Harmony on such an important and cherished religious figure as Mary is a desirable goal. Ed Poor
rmhermen, thanks for the research. Based on the link you provided and a related Catholic Encyclopedia article, I'm going to modify the article to reflect joint Catholic and Orthodox belief in both her death while surrounded by the apostles, and her subsequent assumption. And Ed, I quite agree. :-) Wesley

Should we mention the term Magnificat as in "my soul magnifies the Lord" which either Mary or Elizabeth said to the other upon their first meeting (regarding the impending miraculous birth)? --Ed Poor


Sure. In fact, since it's not too long, it might be worth including the full text of that prayer from the Gospel of Luke. It was said by Mary, I think in response to Elizabeth's greeting. The article already alludes to it, so it might be best to insert mention of it there. The term "Magnificat" comes from the first word of the prayer as found in the Latin Vulgate. Wesley

I don't mean to step on any toes, but I question the propriety of the title, which seems to me to reflect a Roman Catholic bias. (And I mean that in the nicest possible way, you understand.) There are a lot of Christians who do not believe in the virgin birth, before you get to the Moslems who venerate Jesus, before you get to the people of all the other faiths. Would it not be better to call this article, "Mary, the mother of Jesus" to stick to what is factual and not a matter of faith? -- isis

I suppose it does reflect some bias towards Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and much of Protestantism. Still, it's also the name by which she is most commonly known. Seems a bit like the Jesus Christ article, which carries the title because that's how he's known, and not because there is universal agreement that Jesus is the christ or messiah. Would it be acceptable to leave the article's title, but expand the section describing various groups' beliefs concerning her virginity? Wesley

Most commonly known in what circles, please? I can't speak for the millions of other folks in the world who never refer to her that way (BTW the Bible doesn't, either), but I'd still find it offensive in what is supposed to be a secular reference book. -- isis

I don't think we claim Wikipedia is a secular reference book, just a NPOV one. The word "secular" often carries the subtext of "anti-religious". What branches of Christianity don't beleive Mary was a virgin so we can add it to the article. I wouldn't mind a change of name to "Mary, the mother of Jesus", because the present title sounds Catholic to me. Not sure what the Orthodox use. Rmhermen 08:29 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)

Sorry, I meant "secular" in the sense of "non-religious," not "anti-religious." (The subject is touchy enough without my being more offensive by using pejorative terms.) Many Protestants, even those who believe in the virgin birth because the Bible says so, believe Mary stopped being a virgin by about nine months before her second child was born. That's why "BVM" has always been a Catholic (or high church) term. -- isis

"Virgin Mary" was always among the Christian terms used by all Christians prior to the Reformation; it's not just a "Catholic" term. I'm not sure when it began to fall out of use among some protestants. It's also easier to say. But history and theology aside, if it would be more generally acceptable and neutral to move the article title to 'Mary mother of Jesus', that's fine. I would at least like to have the Virgin Mary redirect to that page, if only to preserve existing links. But would moving it there be acceptable to all, or would some still argue that that title implies that there really was an historical figure named Jesus who had a mother named Mary? There are a few scholars who would dispute that history as well. Need we change it to 'Mary the alleged mother of the alleged Jesus' instead?

Before the Reformation, all Christians were Catholics -- that's why it's called the "Protestant Reformation." Yes, of course there need to be redirects from "Virgin Mary," because some people will want to look up that term. I don't see how anyone who believes Jesus was an actual person can quibble if we say his mother's name was Mary, because she had to have a name, and they can't prove it wasn't that. I don't see why anyone who thinks Jesus never existed can quibble, because then it's the same as if we say Hera was the mother of Ares, isn't it? -- isis

No, prior to the Reformation, there had already been a Great Schism between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Before that schism, there were a couple of smaller schisms, including the Arians and the Coptics. Some protestants believe that there was a small group of Christians who held their protestant beliefs during the entire time of Christianity, but that these were few and persecuted. Some Baptists and Mennonites espouse this view, for instance. But in one sense, many Protestants can also be called catholics if they believe in "one holy catholic and apostolic church", to use the words of the Nicene Creed.
But you're right, the new name will probably be much more broadly acceptable. If no one else objects, go for it, as long there's a redirect left. Wesley

May I suggest that the page be clearly organized to begin with what everyone (at least, all Christians, but preferably everyone else who accepts the historical existance of this woman) agrees is true about Mary -- even if it is a short paragraph saying that she married Joseph and had a son; then a section on what all Christians believe; then sections on what different groups of Christians, or Churches, believe, including how they refer to Mary? Just an idea, Slrubenstein

Wesley: You say tomato, I say potato -- or something like that. What you call "Orthodox" I call "Eastern Catholic," and those folks that call themselves "Anglicans" I call "English Catholics." Anyhow, did your message mean you want me to change it? I was sort of hoping somebody else would, because I haven't learned to do a redirect yet. (I needed to do one earlier today and couldn't.) So if you want me to do it, please tell me how (or, please tell me how anyhow, because I need to learn). -- isis

Eastern Catholics are actually a different group of people from Eastern Orthodox. They look like Eastern Orthodox, and use many of the same prayers and liturgies, but they are still in communion with and subject to the Pope of Rome. The Eastern Orthodox are not in communion with the Pope of Rome, but are either directly or indirectly in communion with at least one of the other four original patriarchs, of Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Alexandria. There are actually some profound theological and practical differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. (speaking as an Eastern Orthodox convert, former Protestant) Wesley
As for doing a redirect, you just make the only text of the article
#REDIRECT other article
For an example, go to Christian and you'll be redirected to Christianity. On that page, it will say near the top "Redirected from Christian". Click on the "Christian" link in that phrase, then "edit" the text of that entry to see how it was done.
If you really want to do this, that's ok. What did you think of slrubenstein's proposal to reorganize the page? Wesley

I think anyone who makes a really good suggestion like that should do it, and the rest of us should thank them. Why, what do you think about it? -- isis

<grin> much like you, I think it's a great idea that I unfortunately don't have time to implement today.

What "evidence" is there that the Septuagint was translated from a missing text, and what serious biblical scholars actually believe this?

I believe it's based on textual criticism, comparing the Septuagint texts, Masoretic texts, and the Samaritan texts. I'm not sure, but I think some of the Dead Sea scrolls also suggest the existence of another text, since in some places they appear to agree more closely with the Septuagint than with the Masoretic, while in others they follow the MT more closely. I'll have to hunt for the sources. Would you care to cite your own scholars as well? Wesley
128.32.172.179 -- regarding your addition and many biblical scholars -- how is that statement not redundant? Do you mean to imply that Jews are not biblical scholars? That neither Jews nor Christians are biblical scholars? If the particular biblical scholars you're alluding to are in fact neither Jews nor Christians, it would be worth noting that, and perhaps what religion, school of thought or hermeneutical method they employ.
What do you say we discuss changes here so we can arrive at text acceptable to all concerned, that is from a NPOV and conforms in other ways to generally accepted Wikipedia guidelines, instead of wasting time in edit wars. I would also be delighted to address you by name rather than by IP address. Wesley

Question about "The establishment of this dogma as "necessary to salvation" is widely taken to be an example of the Pope invoking papal infallibility." Is the establishment of something as "dogma" make it "necessary to salvation" in Catholic theology? Or was this established as "necessary to salvation" at a later date that we have not yet mentioned in the text? Either we need to define "dogma" as used by the Catholic Church or add some other fact to the text. Rmhermen 09:46 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)

If the Pope announces it ex cathedra as a matter of dogma, Catholics have to believe it or go to hell. -- isis

That's a rather harsh way of putting it, but yes, I do think that the general definition of 'dogma' in nearly all religions is that you need to believe that religion's dogma to be accepted as a member of that religion. Wesley
There is a great difference in having to beleive a dogma to be a member of a religion (denomination) or having to beleive a dogma as necessary for salvation. I beleive that Isis is correct on "ex cathedra" dogma now that I think about it. Rmhermen
BTW as a matter of historical record, the papal office (and the bishops in an ecumenical council, who share this authority) has only used the authority of ex cathedra (translated from the chair) rarely in the 2000+ history of the Roman Church. It is the Church's way of establishing the authority of the dogmas of the church. The last two times were concerning dogma about Mary, her Immaculate Conception (1854) and her Assumption (1950). (I teach this stuff for a living.)---luckymama58
I was under the impression that the Church (or Pope) claimed this authority only after the loss of the Papal States in the 1850s -- was I wrong? Slrubenstein
The dogma of infallibility, in which the term ex cathedra appears, could be viewed as a reactionary defensive dogma. It actually was proclaimed an official dogma in 1870 at the First Vatican Council, in reaction to centuries of external and internal strife over the issue, but the authority of the pope has always been upheld throughout the church's history. In reaction to the Protestant reformation, the Council of Trent (1545-1563) emphasized papal authority. What is interesting is that concept of ex cathedra is actually older than the dogma of infallibility, although the authority of the pope was always widely believed and taught. BTW the pope (or bishops) ONLY are infallible when speaking ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals (dogma). ---luckymama58
Eastern Christianity has never recognized the pope's authority independent of the rest of the church; this is part of what led to the Great Schism. During the first millenium, it was the ecumenical councils that had the final say, not the pope's decrees, though the pope was often very influential. The Church has of course long been held to be infallible, as has any bishop when that bishop is speaking the mind of the Church. Vincent of Lerins, I believe a Western monk from around the 5th century, said that a Christian should trust 'that which has been believed everywhere, by everyone, at all times.'
Truth, I was speaking about the Roman branch of the Church in regards to recognizing the authority of the Pope. ---luckymama58

Just copied the Talk discussion here from the old the Virgin Mary page. Wesley

Attempted to reorder the different sections and add headings, as Slrubenstein suggested. I tried not to change much of the actual text and maintain NPOV, but I'm sure it will need a bit of help. I just hope the overall layout is helpful. The main reason I divided it up into different beliefs, is that each belief is a very specific claim, and generally has different historic groups affirming and denying it for different reasons. So, it seemed clearest and most accurate to deal with each belief or claim separately. Wesley

Wesley: Nice job so far. Now, one of the versions you need to deal with is the (old Roman? current Jewish?) story that Jesus's father was a soldier named Panderos or Pantheras or something. -- isis

Have to admit I've never heard of that one. You've made me curious though, so I'll see what I can find out. Wesley

See that you do -- there'll be a pop quiz at the end of the week. ;-) -- isis

Ok, found at least the basic outlines of the story. Both those names are just variant spellings for the same person, who may or may not be real, depending on which sources you believe. It goes back at least to Celsus the Epicurean in the second century, who claims to have heard it from a Jew. Origen refuted him. The story is still used by non-Christians today in attempts to discredit Christianity. Some scholars think the name is a play on the Greek word for virgin (parthenos I think), hence it was used to discredit Mary's virginity. How'd I do? Wesley 07:22 Aug 21, 2002 (PDT)

All you've done is prove you haven't read Talmud; I and thousands of others who have read it know this isn't true -- no such story in Talmud, it's a canard.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.249.198.17 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 June 2007.

Great -- that's way more details than I remembered about it. Didn't the story come up in I, Claudius? Anyhow, in the nastier versions of the story, Mary was a temple prostitute instead of a temple weaver. -- isis

Given the removal of the painting of Jesus at the Jesus Christ article, I wonder whether this picture should be removed as well? For starters, it seems highly unlikely that Mary had blonde hair, and this is an article about Mary, not about paintings of Mary. Wesley 17:14 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

The article is mostly about beliefs about Mary, so a painting is highly relevant. If anyone thinks there is a danger that it will be interpreted as showing what Mary really looked like that should be discussed in the text. DJ Clayworth 13:33, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The most prominent leaders of the Reformation, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin also stoutly defended the perpetual virginity of Mary against those who questioned it.

I think that it's over-stating the facts a bit to say that they "stoutly" defended it. In Calvin's case, for example, I suspect that the strongest statement that can be found in favor of perpetual virginity is to scoff at some of the arguments raised against it. So, I'm leaving the statement intact except for the word "stoutly". Mkmcconn

In the opening we state that 'it is generally accepted that Mary died ...' while later we state that the doctrine of the Catholic church (tens of millions of people) is that she was assumed into heaven. I don't know enough to make a more accurate statement though. DJ Clayworth 13:33, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Catholic Church does not decide the question of whether Mary died before being assumed into heaven. So, Catholics are free to believe either that she died or not, and at some late date made it a doctrine that she was assumed. All Protestants formally leave the issue uncommented upon, but traditionally strongly deny that she has already been taken to heaven after falling asleep, while Orthodox icons, and the traditional writings and prayers depict her death and her assumption (Dormition (laying down to sleep) of Mary). So, I guess that in sum, all believe that even if she died, she lives in the presence of the Lord, some are not free to doubt that she has been assumed into heaven, and some do not believe that she died. Mkmcconn 16:36, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'm afraid I didn't quite follow what you said there, Mkmcconn. You seemed to say both that it is a doctrine and that Catholics are free to believe it or not? DJ Clayworth 16:52, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The issue regarding her death is an opinion, not a doctrine. Some teach that she died, some teach that she did not, and some believe contrary to what they are taught (as they are free to do, since it is an opinion). It isn't contrary to the Catholic faith to teach opinions, or to hold contrary opinions, as long as they are encouragements to faith and love. Mkmcconn 17:20, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Mkmcconn, that's a good summary. It might help to think that it would be theoretically possible for Mary to be assumed into heaven without dying, like Elijah was; therefore it's at least possible to believe that someone was taken up to heaven without believing that they died. Those Catholics that don't believe she died may have something like this in mind. The rest of the Catholics, and most if not all Orthodox, believe that she died and was then assumed. Orthodox and Catholic believers both celebrate this event on August 15, but call it differently, according to their emphases: the Orthodox call it the Feast of the Dormition of Mary, while the Catholics call it the Feast of the Assumption of Mary. Wesley 16:05, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes yes, I know I am going straight to hell, but I felt that just a paragraph or two from the secular historian's perspective might provide a fig-leaf of objectivity for this vast edifice of Christian propaganda you have all so diligently constructed. Pax vobiscum, Adam 11:51, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Historical evidence consists of the four New Testament gospels, the Infancy Gospel of James which is dated no later than the second century and possibly as early as the first, and a handful of other letters purportedly addressed to Mary, and some other Christian letters that also mention her, from the first and second century. Have you actually investigated these sources at all? Or do you define a secular historian as someone who assumes that all Christian sources are lies? Or just anything that claims anything miraculous? Wesley 20:58, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Adam, do not make silly jokes, please. If you want to edit an article, feel free, and as long as you do it properly and your edit is reasonable, nobody will blame you for anything. Maybe you meant agnostic historian instead of secular? Nobody knows wether you are going to hell or not, and saying it won't help anybody, just make your comment be seen as little serious. Pfortuny 21:03, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have rephrased your paragraphs, Adam, but if you feel they have been damaged, please do revert. On the other hand, as those aspects are (supposedly, but I'm not sure) treated elsewhere (or they should, at least), I think a shorter explanation could suffice. For example:

The historicity of the facts in the Gospels are a disputed subject (link to the precise place), and beyond the Gospels there is....

But first, I need to find the link and then get an acceptation. Pfortuny 21:16, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A historian who critically considers a source which describes miracles may be a secular historian. A historian who believes in the miracles described in a source is not -- he will assume that there is some simpler explanation (Ockham's Razor) for what is described in the source, including, of course, the possibility that miraculous claims were invented entirely. The more religious a text is, the less reliable it generally is as a historical source, also because such texts tend to become highly politicized and change over time more than other texts.

Adam's summary of the state of historical knowledge on the matter is accurate. It is however unlikely that the Christians working on this article will miraculously convert to become atheists or agnostics. A preemptive attack is unnecessary; as long as the principal authors of this page accept the additional secular perspective, everything is fine.

I'm increasingly considering the possibility that it might be desirable to keep the secular and religious spheres on Wikipedia separate, as they obviously are totally incompatible.—Eloquence

Of course Adam's summary is accurate. Anyway, I think you agree with me that "vast" and the other expressions may be seen as not proper for an encyclopedia.
I agree with you in what you say (but for the last line). As a matter of fact, I really wondered if this article ought to be quite different and dedicate another one, clearly marked "Christian" for the contents of the present one, so as not to show the WP as a Christian thing. Pfortuny 21:26, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I note that the Agamemnon article is not split into one historical article and one mythical article; in fact it might be hard to subdivide. I wonder if this article would suffer the same problem (that myth and possible history are not clearly delineated).--anon
Such separation is always problematic in NPOV terms. However, my experience has shown that the two groups are not very tolerant of one another.—Eloquence

Some comments in reply: If the article was called The figure of Mary in Christian tradition and devotion or something like that, I would not have touched it. That is a perfectly legitimate article to write, and I would read it with interest and respect for the scholarship displayed. But an article with the present title must contain at least some consideration of the question of whether any such person as Mary ever existed, and whether any of her actions and qualities as set out in Christian tradition can be historically verified.

(This question does not arise with Agamemnon, whom nobody today supposes to be a historical figure. See my comments at Troy and Trojan War, where I inserted a similar paragraph.)

In reply to Pfortuny - all historians are agnostics, at least while engaged in history-writing, otherwise they cannot to their job. A historian approaches all sources with scepticism. S/he asks: where did this document come from? who wrote it? with what intention?

In reply to Wesley - As I said in the long discussion at Jesus Christ, I accept that the narrative of the life of Jesus in the Christian Gospels is historical in broad outline. For reasons suggested by Eloquence, I do not accept the supernatural parts of that narrative (such as the Resurrection) as historical fact, because a higher standard of proof is required before I can believe something which modern scientific knowledge holds to be impossible. No ancient document, and certainly not one written by members of the religious group which is propagating that belief, can persuade me that such an event took place.

I point out, however, that many Christians believe these things while at the same time acknowledging that they are unverifiable by modern science or history - their belief is based on faith. It always puzzles me that some Christians feel the need to bolster their faith by pseudo-science and pseudo-history. I respect religious faith. I do not respect the distortion of historical method to prove the unprovable.

What applies to Jesus also applied to Mary, only more so. As I said, I have no difficulty believing that Jesus had a mother called Mary. But how can the Gospels be a historically valid source for events such as the Immaculate Conception or the Virgin Birth? Can the authors of the Gospels, writing some time in the mid 1st Century, claim to have had first-hand knowledge of the sex-life of Mary and Joseph and of Mary's mother? It is patently obvious to the secular historian that these are pious inventions of the early Christians.

As to Pfortuny's changes to my text, I have no real problem with them, but I have tinkered a bit further. He has changed "theory" to "theology." Does the study of Mary come under theology? I thought theology was the study of God and his Word. I have suggested "tradition" as an alternative. I have acknowledged Wesley's point that there are some other early Christian sources. Pfortuny has changed "supposition" to "tradition," which makes us say that "tradition is based on tradition," which isn't very helpful. I have suggested an alternative.

Adam 02:57, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

your first paragraph expresses perfectly what I was thinking about ("If the article..."). The present writing is quite good, I think (I added a "by the" I think was missing). Yes, "tradition is based on tradition" is quite helpless :). Yes, Mary comes under theology properly (not just ocassionaly) that's why I put it there, but no problem. (speculation based on tradition is more precise than the contrary). Pfortuny 08:48, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Adam, your approach to history is certainly the approach most widely adopted by post-Enlightenment Western historians, but it is not the only approach; to pretend it is is POV. The authors of the Gospels certainly could have interviewed Mary and thus gained at least second hand knowledge; other witnesses to earlier events may well have been around. Your comment about the Immaculate Conception betrays your ignorance of the topic; it has nothing to do with the sex life of Mary's parents, who according to early Christian sources were named Joakim and Anna; Joakim was a Jewish leader, I think either a member of the Sanhedrin or a priest in the Temple, or maybe both. Applying the 'supernaturalism' test to those sources would grant that they were named that, but perhaps not that Anna was advanced in age when she gave birth to Mary; that Mary lived some of her growing up years in the Temple as one of the versions, but probably not that an angel from heaven fed her there. (Not even all Orthodox believe that part is literally true.) And they might grant that after Jesus died, Mary lived with and was cared for by the apostle John, and that she died before John did, being older than him. It probably wouldn't admit that part of the same stories that says her body vanished from her tomb not too many days after it was buried, although it's probably ok to report that no one claims to have a relic of Mary's body, any more than they claim to have a relic of Jesus' body. Am I right so far? If so, the only "scholarship" that I've done is discarded those events that clash with the naturalists' notion of how the world works, i.e. discarded all evidence that might contradict a naturalist world view.

There is such a thing as "mariology", the study of Mary within Christian theology. Who Mary is and what we call her is important theologically because that affects what we think about God. See the Theotokos article.

Wesley 17:54, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wesley writes: "your approach to history is certainly the approach most widely adopted by post-Enlightenment Western historians, but it is not the only approach; to pretend it is is POV."

Wesley is entitled to take a "pre-Enlightenment" view of knowledge if he likes, but he can't pretend it is history. Nor can it really belong in an encyclopaedia, which is by definition a rationalist project, unless it is clearly labelled as theology rather than history. I don't claim to be a theologian, so I am grateful for Wesley's clarification of the Immaculate Conception. I just point out that there isn't a scrap of historical evidence for any of the things he describes. During the debates at Jesus Christ and Mother Theresa, however, I learned the futility of arguing with Christians about these matters, so I won't be saying any more about this. Adam 02:51, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Of course there is historical evidence, in the form of written documents and oral tradition. And histories have been recorded and passed down in written and oral form long before the "academic discipline" of history evolved that Adam describes. Adam is overreaching to suggest there isn't a scrap of evidence for any of the above; I've already cited several documents; it's a question of how much weight to give them. It also goes back to a question of epistemology that most atheists seem either unable to grasp or choose to ignore. If your epistemology and view of the universe says that certain things are impossible, than of course you have to explain away accounts of the impossible somehow. Speaking of epistemology, it's worth mentioning that Descartes reasoned that the only reason he could trust the evidence of his senses were if there were a good God that created him, his senses, and the things he was observing. It's fine to believe otherwise, but whether to completely trust the evidence of one's senses, or whether to believe or disbelieve in supernatural events or persons, is a matter of belief or faith, or in wikipedia parlance, a Point of View. Wesley 17:47, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I will believe in virgin births and resurrections when I see one, or at least read an account of one in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, not when I read about them in religious tracts (even very old religious tracts). Both Homer and the Bhagavad Gita are much older than the Gospels, by the way - do you believe everything you read there? No, you believe the Gospels, not because they are old but because you want to believe them. But there's really no point in arguing about this, since we are talking out of different sides of our brains. I'm happy that the article makes a small gesture in the direction of historical materialism before plunging into the realms of mythology. Adam 00:50, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

PS, Wesley, since you take an interest in Christian history, perhaps you could have a look at the work I did on History of Greek and Roman Egypt and do an edit if you think it necessary on the paragraphs on Arianism and Monophysitism, subjects which are a bit outside my field but which were politically very important at that time. I'm sure there are improvements to be made. Adam 00:57, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm also happy that the article includes a bit of historical materialism; it does help balance the article. I did add some information I've read to the Egyptian article regarding the politics of Christianity in Egypt; and you'll no doubt be happy to know I refrained from mentioning any of the miracles Mark the Evangelist performed while converting Egypt. ;-) Peace, Wesley 15:15, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm more surprised that you didn't have any changes to make to my explanation of the nature Monophysitism. This was the bit I was sure was in need of correction. Merry Xmas, Adam 15:22, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The reason is that I know just enough about monophysitism to know it's a complex subject, and I don't think I'm really prepared or qualified to handle it well. Going back to the historicity paragraph, I'm still not entirely certain how you dismiss all of the early Christian documents about Mary out of hand, with not a single citation or qualification. It still has the appearance of pure prejudice. As for Homer, didn't many historians disbelieve in even the existence of Troy until it was discovered and excavated? To have any integrity, any historian has to be up front about his or her biases, whether the historian is Christian, Hindu or Atheist. Shouldn't the historicity paragraph acknowledge its assumptions? Wesley 17:09, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The problem with those paragraphs is that they show up as "hey, look at what these people believe but remember to be critical": I mean, it assumes very little from the reader. I really think the article should be titled "Christian views on...". Especially out of place is the "though far from all", which is pure propaganda (as everybody knows, far from all may mean "99%" but they are thousands or "1%"). I guess readers get more annoyed by it than enlightened. The "edifice" etc... In summary, the two paragraphs are exactly the same as a homily against christian beliefs (exactly the same language, do you realize?).
Apart from my feelings I really insist that they assume the reader needs to be warned against something... I would prefer stating from the beginning the spirit of the article: this is about Christian beliefs on Mary. Which would imply for some the changing of title, which I do not oppose. Pfortuny 18:12, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Christian theology holds that Jesus was a virgin birth." - Possibly a typo ?

Not really, though it might be phrased better. Smerdis of Tlön 17:52, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Mary, Mother of God

I just noticed that Mary, Mother of God redirects here. Would Blessed Virgin Mary or Theotokos be a more appropriate target? Smerdis of Tlön 17:52, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

No way. Even Protestants (well, those who think carefully about what it means : p) accept that Mary was the Mother of God, so it's reasonable to redirect to a fairly friendly article rather than the (I've got to be careful here) ... interesting views of the Catholic Church on such matters. Wooster 16:40, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, "Theotokos" pretty much means "bearer of God" or "Mother of God", so sure, I'd suggest it's a closer target. Wesley 04:35, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Someone should edit out the lines about the Septuagent being based off a different Hebrew text, because there is no support for it that I can find and it goes against the common knowledge about the Hebrew texts


Hi. It would help if you would sign your posts, makes conversations a little smoother. From what I can tell, there are a number of indications that they are based on different texts. Our oldest Septuagint manuscript dates from the fourth century or so, the oldest Masoretic text dates from the ninth or tenth century. If I'm not mistaken, the Dead Sea Scrolls in many places support the Masoretic version of particular passages, but in other places support the Septuagint's. It used to be thought that most of the books found only in the Septuagint were originally written in Greek, but the trend seems to be towards thinking at least some of these originated in Hebrew. Wesley 11:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mary in Art

Mary was and is a common subject of painting and other artwork in the West. I wonder if more images of her might be added, here or elsewhere? It would be interesting to see a historical comparison of depictions of Mary in art. I don't know enough about the subject to write such an article. --jacobolus (t) 15:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have seen it claimed that the depictions of Mary in Western art derive from the idol in the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus: the city where an Ecumenical Council proclaimed her Mother of God. The Roman Diana and Greek Artemis were perpetual virgins, but Cybele, whom the goddess of Ephesus resembled, had the title of Mother of Gods. I have no reference for this hypothesis, which I saw on television some time ago. NRPanikker 22:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Mary and Shakespeare

Do we have any references for this? While the general writings about the place of Mary seem reasonable, the specific connections between Shakespeare and Mary seem a little far-fetched. Have we anything to indicate that this is mroe than just someone's idea? DJ Clayworth 17:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mary's geneology

Why does this article claim that Luke 3 gives a genealogy of Mary (rather than Joseph)? People used to claim that, in an attempt to be rid of the contradiction between this and the genealogy of Joseph in Matthew, but few hold this view these days. The same goes for Luke 1:32. And what's with the claim Mary was cousin by marriage to Elisabeth? Luke 1:36 just says something like "kinswoman". Josh Cherry 04:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think there are still plenty of people who believe Luke 3 gives a genealogy of Mary. Even if the notion is less common than it was (which I doubt), it would be worth mentioning as a once-popular theory. So what do you think is the more prevalent understanding of the Luke 3 genealogy? Wesley 16:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I suspect that Mary's genealogy in Luke is still more common, but it depends whom you survey (scholars at universities, teachers in conservative seminaries, casual readers, etc.) In any event, both this and Hegesippus' genealogical claims are probably worth mentioning.... although this article is pretty long. Lawrence King 16:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, let me make a stronger statement. Of those who have an opinion, 95% fall into one of two camps: either they believe that Joseph's genealogy is in Matthew and Mary's is in Luke, or they believe that both genealogies are fictional.
The "cousin by marriage" is probably from Hegesippus' genealogy. Lawrence King 16:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code & Mary's Descendants

As the Da Vinci Code fictional story, Many disbelieve, that Mary had descendants through Jesus having children, as inconsistent with their core beliefs in Christianity imputing that if Jesus had children he didnt die on the cross and go to heaven. But Jesus having children was prophecied serveral times in Isaiah See -

  • He shall see his Seed - Isaiah 53: 10
  • He shall sprinkle his Seed across many nations - Isaiah 52:15
  • Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and His Maker, ask me of things to concerning MY SONS ... Isaiah 45: 11

... and so, then the subject cannot be blythly ignored with off point attacks about timing as Jesus having had children before he died on the cross and went to heaven, is not inconsistent with any Christian belief.

The only source for a rational discussion of this is the book, The Jesus Presidents laying it all out vs the off point rants about this or that and attempting to bad mouth Da Vinci Code's accurate facts in regard to the descendants of Jesus.

See Jesus Descendants to Today to Many Readers and ? You ?

All of these quotes are about "spiritual" children (simply believers or Christians), not literal sons and daughters. There are many verses in the New Testament that say the disciples are the "sons of God," through adoption or "new birth." If Isaiah 45:11 was talking about Jesus' sons, then it would have a capital "S" in "sons" because they would be demi-gods. Besides, Jesus is called the only Son of God, and if Jesus had kids, then Jesus would not be the only one.
  • Hebrews 12:5-9 calls all Christians sons of God.
  • John 3:3-8 shows how a person becomes a son of God: a spirtiual birth, not a carnal birth from Jesus himself. --Padishar 04:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of name - Bitter?

Is there any reason why her name is 'Bitter'?..... --Menchi 01:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it is more (or also) helpful to ask why her name is Maryam/Mariam? Portress 12:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Maybe she was named after Moses's big sister? -- 128.227.142.89 22:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps her name means "bitter" because of the bitterness in her life at having to view her Son's crucifixion. Also, one of her other sons, James was also martyred as well. (And Jude, also?). A crucifixion would undoubtedly be a bitter thing to watch; especially repeatedly, and your own sons. Also, by this time, the pagan Roman conquerors of Judea had been crucifying the stubbornly-rebellious Jewish people for years. 129.24.95.222 17:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC) (Oct.)
11:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether the name refers to her only sons crucifixion (there is no such thing attested as "her other sons") is a theological issue, including providence and all that. Another explanation would be going back to her namesake, the sister of Moses. Str1977 (smile back) 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The name doesn't simply mean "bitter" "see the link posted above", I think the other possible meanings should be added or a link to Miriam. The most likely meaning is actually "beloved". What do you think? Minikui 14:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: History, edit comparison, second edit of 13:36 12 July 2005

This edit is NOT mine (as can be verified from the summary history page). I have no time to pick over the history to establish who contributed this section and in what form. If someone is concerned that I may have been trying to play around with their contribution in this respect, let me assure him/her that I have not. (I have to admit, I have not even read it yet.) Portress 12:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Parthenos

I removed the sentence that said 'A few scholars argue that the Greek term parthenos in Luke 1:27 does not necessarily have to mean "virgin [intacta]" but that there is also evidence for it signifying any "young woman."'

This is not relevant for the issue of whether Mary was a virgin. Even if you assume that almah and parthenos have nothing to do with virginity, the virginity of Mary is clearly attested in Matt 1:18, Matt 1:20, Matt 1:25, Luke 1:34, Luke 1:35. None of these verses use these words or any related words.

So you can believe these stories to be fact or fiction, but their meaning doesn't depend on this word. The words almah and parthenos are very important for understanding Isaiah 7:14, and they are therefore very important to the dispute about whether Isaiah's prophecy referred to Mary (most Christians say it did; most Jews and atheists say it did not). Therefore these words are mentioned later on in the article in the discussion of Isaiah 7:14. But they add nothing to the discussion of the historicity of the virgin birth. Lawrence King 16:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Lawrence King, what is really your problem? Is it that my edit mentioned a point of Catholic scholarship? You may have noticed that the edit prior to mine read "a young woman", which dogmatically settled the parthenos question without even mentioning it. I deleted "woman" precisely in order to make the statement NPOV. But a ground was lacking, why she was very young, hence my addition of the briefest of references to the parthenos question, and doing so in a way that shows my respect for the free will of those Christian scholars who do not accept the Catholic teaching on this point. Portress 20:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You are missing my point entirely. Suppose you are right, and Luke didn't say that "Mary, a virgin, had no relations with anyone before the birth of her child". Suppose that instead he wrote that "Mary, a young woman, had no relations with anyone before the birth of her child." In either case he is saying the same thing. The meaning of parthenos is totally irrelevant to whether Matthew and Luke were asserting Mary's virginity.

This has nothing to do with Catholic scholarship, Protestant scholarship, atheist scholarship, or anything else. It is just opening the text and reading it. It would violate NPOV for us to claim that Luke's story is true or to claim it was false. I am not doing that at all; I am just pointing out what Luke's story says. Lawrence King 07:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

One other point: There are a number of scholars, Christian and non-Christian, who do not accept that Jesus was born of a virgin. I do not believe that a single one of these scholars says that "I believe the gospels to be literally true in every word -- but the word parthenos doesn't mean virgin." Rather, the vast majority of those scholars (Christian or otherwise) who disbelieve in the virgin birth are not Biblical literalists. Your statement implies that the main contention is the meaning of this word. Lawrence King 07:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Lawrence King, could you please stick to the point at issue under the heading in the article! Someone there started a discussion that Mary was a "young woman" when she fell pregnant with Jesus and to what age she lived. Age/lifespan were the point of interest to the contributor, not whether she was a virgin or not. Unfortunately with this choice of noun ("woman") the contributor fell into the trap of dogmatically settling the parthenos question. At the same time the choice of noun shows precisely what – in both Lk and Mt – the only indication for Mary's age at the conception of Jesus is, namely parthenos, since the term implies someone "young", regardless of the view one takes whether in addition it means "virgin" or "woman". If you want to disregard the Gospel evidence of parthenos in a discussion of Mary's age under this heading of the article, you are left with nothing but your subjective opinion that she could only have been young. Could she indeed? Let us remember that Mary's relation Elizabeth is proof that even before human egg donations and implantations an elder woman could still conceive a child in those days. So then, following your suggestion to disregard in the discussion of Mary's age the evangelists's calling her a parthenos, and having no other information in Mt and Lk about her age at that time, you have to allow for the possibility that Mary may not have been quite so young when she conceived Jesus.
Secondly, you are so insistent that the parthenos question is not relevant under the heading "historicity". In many pre-permissive societies, without any religious considerations, it was very relevant whether or not a girl before she completed her wedding ceremony already had sexual relations with a man. Certainly in Roman Catholic teaching and those following it – if maybe to no one else, I do not know – the question of Mary's virginity is very relevant under the heading "historicity". My edit briefly explained that and why the Roman Catholic teaching is not accepted by all Christian scholars, which is a balanced presentation, hence fair on everyone concerned. You cannot insist on the Roman Catholic teaching on this point being omitted for the reason that it does not suit other people.
Thirdly, the above discussion shows the problem of dealing with "historicity" before setting out what the authoritative Christian sources, namely the four canonical Gospel accounts and Acts, have to say. By all means, in the context of a general encyclopedia as this one is, divide the presentation into the "fundamentalist" understanding and "critical" opinions; but methodologically it would be wrong to allow scholarly views and hypotheses to take the place of the presentation given in the canonical Gospel accounts.
Portress 23:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think understand what you mean now: the question of historicity is connected to the question of whether Mary was still alive decades after the birth of her son; this is related to the question of Mary's age at Jesus' birth; this is related to the question of "young woman" and thus to the meaning of parthenos. Is this right?

The vast majority of historians are more willing to accept the historicity of (much of) the Gospels' stories of Jesus' adulthood and the early church -- including Mary's presence there -- than they are to accept the historicity of the infancy narratives. So I didn't expect that the section called "Historicity" would include a discussion of Mary's age.

If you think others might have similar confusion, you might want to rearrange this text so that the age issue comes earlier in the paragraph and is thus more clear. Lawrence King 05:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

feast day?

what is the traditional date for Mary's birthday? I have a medieval text here saying "die post festum nativitatis marie virginis". What date would that be?

The "Nativity of our Most Holy Lady the Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary" is on September 8. Wesley 03:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Mary Was Not Divine

  • Unfortunately, somebody seems to need to get to the point. Mary was greatly honored by YHWH, as the virgin mother of the Jewish Messiah. And Mary was honored by the angel Gabriel, who greeted Mariam warmly, and happily. Mary has been honored by Christians and Muslims for centuries afterward, and that is justified. Apparently, her life was spotless; and the Bible contains no criticism of her at all.

But: Mary was only human. The reason that Jesus was divine, is because He came down from the Father's presence in Heaven; and Mariam became pregnant by the "over-shadowing of the Holy Spirit". Mariam didn't come down from Heaven. She was born to human parents, in the natural way; and was thus included in the curse of the Fall of Mankind in the Garden of Eden. Mary's nature was human, and therefore, contained "original sin", which had been inherited by humanity from our ancestor, Adam.

  • Although greeting her warmly, happily and respectfully, the angel Gabriel did not worship Mary. "Hail Mary", is a greeting; not an act of worship. It would have been blasphemous for an angel to worship a mere human. Jesus received worship from His followers; but not Mary. Being "full of grace" was a gift of YHWH, which had been given to Mary; but, once again, it was a gift given to many of the followers of Jesus, including the apostles; it didn't mean that the virgin Miriam was divine, in any way.
  • Jesus Ascenscion into Heaven was witnessed by many Christians, as told in the book of Matthew; it is significant, because it completed Jesus' message, that He was "from Heaven". Mary wasn't. There were no witnesses, and there is no testimony about Mary's "ascenscion", because it probably didn't happen. It wasn't necessary, as part of God's plan. Jesus is the Messiah; the Savior of the world. Not Mary. Jesus didn't need any help; He completed the work of redemption for mankind upon the Cross. Mary watched. She wasn't up there.
  • Jesus was born the King of the Jews, at His birth. At Jesus' birth, a star shone over-head, a heavenly host of angels appeared, praising YHWH at the birth of the Jewish Messiah, and the magi showed up to present gifts, and to honor the "King of the Jews". Nobody gave Mary anything; no one called Mary a "queen", and no angels showed up when Mary was born. There is no "queen of Heaven". Mary was not a female Messiah, in any way. There is no such thing as a female Jewish Messiah. There was no "co-redemptrix"; all of this stuff has been made-up by the Roman Catholic Church, in the many centuries since the time of Jesus. If God had wanted us to venerate Mary, the Bible would clearly say so. Honor Mary as a human, yes; but do not try to take away honor from the divine Son of God, Jesus the Christ. (Oct.)
Ahem. The Bible does say that we should venerate Mary. In Mary's own words, "All generations will call me blessed." Those who fail to call her blessed make her out to be a liar or false prophet. The early Christian stories of Mary's birth more closely parallel the birth of Samuel than the birth of Jesus: miraculous conception by two parents thought to be past the age of child-bearing, an angelic announcement, and a couple other signs. Not as special as Jesus, certainly, but still special. Mary said "yes" when the angel announced that she would bear the Messiah, and so she did play an important part in God's plan, as did Joseph, and as did all of Mary's predecessors. The gift of grace was given to Mary, and to other apostles. As such, we venerate them as well, but we do not worship them. I'm not aware of any point in the history of the Church when any denomination has suggested that Mary be worshipped. That's just a straw man.
Now that that's out of the way, how do you suggest the article be amended? Wesley 03:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Ahem, "Those who fail to call her blessed make her out to be a liar or false prophet" -- only if they have an a-priori belief that the NT quotes her verbatim (or correctly translated from the Aramaic; see also Trilemma); it is very rational to assume that most of NT's "Jesus' birth & childhood" is pure propaganda made up after his death. You are right regarding the strawman of course. 213.3.64.145 19:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, of course. My comments would only apply to those that accept the New Testament accounts as reliable; as the person I was responding to appeared to do so, I took it for granted. Doubtless I should have taken into account a wider readership. And in case there's any question, I am not at all proposing to add that 'liar or false prophet' text to the article. As to whether the birth and childhood accounts are pure propaganda, I suppose almost any evaluation of them would rest on other assumptions made about Jesus and about Christianity in general. All of the gospels were written well after Jesus' death, so I'm not sure why the birth and childhood narratives would be singled out more than other parts of the gospels as being propaganda. Wesley 16:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Au contraire. Mary IS worshipped, and has been for many centuries. Don't try to tell me she isn't. That she has been greatly blessed, I freely concede. Also, I believe that Mary is in Heaven right now, watching this debate (but of course, I can't prove it). Nothing is wrong with the Jewish virgin girl, Miryam. It's what the Roman Catholic Church has tried to make out of her, that is and has been in error. Does this matter? Sincerely, as it cost many of my Protestant ancestors their lives; being burnt to death at the stake by ferocious Roman Catholic authorities who would not tolerate any dissent, or being hanged by persecuting Church of England civil authorities, who were perhaps equally bigoted, ignorant and unfair.
  • What are the elements of worship? If you were to take a moment to de-construct and re-construct this criteria, I'm sure you would find that the Roman Catholic Mary meets these criteria. Try it and find out for yourself.
  • Roman Catholics build shrines to Mary. There are probably hundreds or thousands of these shrines around the world, with various names such as "Our Lady (Mary of course) of Fatima", or some such. These shrines include idolatrous statues of Mary (which have been forbidden by the Old Testament Torah), and millions of Catholics (those that are left) around the world pray at these shrines and to these statues of Mary, using the Rosary, and through other various festivals invoking her name. Look at the names given to Mary by the Roman Catholic Church! Surely, the sum of these names adds up to that rivalling Jesus Himself, if not more. Many Catholics pray to Mary in preference to Jesus; asking her to 'intercede' for them with Jesus when He is 'angry' at them. This is admitted by these Catholics themselves! I don't really blame them; they don't know any better. This is only what they have been taught by the Roman Catholic Church all of their lives. But why not admit it? Otherwise, what was the Protestant Reformation about?! It was partly about the Roman Catholic Mary. Most of her shrines were torn down by the Protestants in England (but the Protestants didn't burn the Catholics at the stake for practicing idolatry.)129.24.93.219 00:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC) (Nov.)
Yes, look at the names given to Mary by the Roman Catholic Church, and then look at the names given to Jesus by the same Church, when you try to decide whether they really honor Mary more than Jesus, or pray to her more.
If you truly believe that the Old Testament commandment regarding the making of graven images applies to images of Mary or Jesus, and you believe that Jesus is God, then every Protestant that depicts Jesus in a painting or Bible story illustration breaks that same commandment, because the commandment forbids the making of such images, not just the worshipping of those images. To condemn Catholic statuary or Orthodox iconography on this basis is hypocritical, unless you happen to be Amish. Wesley 22:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
In which case, is 129.24.93.219 on a wood-burning computer? 65.6.15.98 00:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of her shrines were torn down by the Protestants in England (but the Protestants didn't burn the Catholics at the stake for practicing idolatry.) - 129.24.93.219 Correct 129.24.93.219, the English Protestants didn't burn Catholics at the stake. Instead they ruthlessly persecuted Irish Catholics from the time of the Reformation until 1829 for simply practising thier religion. True they didn't burn them at the stake, but they did shoot them, hang them, torture them, cover their heads in hot tar and set fire to them, send them to enslavement in the Caribbean............ I am most certainly not defending any persecution of Protestants. I absolutely abhor religious persecution, being myself of descent from Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics and living in Ireland (a nation still scarred (but thankfully cured) from religious persecution), but I don't want people to have a biased opinion of hitory either. 86.43.67.204 23:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Mary, they point out, is not of herself divine

"not of herself divine" implies some sort of imputed or deputed divinity. Who teaches this? I have changed the text to the simpler and more accurate "Mary is not divine". Also the antecedent for "they" in "they point out" is unclear: Does it refer to theologians, or to the Catholic and Orthodox belief which is the main subject of the previous sentence. patsw 20:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"Catholic cult"

I object to the description of veneration to the BVM as a "Catholic Cult". On the basis of Cult: "However, in common usage, "cult" has a negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group by its opponents, for a variety of possible reasons."

As such, I have rephrased the opening line to read "Catholic practice of veneration". Oliver Keenan 16:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Perpetual virginity

Regarding the edit 02:44, 28 December 2005 Codex Sinaiticus m (→Perpetual virginity - This doesn't make sense, you can't use a negative to 'prove' a negative. But do replace it if you can find a source for such an argument) that removed the line They find no scriptural mention of Mary not having other children, and consequently find no scriptural basis for the doctrine of perpetual virginity.

I ask you: How does no mention prove it to be true? The line removed does make sense because the idea of perpetual virginity as a dogma that you must accept or be a heretic has no scriptural basis. No where is it mentioned that she never had other children, however, there is evidence (though others disagree) to the contrary, that she did have other children. It seems like a conclusion in search of evidence. But no one is going to write that, so the contrary view is that it has no scriptural basis, especially in light of evidence otherwise (in the view of those who disagree). Deut 4:2 (KJV) "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Revelation 22:18 (KJV) "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book..."

Regarding the recently inserted "implied" evidence...the wording now with "explicit" and the immediately following sentence about the implied reference is really not allowing an opposing view to stand by itself. Let's not force the idea that the people being discussed that disagree have found no "explicit" mention, but have found an "implicit" one, that's not so.

If this is an argument for "brothers" meaning only in a spiritual sense, I submit John 2:12 where Jesus, his mother, his "brothers" and his disciples are mentioned separately as implicit evidence against that argument, as well as the references to the same people being Jesus' brothers and the mention of his sisters, and so on.

Additionally, Mark 3:31-35, where Jesus is informed "thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee" (KJV) outside the house. Then Jesus says: "Who is my mother, or my brethren?" He looks around the room and answers "Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." This is used by proponents of the idea that all mentions of brothers/brethren are spiritual in meaning, but the problem with that is: what sense would the analogy make if Jesus was linking spiritual brothers to spiritual brothers? Put yourself in the room. If the people outside *with his real mother* were just spiritual brothers, then how effective was his point? Is he saying *they* are not doers of God's will, or would it only make sense if the people with his real mother were his real brothers? Replace "brethren" with "spiritual brothers" and re-read it. Only if they were his familial brothers would the point he made be clear.

My point is, in regards to the recent edit, why cannot an opposing view with evidence stand on it's own? What one group feels is explicit or implicit evidence the other disagrees with, and vice versa. I hardly think the way it's worded now is fair to the opposing view. Should we be adding implicit evidence to the contrary of implicit evidence, ad nauseum? Perhaps that part could be re-worded, then? Oscillate 16:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If the above comment has not received a response, the term "brothers" means his relatives, brethren, or kinsmen. It would be interesting to see if in the early Church the topic of the meaning of "brothers" and Mary's perpetual virginity was discussed. From my poor knowledge on the matter, it seemed like Mary's perpetual virginity was never doubted until the Protestant Reformation. Maybe there is some mention of it in the conflict of the early Church with the Nestorians? Some facts that might be usable in finding the truth of the matter (but please do not consider as proofs, just facts or my mistakes): when Jesus was "lost" in the Temple, only He is mentioned as going with Mary and Joseph. Jesus never married. After Christ came, He raised virginity and celibacy done for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven to a status greater than marriage (Matthew 19:12), in contrast with its view of those living in the Old Testament (Judges 11:37-38). Since the time of the Ascension to this very day His Church has not changed from Christ's direction in the matter (as can be shown in the lives of the early Roman martyrs and the Church's emphasis on celibate priests), although the majority of Orthodox and Protestant Christians who broke away from the Church have not continued in this direction.
And by the way, this section we are discussing looks like Wikinfo--we are so opinionated we are not getting any facts straight as to what really occurred, but in the article we are just arguing dispassionately in the third person. One solution may be to place a table in the text which has a Bible verse or potential fact, and have viewpionts and rebuttals on the sides of them.JBogdan 12:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The word translated as "brother" can mean "relative", certainly. But Jesus is also described as having "sisters" (Matt 13:55,56; Mark 6:3) . My point above, aside from addressing the argument that "brother" meant "spiritual brother", was that there is no scriptural basis, no direct evidence and certainly not enough implicit evidence to have such a strongly-stated dogma. There are plenty of arguments for Jesus' brother/sisters being true siblings, including arguments from Catholic JP Meier. As for your point about Jesus being lost and only his mother and father being mentioned as going, that's sketchy, just like, in my opinion, the rest of the very Catholic POV there. Not mentioning other siblings doesn't mean they weren't there, especially when you have more than implicit evidence that there were siblings. The line that was removed and prompted my comment above was replaced in a decent form anyway. --Oscillate 16:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your information, Oscillate. Even though I should only have given facts and not opinions, my comment was looking like Wikinfo! (My comment is fixed a bit, but feel free to put it in a format more usable for Wikipedia users.) Should we try the table idea I mentioned? One thing I forgot to mention in my fallible comment was Luke 1:34: "Then said Mary unto the angel, 'How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?'(KJV)" In the related text, it does not mention where the angel says Mary was going to have a virgin birth before Mary asks this question (although Matthew 1:22-23 does settle the aspect that it was a virgin birth). But why would Mary ask THAT?!? I do not know. Do you have any ideas? All these verses in the Bible fit together somehow (Christ started a full-Gospel Church, not a "selective Gospel verses Church"), so all full-Gospel Christian churches should arrive at the same non-Wikinfo conclusion.JBogdan 19:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oscillate, where are you? I guess I get to do the table by myself. Please fix it if it needs it. JBogdan 00:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The part nobody's mentioning is: wouldn't it be kinda cruel to expect someone to remain a virgin their whole life? She popped our lord outta there, for god's sake, shouldn't she get to enjoy the rest of the reproductive organs' functions like the rest of us? I mean, catholics seem to consider sex dirty, but I don't know that other sects do...

Oh, and Joseph. Kinda mean to expect him to stay a virgin forever too. He needs to get him some as well. It's necessary for a good healthy marriage and proper non-fighting-each-other parents for Jesus.

N.B., "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." That may be why no one is mentioning it. If you (unsigned commenter above) haven't read St. Jerome's letter to Helvidius, you might consider it as an introduction to the subject of Mary's perpetual virginity; it is not a matter of sex being dirty. And it's not a matter of "expectations" (which typcailly regard the future) but of history and belief. The.helping.people.tick 02:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, the discussion you suggest would be better addressed in virginity rather than here, since it applies to virginity as a lifestyle instead of the virginity of Holy Mary herself. Rjgodoy 03:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

There are many more external links here than my reading of WP:EL would support. I was going to remove a number which appear to be either homepages or monographs, but on checking and none of these really seemed to add much to what is a nicely-crafted and informative article.

Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Was the recent deletion of all external links uncritical or biased?

The recent editor of the external links deemed it appropriate to delete them all. His above stated reasons for doing so show that he is not qualified in New Testament studies, nor does he claim to be so on his own page. He also does not seem to perceive a need to exercise the kind of tolerance that has made it possible for this article to attain this shape (although even its present state is nothing to boast about, as is shown by e.g. the problem of Mary's "other sons" and "daughters" that has recently been introduced into the article and still requires cleaning up). The rule about the number of desirable links tends to be applied in the English Wikipedia with discretion, and it is all the better for it, especially regarding difficult subjects like a religious one. If this article is supposed to be treated merely as a subject of piety, by all means leave the links to scholarly research out, but retain those to pious sites. If however this article is meant – in the first instance at least – to summarise any known facts, or their absence, and the relevant assertions in the authoritative writings and the scholarly deductions, then why delete also the links to scholarly sites and New Testament authorities that enable the Wikipedia visitors to learn about the subject, or certain related problems, in greater detail? In view of the fact that said editor also removed external links elsewhere, the present writer got the prima facie impression that the editor deleted the external links to serve his own bias, rather than to improve Wikipedia and the service it aims to render its visitors. 14:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

External links recommendation

Check some of the external links. :-) Wesley 15:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for further information

Hi guys. Jesus rocks. The information on 'Article' is well good! im doing homework on her right now. does anyone know about anywhere else i can get information on the fascinating life of that amazing woman? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.45.112 (talk • contribs) .

There are any number of books by scholars available. One of the more readable from a Catholic perspective is Scott Hahn's "Hail, Holy Queen."DaveTroy 20:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

Orthodox and the immaculate conception

The following passage is misleading.

While it is technically true to say that Orthodox believe Mary was conceived immaculate, Orthodox do not believe in the same idea of original sin as the West, and they believe all babies are born immaculate. Sin is not considered ontological in Orthodoxy, only the tendency toward it. (This tendency is referenced by the phrase, "ancestral curse," which sometimes leads to confusion on the Orthodox view of the fall.) Mary is considered sinless in the Orthodox Church because it is believed that the grace of God allowed her not to sin, thereby remaining immaculate. So in the Orthodox view, it seems Mary was conceived immaculately but her conception was not out of the ordinary in any way.

This is more correct:

The Orthodox do not believe in the immaculate conception. Mary was born with the same identical characteristics as every human (i.e. Original Sin). It is in the moment of Christ’s incarnation within her that she is cleansed of this fallen human nature. While it is true that the Orthodox believe that by God’s grace she never committed any sins, to describe her conception as something special very nearly removes her from the human race, which would likewise remove Christ from the human race. Also the idea that she had to be a pure vessel before Christ’s conception is not an Orthodox concept as it leads to questions of how Joachim and Anna, Mary’s parents could have managed to have conceived immaculately, themselves not being immaculate. --Phiddipus 21:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Can this be better worded

The follwoing appears before the table of contents: "Most Christians and Muslims understand the Gospel accounts in this respect to mean that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, the Son of God, through a miracle of God."

I think this sentence tries to say that Christians consider Jesus the son of God. However, it puts the word "Muslims" beside "Christians", therefore implying that Muslims belive that Jesus is Son of God, which is incorrect. This should be better worded. Bless sins 04:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Actually, what is being said is that both Christians and Muslims believe that Jesus was the result of a virgin birth, that God caused it to happen. The Qur'an describes that an angel appeared to Mary, to announce to her the "gift of a holy son" (19:19). She was astonished at the news, and asked: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" (19:20). When the angel explained to her that she had been chosen for the service of God, and that God had ordained the matter, she devoutly submitted herself to His will. However, the similarity stops there. Muslims do not believe that Jesus was God incarnate. --Phiddipus 04:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think Bless sins is right in that that should be worded better, as it does seem to imply that Muslims also consider Jesus to be the Son of God, which of course they do not. Wesley 15:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus isn't the Son of God because he is born by a virgin? He is the Son of God because he has always been the Son of God and is/will be. Correct me if I'm wrong. Logically: Jesus is the son of God, so he HAD to be born by a virgin (with God being the real father) and not: he is a born by a virgin, so he is the son of God. I think this is a big difference.
Blubberbrein2 08:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think the clearest evidence that you're correct is that Muslims believe Jesus was born of a virgin, but not that Jesus is the Son of God. The Nicene Creed says that Jesus is "eternally begotten of the Father," meaning He has always been the Son of God, this did not just happen when He was born to Mary. Wesley 14:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I found out that "The Son of God" is explicitly mentioned in (the apocryphal) 2 Esdras, for example chapter 13, also the term "Son of men" who will receive an eternal kingship and who will be served by all nations and people, is coined, among them Daniel 7:13,14 and Psalm 2

In reality

Shouldn't there be a section in this article explaining the most likely (non-divine) explanitions for the virgin birth? Kernow 16:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Such as what? That he never existed at all? That he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier? What did you have in mind? Wesley 16:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Uhhh... yeah... let science explain it? There is no such thing as a "non-divine" virgin birth. That's why it doesn't happen every day, you know? You'll have a tough time proving it didn't happen. Joshuagross 17:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I agreed when I read this article a week ago, and added the last paragraph in the virgin birth section:
Furthermore, some scholars working in the fields of history and biblical criticism have questioned the historical validity of the virgin birth. Fellows of the Jesus Seminar almost unanimously agreed that Mary conceived Jesus through natural means, namely sexual intercourse with a man. They speculate that the father could have been "Joseph or some unknown male who either seduced or raped the young Mary." [1] Other scholars, such as Bart D. Ehrman, suggest the historical method can never comment on the likelihood of supernatural occurrences.
Please feel free to expand this section, or otherwise improve the article!--Andrew c 18:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1. Rape victims sometimes suffer from psychological delusions, often ones which cover up the reality of what happened.
2. I assume that adulterous women were usually executed, so if she had had an affair she would most likely lie about it. Kernow 22:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There is such a thing as a non-divine virgin birth actually. See Parthenogenesis. Clinkophonist 19:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not in humans. thx1138 11:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The following piece of text doesn't really appear to add anything of significance to an article on the Virgin Mary and should therefore be removed. The main reason it should be removed is that an almost identical explanation of the non-Christian view of the Virgin Birth is already included earlier in the article (See section "Ancient non-Christian Sources"). Although I recognize Kernow's very poignant two points, it needs to me more throroughly fleshed out in a way that respects dogma and contributes to a better understanding of Mary the Virgin if dicussion of rape is to be included in the article (although such a discussion probably belongs in a different article). Furthermore, is it really necessary to state that non-Christians and non-Muslims doubt the Virgin Birth? That seems a moot point; one of the reasons why people are non-Christian or non-Muslim is because they don't believe in the Virgin Birth or other Christian/Muslim beliefs. I recommend deletion of the following text, unless otherwise discussed here promptly.

"People who are neither Christian nor Muslim generally doubt that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. In the second century, the polemicist Celsus (recorded in Origen's Contra Celsum 1.28-32) claimed that Mary had relations with a Roman soldier and then married Joseph who protected her from the harsh Jewish laws of the time which would have sentenced her to death by stoning for such an act." Hecman111 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Symbols

What is the signifigance of the winged heart with a sword pierced through it, i have heard that it is related to the virgin mary but how and why

--voodoom 05:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  • For the heart, see Sacred Heart. The sword represents her pain seeing Jesus on the cross; according to tradition (not sure if it is from the canonical scriptures), she was warned that she will see her son dying and it will be like seven blades cutting through her heart. Pictureuploader 17:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
* See Luke 2:35 Freder1ck 16:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck

Santeria non-Abrahamic?

Is it appropriate to describe Santeria as a non-Abrahamic religion? john k 20:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictureuploader's additions

If the proper section on the Christian and Muslim view do not already make it clear that they view Mary as a non-divine, historical figure, you can add that information there. There is no reason for this information to be included in the non-Abrahamic section. Why is it not good enough for this information to be included on the Christian and Muslim POV sections? It seems like POV pushing to preface or otherwise qualify the non-Abrahamic view. Please consider not adding your information to this section.--Andrew c 16:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not POV to provide the 'response' of the original, mainstream view towards this 'alternative' view. This happens in appropriate sections of other controversial topics of Wikipedia: Sometimes some things such as different views must be compared together and that can't be done if everything is in it's own section. I put my addition here for the rest to judge:
However this syncretism is not very successful to Christians who consider Mary to be an actual historical person in the flesh, therefore she can't be compared or linked to any deity or religious archetype.

Pictureuploader 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

(I was hoping other people would chime in, but I guess not many editors are watching this page) I think the bigger issue here is that we are not trying to write an argumentative paper, and we do not need to support the "mainstream view", or criticize the "alternative views". Go to the Resurrection of Jesus article and look at some of the editorial notes hiden within the page (especially next to the liberal view). We should present all relevent POVs. We do not need to spell out that muslims don't agree with christians, and that christians don't agree with pagans, and that Catholics don't agree with Baptists etc. If we present each POV, it should be clear where each group agrees and disagrees, without having to spell it out or give an emphasis on the fact that Christians don't agree with other POVs. It seems redundent and POV pushing. If this were an article about a philosophical argument, I could understand criticisms and rebuttles being included. But since this is about Mary, mother of Jesus, I think its good enough to just explain each POV in their own section, and leave it at that. I see no reason to have a Christian response or criticism in a section dealing with alternative POVs. Unless you want to put the alternative POV criticisms in the Christian section. (not that I would seriously advocate that).--Andrew c 15:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Calvin's support of perpetual virginity?

Just wondering where the cite is for Calvin's alleged support of Mary's perpetual virginity. I've combed a number of internet sources for it, and the most I've come up with is a quote attributed to him by Lemming,

"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ." Bernard Leeming, "Protestants and Our Lady", Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.

However, I've been unable to verify the original quote in Calvin's writings. Anyone? --jrcagle 15:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This site quotes Calvin saying, [On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
The quote is attributed to {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p. 107. I especially like the last sentence in that quote. :-) Wesley 17:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, it took a while to come back to this. Sorry for the delay. Here are the actual quotations from the Harmony of the Gospels commentaries ([1],[2]):
Matt. 1:25. And knew her not. This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary's perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
Matt. 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? It was, we are aware, by the wonderful purpose of God, that Christ remained in private life till he was thirty years of age. Most improperly and unjustly, therefore, were the inhabitants of Nazareth offended on this account; for they ought rather to have received him with reverence, as one who had suddenly come down from heaven. They see God working in Christ, and intentionally turn away their eyes from this sight, to behold Joseph, and Mary, and all his relatives; thus interposing a veil to shut out the clearest light. The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's brothers are sometimes mentioned.
It seems clear that Calvin wished to avoid speculating on Mary's perpetual virginity, rather than to lend support to it. On this ground, I would prefer to present him in the Wikiarticle as being neutral towards perpetual virginity. Comments? jrcagle 17:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
First, thanks for taking the time to pull up the full quotes. Ok, here's my own, personal, probably at least a little biased interpretation of the above. Regarding the testimony of scripture, Calvin seems to be saying that the Bible says nothing definite or conclusive one way or the other regarding Mary's perpetual virginity. However, he is saying this to refute Helvidius' claim that Mary did not remain a virgin, and Helvidius's claim that the Bible showed Mary did not remain a virgin. So to me, this reads like Calvin is refuting an attack on Mary's perpetual virginity; he certainly doesn't disagree with Jerome after mentioning Jerome's defense. In fact, he may well be alluding to Jerome's treatise, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius]. This seems especially likely since Jerome was apparently refuting the same Helvidius whom Calvin refutes in this passage. What do you think? Wesley 16:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


NP. Calvin seems to be saying that the Bible says nothing definite or conclusive one way or the other regarding Mary's perpetual virginity. Agreed. However, he is saying this to refute Helvidius' claim that Mary did not remain a virgin, and Helvidius's claim that the Bible showed Mary did not remain a virgin. This is more subtle. He criticizes Helvidius for troubling the church, and he clearly wants the issued to be tabled (in the American, not British sense of the word!). That might imply that he would desire the default view -- perpetual virginity -- to remain untroubled by argument.
However, he is also careful *not* to do what he does in many other places; namely, to simply contradict Helvidius. If you've read much Calvin, I'm sure you'll agree that he's not shy about disagreeing with those whom he considers to be in error. In the case of Helvidius, he argues that H. is taking the language too far, but ends up concluding that no definite conclusion can be drawn.
I think it is *likely* that Calvin leaned towards perpetual virginity (PV), for the reason that you cited: he is not critical of Jerome's arguments. However, as a matter of historical record, I don't think it can be claimed (as the article now does) that he *supported* PV. Is that fair? jrcagle 20:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity Template

Oops, I thought Moses was under a Judaism template, but it's not. Still, I think given the importance of Madonna in Christianity (much more than in Islam), the Christianity template should be included. That doesn't mean that Islamic categories can't be included, but a Christianity template would override an Islam one. Jesus is important in Islam as a prophet (but not the Son of God), but given its greater importance in Christianity, it includes the Christianity template.

Yom 06:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

non-divine virgin birth

exists, in a number of animals, including mammals. It has nothing to do with artificial cloning, happens naturally, and can be induced scientifically. Its scientific name is Parthenogenesis and should be discussed, even if only a little, in the article. Clinkophonist 19:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That sound like a great idea.--Striver 20:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. It should definitely be mentioned on the article for Virgin Birth (if there is one), but it has nothing to do with Mary, and the mention in the article that virgin births do not naturally occur in humans seems a little condescending. --WikiMarshall 09:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Because the process begins with genetically modified mice... I think the picture about Kaguya is not relevant in this discussion. Rjgodoy 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

pov

This article is supposed to be the main article, but it is totaly dominated by the Christian view. This is pov.

This needs to be changed accordingly:

Article can be named "Mary, mother of Jesu" or "Virgin mary", for the example, i picked "Virgin Mary".

I know this will not be popular among my Christian brothers, but it is the only NPOV thing to do. Peace. --Striver 20:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Once upon a time there was an article named "Virgin Mary". It was eventually deemed too POV, as there is widespread disagreement as to whether Mary was a virgin; it's generally more accepted that she was Jesus' mother, so that's the main title of the article, and Virgin Mary redirects to this one. Judaism probably doesn't have enough to say about Mary to warrant an entirely separate article. Most who aren't Christians or Muslims won't have that much to say, except perhaps as it relates to the historicity of Jesus.
We do have Blessed Virgin Mary that focuses more on the Roman Catholic view, and Virgin Mary in Islam that covers that in more depth, as well as several others in the See Also section. Maybe if there's too much overlap between these in specific areas, this article could be shortened by summarizing those sections and linking to the articles that cover them in more depth. How does that sound? Wesley 15:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is it neccesary to either restrict editing on this page for the time being or to block, temporarily or otherwise, 203.221.23.225? Repeated vandalism on this page by this user has occured repeatedly, and contributions of 203.221.23.225 indicate that such vandalism is systematic. I am unsure of how to respond - please inform. --Gregorof 04:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and ask for "semi-protection", which will prevent anonymous and "new" users from editing the article. Clinkophonist 15:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Blue

In depictions of Mary, the color blue is often used. What is its significance?—Wasabe3543 19:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
OurLady.jpg

The color blue is the color of empresses, the sky and sapphires. Red is the color of suffering. Mary was shown wearing blue from about 500 BCE- 1000 BCE, then it shifted to red. Here's a reference for you if you would like to add this information to the article. --Iriseyes 14:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you mean CE and not BCE. Owen 05:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Age?

Should we work in anything about her age? Most estimates I've seen said she was in the range of 12-14 years of age when Jesus was born. I think it'd be an interesting piece of information for a number of readers. Owen 02:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Five things to remember when determining Mary's age. 1. The Bible gives on age. 2. Her 'tapeinosis' 3. She is very articulate. (Luke 1:46-55) 4. She owned her own house. (Luke 1:56) 5. She traveled hundreds of miles by herself. rem486—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.255.57.114 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 3 August 2007.

lead section

Like a lot of articles on wikipedia, this one has a weak lead section. See WP:LEAD. I added Protestant viewpoints to the lead and it was deleted because it's "alreay covered." (FTR, I'm not trying to promote the Protestant viewpoint.) But a lead section is supposed to summarize material that's already covered. If not, what's it supposed to summarize, material that's not on the page? One should be able to get the gist of the topic from the lead section alone. Without the Protestant information, the lead gives that impression that Mary's role in Christianity is noncontroversial. Jonathan Tweet 04:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well. This is a complex topic to summarize concisely. The lead summary of the Protestant view combines a sweeping reference to Protestants combined with very specific criticism: the falsity of perpetual virginity, assumption of Mary, etc. I would be happy to see a generic statement to go along with the generic reference: oh, something along the lines of In general, Protestants question the liturgical, devotional, and doctrinal position of Mary in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. Otherwise, I wouldn't object to the citation of representative Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, and/or Baptist catechisms or theologians. Freder1ck 18:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck
More informative is better. The current version is more informative. If we're looking to trim informatin from the lead, then my vote is to trim the feast day information first. We're talking about the holy bearer of Christ whose miraculous life confirmed prophecy. Feast days are a minor detail that should appear only in the body. Don't trim the Protestant information just because it's new. Trim the least central information first. Jonathan Tweet 19:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
My concern is not quantity, but accuracy. It seems to me that most Protestant groups lack direct specific teaching about Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox liturgy, doctrine, and devotion regarding Mary. Instead, Protestant opposition to Marian practice would be a consequence of core teachings. Thus, the Immaculate Conception is denied by some Protestants as a consequence of a teaching like Total Depravity. And yes, editing is preferred to reverting, so I'll get around to editing it if you don't ... Freder1ck 20:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck
Raised Lutheran (ELCA), schooled at a Lutheran College (St. Olaf), and kicking these topics around for 30 years leads me to the conclusion that Protestants most certainly have a pretty clear idea of what the Orthodox and Catholic attitude toward Mary amounts to. Ask any Southern Baptist whether they agree with the doctrine that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven, and you will not get the answer, "I don't have a specific teaching on that topic." The "cult" of Mary is disparaged more or less strongly as anything from misplaced attention to straight-up idolatry. Sure, the Southern Baptist Convention doesn't have a specific teaching on the topic, but they believe in soul competency and don't rely on their church to spell everything out for them. Frankly, my edit was tame and generous. If we really wanted to define the spectrum of Christian attitudes, we'd have to include Mary as a Satanic figure. We don't have to go that far in the lead, but any attempt to downplay the opposition to the "cult" of Mary would be unfair. I've already downplayed it. Jonathan Tweet 16:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
JT, thanks for the original research and anecdotal data; I also have plenty of anecdotal evidence, but it's not exactly encyclopediac. So, we're left with weasel words or some kind of official citation - a representative theological opinion would serve as I presume that theologians also practice soul competency. There are really two points that I'd like to address with your edits:
* First, the difficulty of speaking *in general* about Protestants. Some Protestants hold Mary in high regard while others see her as a tool whose utility ended at the nativity (despite her place at the foot of the cross and in Acts). Some Protestants condemn Marian practice while others see it as a distracting extra or even embrace aspects of it (yes, I'm including European and Liberal Protestantism here).
* Second, the general statement conflates EO and RCC Marian practice in a simplistic way. The RCC has a significantly developed official Mariology while the EO churches have few specific dogmatic statements about Mary. The EO have a more significant liturgical focus on Mary whereas the RCC focus has been stronger in private devotion. Which specific dogmas of the EO are condemned by **Protestants in general**?
a general statement needs to be general. If you want to get specific, then cite somebody notable. If you don't like the verb question, then how about criticize? Condemn is really too much a claim with regard to **Protestants in general**.
Freder1ck 17:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck

Common knowledge is not original research. If you think "criticize" is strong enough and "condemn" is too strong, try this [3]. For that matter, you can google "Mary queen of heaven idolatry satan" as easily as I, If you're surprised by what you find, that would explain your resistance to the verb "condemn." Jonathan Tweet 18:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If you leave in condemn, then I will add embrace. Some Protestants embrace aspects of Marian devotion, or what do you think of the following link? [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1299935/posts Methodist Church Displays Virgin of Guadalupe] Freder1ck 18:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck
hmmm, embracing Mary doesn't seem to be limited to European or Hispanic Protestants either. "Evangelicals make case for Mary": El Paso Times

F, "If you leave in condemn, then I will add embrace." We have a deal. My point is that we should portray the array of beliefs about Mary, not any particular angle. Lots of my opponents want to prevent information from being added to religious pages, but not me. The fact that some Protestants embrace Mary is a fine addition to the lead. Jonathan Tweet 19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Did Isaiah prophecy that a virgin would give birth, and did Mary and Jesus fulfill that prophecy? According to Matthew, yes. To divorce Mary's virginity from this prophecy is. . . I don't know what it is. Matthew clearly states that the prophecy was about a virgin (even if Isaiah doesn't). Or is the Greek text ambiguous just like the Hebrew? Jonathan Tweet 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The prophecy of Isaiah, in Hebrew, says that a maiden will give birth to the Messiah. The LXX text says "virgin". Matthew, which is in Greek, follows the Greek LXX. Also, it is clear from Matthew that Mary was indeed a virgin (and hence also a maiden). If we say that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, and then quote the prophecy, I think we should use the English "maiden", since we are mentioning Isaiah's prophecy. If you wish to say "virgin" I suppose that's ok - you will be following the LXX interpretation. Think of it like this. Jose in Spanish writes a prophecy that a man from "America" [which could mean "the Americas"] will kill Kennedy. Then someone translates that into English as a man from "the USA". Then, Oswald kills Kennedy. Then, someone writes, in English, that Oswald's act was foretold by Jose, who said a man from "the USA" would kill Kennedy. If we then say that Oswald is believed to have fulfilled the prophecy of Jose, and then give the prophecy, I think we should give the prophecy as "from America", but the latter would not be incorrect. Lostcaesar 17:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
However, Mary was not a virgin by the fact of her birth. So we can conclude that Matthew is mistaken. We can say that Mary claimed to be a virgin, which obviously is a lie. Are there any theories about why she should lie? I guess pregnancy without marriage? Or, was this whole virgin birth claim simply mythology borrowed from similar pagan beliefs? I think the article should have a section about this, the historicity of Mary, and the basis for these claims in mythology or theories that explain the need for the invention of being a virgin despite the obvious?Giovanni33 20:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


I think I answered my own question, with this article [4] by Geza Verme, who is a Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford. His latest book is The Nativity: History and Legend. He explains how Mary was probably not a virgin in the modern sense of the word. I'll add this link to the article, but should there not be some section about this issue?Giovanni33 22:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

LC, it's two to one, virgin over maiden. Isaiah is maiden. LXX is virgin. Matthew is virgin. The Holy Spirit made sure that Matthew wrote correctly. If the Holy Spirit says Isaiah meant virgin, he meant virgin. Plus, this is a NT topic, and the NT presentation should prevail. You deleted information about Matthew citing "virgin" for no reason other than that it worked against your preferred reading of the text. Jonathan Tweet 05:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer maiden as well. Jews, Christians, and non-religious folk can all agree that the Isaiah passage mentions a maiden. Whether the maiden was a virgin is a matter of POV. It is clear what POV Matthew is coming from, but Isaiah's POV is very disputed. Also, I take issue with the wording of the footnote, that claims that the LXX is unambiguous. People have argued that the Greek is also ambiguous, as Richard Carrier does here, and Outreach Judaism, among others. -Andrew c 13:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Andrew, thanks, those are great links. One says that "parthenos" has strong "virgin" connotations. The other says that Matthew mistranslates "maiden" as "virgin." Both affirm that the meaning in Matthew at least strongly connotes "virgin." Since we're talking about Matthew's take on Mary, it's Matthew's take on the prophecy that counts most, and Matthew says that the prophecy was of a virgin. Out of context, Matthew's use of "parthenos" is not ironclad. In context, it's a real stretch to think that he didn't have virgin in mind and that his audience didn't understand it as "virgin." If this were an article about Isaiah, I'd be all over "maiden." Jonathan Tweet 14:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
We know what Matthew meant by parthenos, but what of the LXX? Lostcaesar 14:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Some (usually atheists and Jewish apologists) have argued that the LXX use of parthenos did not necessarily mean 'virgin' (citing Homer's usage of the word among other things). I do not think anyone argues that Matthew's use of the word isn't 'virgin'. It seems clear that Matthew is unambiguous, but Isaiah is ambiguous for multiple reasons. While this article is not about Isaiah, it also isn't about Matthew or the Blessed Virgin. I believe we should include both bits of information, that Matthew believed Isaiah was refering to a virgin, but that interpretation of Isaiah is disputed. I personally feel that using the word "maiden" (who may or may not be a virgin) when referencing Isaiah, and "virgin" when referencing Matthew would avoid 'choosing' sides. I'm not too attached to any particular phrasing though, as long as the dispute is mentioned.-Andrew c 15:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to point out the following:

  • Isaiah uses an ambiguous word, almah, which might have meant either a young woman before marriage or else a young woman.
  • The LXX translators (c. 250 BC) understood Isaiah to mean parthenos, virgin.
  • Matthew took this to be the correct translation and attributed Mary's condition to be a 'fulfillment' of Isaiah's words.
  • Matthew's understanding of fulfillment included typological patterns (such as 'out of Egypt I called my son') that were not obviously prophetic in their contexts.

Giovanni33, what evidence would you present that Mary was not a virgin? The fact that she gave birth is not decisive, since everyone agrees that she was pregnant -- the question is how it happened. The article to which you linked was rather speculative. jrcagle 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Lutheranian veneration

I don't know about the anglicans and lutherans in other places, but in the modern view of german lutheran theologists, veneration of Mary is against the first Commandment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.64.122.11 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

I am a little confused reading this article. It seems to be written mainly from a Catholic viewpoint/teachings. Being raised Protestant all of my life, I disagree with what is being written. Most Protestants DO believe in the Immaculate Conception of Jesus Christ, but we do not believe in perpetual virginity. Most Protestants believe that Jesus had earthly brothers and sisters AFTER He was born, in fact the N.T. specifically names some of Jesus' siblings...literally and figuratively, as in siblings and brothers and sisters in Christ...fellow believers. I do tend to believe that Catholics idolize Mary. I have never been taught, nor have I read that Mary was completely without sin. In fact, it does specifically say in the Bible that only Jesus was without sin, being the Son of God and also God Himself. I have never read in the Bible where it says it's okay to pray through the Virgin Mary (Protestants also refer to Mary as this). Clearly, Protestants believe the only way to the Father is through the Son...not Mary. Protestants do not believe in praying to the Virgin Mary, because no where is it scripturally correct...at least not in any version of the Bible I have ever read (KJ, NKJ, NIV, NLT). Mary was definitely blessed by God and "favored" by God and she was certainly the "chosen" to be the earthly mother of the Son of God, but that doesn't mean she is to be idolized by being prayed to or having shrines built in her honor. It would be okay to have shrines in honor of Jesus because Protestants believe in the Trinity...Jesus is God and; therefore, we are able to honor and praise God by building shrines. I have never been taught anything about Mary's death. Protestants probably do not believe it is relevant (maybe that is wrong term) in the teaching of Christ. I do believe that if Mary did descend into Heaven it would be specifically listed as it with Jesus and Elijah. Certainly Mary should be praised for who and what she was...the chosen one by God...Mary, Mother of Jesus, but really that is as far as it should go. I don't mean to offend anyone. I just think that if you are going to be writing from a mainly Catholic viewpoint, you need to also write from a Protestant viewpoint. Neither viewpoint is correct and neither viewpoint is wrong. (Can't you tell I'm just an ordinary Christian and not a "scholar" or theologian?)...Meg4Christ

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception concerns the conception of Mary in the wonb of her mother, St. Anne (through otherwise normal procreative means via her father Joachim). Luther had a deep personal veneration for St. Anna, whom he credited with saving his life in his youth from a seastorm (Luther did't like the ocean much). Lostcaesar 11:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Meg, if you really have questions about this, I may satisfy your curiosity. However, I think it unhelpful that you stack your questions with assumptions and loaded terms. But feel free to ask. Right now I will only say that I do not see how this article is written from the Catholic viewpoint. This view is included, as it should be, but not pushed as the undisputed fact. But neither are/should different views be pushed as such. Str1977 (smile back) 23:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

This article is listed as A-class for both the Saints and Catholicism WikiProjects. Has it been nominated as a good article any time recently? If not, should it be? -- Pastordavid 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Ooops...I wrote this under the wrong section. If someone can move it for me I would greatly appreciate it...Thanks...Meg4Christ

Merge mother of god

I was wondering if anyone could comment at Talk:Mother of God on merging that article (which was only recently created, and doesn't contain much original content) here and to Theotokos. Any comments would be appreciated-Andrew c 02:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

The article at present gives the etymology of Maryām as Bitter. Other possibilities, however, are "sea", "strong waters", etc. Given that this was a personal name, the others seem more probable. Whatever the case, we may wish to include a better presentation of the matter. Lostcaesar 22:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Catholics and the Immaculate Conception

Lima, thanks for the clarification, but there's a slight difference in perception here. Those churches are dedicated to the Conception of the Theotokos by St Anna, celebrated 9th December, and for convenience and easier familiarity to the rest of the Catholic world, they've decided to use the term 'immaculate conception'. Eastern Catholics do not use the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin and hence don't understand the term 'immaculate conception' in the same way. InfernoXV 15:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The quoted sources show that, in English, Eastern Catholics use "Immaculate Conception", a choice that indicates that they understand the English term to refer to the same event that in another language they call by another name, and that they understand Saint Anne's (active) Conception of the Theotokos to be indeed a (passive) Immaculate Conception of her daughter. If they thought the two things were different, they would certainly choose another expression in English, such as, indeed, InfernoXV's "the Conception of the Theotokos by St Anna". Statements to the effect that Eastern Catholics do not accept the Catholic Church's dogma on the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos may freely be made on Talk pages, but may not be put in Wikipedia articles if unverified. And a member of an Eastern Catholic Church who makes statements of this kind would be well advised to speak to a priest of his own Eastern Catholic Church to check whether his ideas really is those of his Church, and so avoid drifting out of communion with his own Church and the Catholic Church as a whole. Lima 16:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The whole 'immaculate conception' issue hinges on the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin, to which the Eastern Catholic Churches do not subscribe. We believe and maintain that the Mother of God is all-pure and spotless, but do not use the theological baggage that comes with the 'immaculate conception' dogma, which is at best irrelevant to our traditions. Yes, I've checked with my bishops. InfernoXV 05:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
According to the Immaculate Conception article, technically the dogma is binding on the Eastern Catholic Churches, due to the way it was defiend by the pope, but as you say with their slightly different understanding of sin, it doens't make a whole lot of sense. I think we have at least now straightened out the main thing which concerned me, equating Roman Catholic Church with the Latin Rite alone is potentially very confusing in this article (in particular). David Underdown 08:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Some Eastern Christians not in communion with the see of Rome make every endeavour to find points of contrast between their faith and the teaching of the Catholic Church. However, I have not come across official statements by the Eastern Orthodox Church to the effect that what in the East is called "ancestral sin" is essentially different from what in the West is called "original sin". Perhaps InfernoXV will kindly find me some.
Those who deny the existence of ancestral/original sin clearly do believe in the immaculate conception of the Theotokos, since they believe that everyone, from the first moment of conception, is altogether free of any such lack of grace.
The statement that "the whole Immaculate Conception issue hinges on the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin" is yet another example of the unverified claims that can be made on a Talk page, but not in a Wikipedia article.
I wonder who are the bishops (plural) of his Church ("my bishops") who have told InfernoXV that his Church does not accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the All-Holy Theotokos. On his talk page, he says he belongs to the Byzantine-Rite Russian Catholic Church, but the Annuario Pontificio says that both Apostolic Exarchates of that Church have been vacant for decades.
I have difficulty in believing that InfernoXV has the knowledge and the authority to make declarations in the name of all Eastern Catholic Churches, saying what "we believe". I find it much easier to believe statements such as "The Scriptures and doctrines of the Ukrainian Catholic Church are identical to those of the Roman Catholic Church"; Eastern Catholic Churches use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which does teach the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos, "as a point of reference for composing our own Catechisms"; etc. These sourced statements seems more authoritative than InfernoXV's statements contradicting them.
As for InfernoXV's mysterious bishops, InfernoXV himself is the only source we have for any statement attributed to them. Lima 10:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This discussion will benefit if someone can provide authoritative material citing exactly what the Eastern Catholic Churches have said on the matter of the nature of the Theotokos and concept of the Immaculate Conception. I will attempt to do so this weekend. Majoreditor 12:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Eastern Orthodox Point of View is: Original sin represents a change in human nature caused by Adams disobedience. This change in human nature applies to all humans including the Virgin Mary, i.e. the Virgin Mary had Original Sin. When Christ was incarnate he changed human nature again, uniting it with the divine. He had no Original sin, and because he took flesh from the Virgin Mary, he cleansed her of original sin the moment he was conceived. Other than her participation in human nature, she was sinless. From this point of view, the Immaculate Conception of Mary is completely unnecessary.--Phiddipus 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My comments on InfernoXV's edits are severe. That is because of his recent insertions into Wikipedia of statements of his own unsupported opinion that the Eastern Catholic Churches dissent from the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church[5] and are quite untouched not only by the general rules of that Church but even by the rules that specifically concern the Eastern particular Churches within that Church.[6]. I hope this will encourage him to confine himself to verifiable statements and, if I may joke, save him from the fate of Brunetto Latini in Dante's Inferno, XV. Lima 08:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Melkite Greek Catholic Bishop John Elya (eparch emeritus of Newton, MA.) offered this response when asked "Are we [as Eastern Catholics] obliged to accept dogmas like "The Immaculate Conception as it is defined by Rome?" His answer is yes.
In the past Eastern Catholic theologians raised concerns about the Immaculate Conception, referring to it as a foreign concept. For an amusing aside, look at the Melkite Immaculate Conception Church in Heliopolis. While its English/French name is "Immaculate Conception", its Arabic name is completely different: "Al Azrah al Tahira" ("The Virgin the All-Pure").
One other item. I noticed that Lima refers to Inferno's posts concerning the CCEC. It's a fact that Eastern Catholic bishops and patriarchs regularly level harsh criticism at the Eastern codex. See Melkite Catholic Patriarch Gregory III's comments in Sophia, v.32, issue 1 (Jan. 2002), pp. 22-23. We can discuss this and other East/West topics on a more appropriate talk page. Majoreditor 04:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Latins, who are bound by the Code of Canon Law, have been known to criticize that Code. So? However, that matter, as Majoreditor rightly says, need not be discussed here. I mentioned it only to help explain my "severity". More important is Majoreditor's confirmatory example, more explicit than those that I gave, of an Eastern Catholic Church accepting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: the Melkite church in question "is known also by the French name of "IMMACULEE CONCEPTION" to honor the dogma of the Immaculate Conception proclaimed by the Pope Pius IX on 8 December 1854.
Of course, Majoreditor could have been still more explicit, if he had quoted from the same site the theological meditation by Archimandrite Maurice Khoury on the significance of the dogma. If that study were not headed "weekly meditation", I would certainly add to the article a link to this excellent exposition of Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. It would be hard to find any better. Lima 06:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The study is headed "weekly meditation", but a comment under "Old Guestbook" at this page of the Melkite church's Web site, suggests that it has been there since December 2005. The study seems to have orginally been presented as a series of five weekly meditations, which explains the title on the page. So I think a link to the study may be added to the article here. Lima 07:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies to MajorEditor for seeming to ignore his quite explicit quotation from an Eastern Catholic bishop on the question of the belief of Eastern Catholics in the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos. I found the other source he gave so interesting that I concentrated on that. Lima 07:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that Kyr John's view represents a majority of Eastern Catholic bishops but is not universally held. There is a minority of Eastern Catholic bishops who take issue with specific dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception -- see Archbishop Elias Zoghby as an example.

While the Eastern Catholic Churches I am familiar with formally subscribe to Catholic dogmatic views such as the Immaculate Conception, Inferno's original assertion that "Eastern Catholics do not use the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin and hence don't understand the term 'Immaculate Conception' in the same way" is a valid observation. Certainly many Eastern Catholics use different terms and concepts to describe the spotless nature of the Theotokos. This is natural, given their different traditions and practices.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the similarity of faith and beliefs between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. While differences exist in some matters of faith, it's not outrageous for a Catholic bishop or theologian to explore the merits of the Orthodox position.

I am impressed by the gentle, thoughtful tone Kyr John uses in describing this complex issue. We would all do well to be considerate of other editors when we advocate positions. Majoreditor 16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Facts that a POV expressed in the article disagrees with

Will Andrew c, Goldfritha, A.J.A., or anybody else please explain to me on what grounds they claim that two verifiable facts may not be mentioned:

  • In Colossians 4:10, "ἀνεψιός" has been translated not only as "cousin", but also as "nephew" ("sister's son") - source cited: Colossians 4:10;
  • The term "brothers", "ἀδελφοί" in the Greek (LXX) text of the passage, has in fact been applied in the Bible to cousins - source cited: 1 Chronicles 23:21-22.

These facts seem to be decidedly pertinent in the context of the advocating of the view that:

  • In Biblical Koine Greek, "ἀνεψιός" can only mean "cousin";
  • In Biblical Koine Greek, "brother" ("ἀδελφός") can never be used of a cousin.

Rather than joining in their edit war, I look forward to reading the explanation tomorrow, at least if it is a reasoned explanation. Lima 19:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Lima, please discuss these issues on the talk page rather than edit warring. Majoreditor 19:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Since none of the reverters have answered my request for an explanation, I think I am free to revert to my last text. Lima 04:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The point of the text is, in your own words, an attempt to show the weakness of an argument you don't like. A.J.A. 06:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
So the argument in the text that "ἀνεψιός" is incompatible with "ἀδελφός" must, according to AJA, be kept sacrosanctly immune from any questioning of its solidity. In other words, the POV expressed in the text must be treated as infallibly true, though verifiable facts show it is false. Again I await an explanation, rather than edit warring like AJA. What do others think? Lima 07:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lima, but I think his (her?) original edit summary (show weakness of argument) was misleading. If I, with no prior interest in an article and no prior knowledge of the subject, saw that edit summary, I'd immediately think "original research". However, looking at the actual addition, separated from the edit summary, I don't see it as original research. It doesn't seem reasonable for the article to assert, as a fact, that "brother" means "brother" in a particular context, and to remove any attempt to show the other side. This is also a useful link. Oh, and Lima, while I agree with your edit, I think it has to be worded more simply. It's so complicated that you have to read it three times before it makes sense! ElinorD (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, ElinorD, and I apologize for misleading. Perhaps the best way to simplify would be to reword the statement that I thought needed correction. However, if AJA still does not justify his reversal, I will try to express more clearly the thought in my addition to the text, when (or if?) I reinsert it. Lima 08:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with Lima's assertion and am disturbed that AJA is attempting to eliminate a cited statement. I also concur with Elinor that the wording could be clearer. Also, Lima, you may want to introduce additional references, particularly to academic works. As best I can tell a majority of them support your position. Majoreditor 13:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. I prefer to wait until I am sure AJA has had a chance to respond. Of course, if someone else wants to work on the text, then, as far as I am concerned, they are free to do so. Lima 14:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Before addressing the text, I would like to ask you to please discuss civilly and stop misrepresenting the issue. The text currently asserts that "Protestants believe Y", not "Y". You're asking it to say "Protestants believe Y. However, not Y."

The text you've inserted makes two claims.

"ανεψιός" has also been translated as "nephew", not "cousin";

Which is irrelevant. It's sloppy polemic, not encyclopedic.

the term "brothers" has in fact been applied in the Bible to cousins.

Which would be acceptable in the form "So and so, citing the LXX translation of 1 Chronicles 23:22, says..." But not in the current form. A.J.A. 16:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What current form? The LXX text that Luke was familiar with has not changed. The Hebrew text of the passage in question also has "brothers". But it's Biblical Greek we are talking about, not Hebrew or English. And it is a verifiable fact that in Biblical Greek the word "ἀδελφοί" (brothers) was applied to cousins.
I would also question the assertion that "modern-day Protestants reject this doctrine." Do they? All of them, that is, not just some? I don't know, one way or the other. And wouldn't it be better to specify what is meant by "this doctrine", in case anyone thought it referred to the doctrine of those "Protestant theologians (who) began arguing that Mary did not remain a virgin ..."? In view of the sensitivity that AJA and others have displayed, I do not dare touch that expression up myself.
I have made reference to sources for what I say, at least on 1 Chronicles. Not, unfortunately, references to MajorEditor's "academic works", which are not at my disposal. But in reality the text of 1 Chronicles (of which, if desired, I could post, in the article, with an indication of source, the exact LXX text in Greek) and the text of Colossians in KJV are clearer evidence than any number of second-hand quotations in other sources could be.
My colleagues here can probably improve what I have written. Lima 19:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it, you haven't provided any sources for the LXX translation of 1 Chronicles 23:22, have you? Your only citation is to the verse, which in the context of the English Wikipedia means the verse in English; claims about how it reads in other languages would have to be cited to a reliable source. As for the verse in English, a quick look at one translation has "brothers", another has "cousins"; would that imply that someone who reads the first translation must mean (or even could mean) cousins when he writes "brothers"? A.J.A. 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I added citations for the earlier paragraph since it lacked references. Next time I'm at the theology library I will grab scholarly references; sorry, I can't access those databases from my home computer. Majoreditor 02:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. If the argument is attributed as someone's argument, that would be unobjectionable. A.J.A. 03:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
AJA, did you not notice that "the argument" about 1 Chronicles was already "attributed as someone's argument"? In fact it was attributd as the argument of several people. So I am putting the mention of those people back in, with their argument. In answer to your request, I am also quoting, as I already offered, the actual Greek text of the 1 Chronicles. I hope you enjoy it. Please let me know. Lima 04:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I mean an attribution like, "So and so argues..." What it actually does say and has said in every version you wrote and, I suspect, would say in any version you would ever write, is you polemicizing and throwing in a few footnotes so you can hide behind that fact that it's got cites.
You also misrepresented what I asked for. I ask for a reliable source, not the text.
BTW, I followed the links for the people you're using as cites. Gotta say, you're not bringing your A game on this one. A.J.A. 05:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the site of the Orthodox Church of Greece a reliable source for the LXX text? (If AJA wants more Internet sites that gives the LXX text, I can give several.) The sources that use that objective LXX text as an argument are mentioned precisely because AJA wanted proof that the 1 Chronicles text has in fact been used as an argument. What is he complaining about now? He has his requested reliable source for the text. He has his requested proof that I am not the first person in the world to quote the text as proof that cousins have in fact been called brothers in Biblical Greek. (It makes no difference whether they were A team or Z team: it is enough that they did use the argument. And indeed, even if I were the first person in the world to point to it, I would only be pointing to a verifiable fact.) What more does AJA want? Perhaps he wants me to say that those people and all others who read the Greek text and see the word "ἀδελφοί" in it are really suffering from an optical illusion?
I wrote the above in reply to what AJA has written here. I have now read AJA's changes to the text of the article, and am happy to see he is not as unreasonable as his remarks here would give reason to believe.
It seems that every time I have to revise the section, I come across other verifiable elements to insert. Lima 08:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
"Nobody denies that" is not a source; this is getting tiresome. I suspect you're intentionally doing something other than what was wanted and then announcing you gave me what I asked, so you can turn around and squack when I repeat what I said originally.
You reinserted "point out", which can have no purpose except endorsing what they say. A.J.A. 15:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I have one suggestion and one comment.
Suggestion: Confine all of the arguments supporting the Perpetual Virginity to the first paragraph of the Perpetual Virginity section. Confine all of the arguments made against Perpetual Virginity to the second paragraph. Both should be concise; more detailed statements can be made in the main article Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Please let me know what you think of my proposal.
Observation: A.J.A., it was in poor form to remove Lima's John Hainsworth/goarch.org cite. Removing citations is frowned upon unless there is a valid reason to do so. If you have issue with Lima's combining two citations into one note, please mention it on the talk page or split the citation into two notes. If you have an issue with the citation itself, discuss it hear on the talk page. Thanks, Majoreditor 16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's what a revert does. A.J.A. 16:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
AJA isn't very collaborative, is he? I quoted sources to show that my observations are well-founded, and he just cancels them all on the specious pretext that I used, as I suppose I did, the phrase "point out". Oh, what a crime that was! I expect that, as a serial reverter, he will now do the same to my attempt to put Majoreditor's suggestion into practice. I have left the negative arguments untouched, as AJA has left them, but I have gathered the positive ones together. Would it not be better if he would have the minimal courtesy to correct and improve the work of others instead of treating it as non-existent? Then we could move forward. Good night. Lima 19:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You suppose you did. Nice. So tell me, what's the standard here? If you insert bias often enough, I can't change it back or I'm not collaborative? Personally, I think intentionally adding bias is the breakdown in collaboration, but I guess we all have our own perspectives. A.J.A. 04:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, you misrepresent what I did to the "negative arguments", which I have edited to remove their former POV tone. I won't bother waiting for your apology. A.J.A. 04:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've remained quiet and mostly ignored this discussion because I respect both of you as established editors in good standing. However, I apologize for not speaking up earlier. I hate it when I am in a content dispute with another editor and no one else chimes in. First of all, it seems like things are getting a heated, and you could both do well with taking it a little bit easier. There is no need to make personal quips about the other party that doesn't have to do with article content. Reviewing the dispute, I can see why it is so heated. This is a significant point of theological contention. It seems like both parties believe that their interpretation of the situation is The Truth, and therefore this has come through in the back and forth editing and the debate/rebuttal aspects being introduced into the article. Also, there is a lot of source piling going on.

So here is what I think. One good source is better than 5 semi-ok sources. It isn't a matter of who has the most sources wins. We just need to make the information verifiable to the reader; we don't need to present a web directory on the topic. Part of NPOV is presenting arguments with due weight. So saying that one position is a majority view is ok, but phrasing it in a way such as "thus an absolute majority of Christians" is just introducing unencyclopedic commentary. Also, I do not believe adding all the information about Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek is helpful to understanding the topic Mary (mother of Jesus). We have Desposyni and Perpetual virginity of Mary where that information seems more relevant. We don't need to re-invent the wheel by writing a whole new write up that exists already on two different articles. I'm concerned that we will either create a discrepancy on wikipedia, or a subsection grows to contain more information that the spinout article. So, I believe this section has definitely gotten bloated in the past few days. Reading through the May 6th version, I find the older version better constructed, more concise, and more encyclopedic. We simply need to say "The majority believes Y because of reason A, B, and C. These historical people/groups also believed Y. Some protestants believe X because of these other reasons." We can't take sides. We can say who has the majority view, and we can explain their reasons. -Andrew c 15:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to Andrew's views expressed here. Would he please take a hand in editing the text. My only problem was with the to my mind POV and false suggestion that, since Greek had a word for cousin/nephew, no cousin could be called a brother in Biblical Greek. If someone had only helped to phrase better either that implicit statement or my comment on it - instead of simply reverting three times out of hand what I had written - I probably would never have looked at this section of the article again. Lima 16:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I try not to edit during content disputes until there seems to be a consensus. I apologize that I outright reverted your contribution and that it affected you so. I felt at the time (and still) that it was original research to mention contemporary Greek to support an argument dealing with Koine Greek without a specific source making the same argument. Anyway, let me think it out some and see if I can't come up with a proposal to move forward. -Andrew c 16:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem whatever. That first revert was a good one, a deserved one. It made me try to express my difficulty better. I no longer remember clearly the second one (though a glance at the History record would be enough to remind me fully). I thought the third one was quite unjustified and unexplained. Lima 16:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)