Talk:Mary, the mother of Jesus

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)

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)

Contents

1 Mary, Mother of God 2 Mary in Art 3 Mary and Shakespeare 4 Mary's geneology 5 Bitter

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)

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)

Bitter

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