Talk:Perpetual virginity of Mary/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dates for Mary's life

The usual date for the birth of Jesus is 4 BC. It's also generally agreed that Mary would have been no younger than 13 at the time, as 12 was the usual age of marriage. That would mean Mary would have been born no earlier than 17 BC. And that in turn would mean she would have died about 53 AD, assuming she lived to be seventy. The Gospel of James was written about a century later, around 150. Is this right?Achar Sva (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Anne Catherine Emmerich says that she was age 14 at the Annunciation, and that she lived about twice 6 years after his death. Octavius2 (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me.Achar Sva (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources

User:Octavius2 - I know you're sincerely trying to improve the article, but the Bible is just about the definitive example of what is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. It's a primary source, and if you quote it tyo make a point or argument, you're doing original research. Start this conversation with me and I'll help you find what you want. (WHichj is, the bible passages cited by the Church). Achar Sva (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know about how Primary sources are to be used, but now I do, and so I can accept removing my thick analysis/interpretation. However, I do still think that there should be a place to just list the key Biblical quotes, without any analysis. I'm envisioning something like . . .

"The following key scriptural texts are frequently adduced in support of Mary's perpetual virginity.

• Songs of Songs 4:12 - "A garden locked, . . . [etc.]"
• Ezekiel 44:2 - "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be . . . [etc.]"
• 2 Samuel 6:6-7 - "Uzzah put out his hand to the ark . . . "
• Rev. 11:19-12:5 - "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened,. . . [etc.]"
• Tobit 3:7-8 - "she had been given to seven husbands, and the evil demon Asmode′us had slain each of them before he had been with her as his wife."

I would even be willing to put it into 2-or-3-column Table-format. Octavius2 (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, you are going to have to give up that statement that "there is no biblical basis for the idea of her perpetual virginity." That's badly misleading. Legitimate "bases" (plural of basis) don't just include (1) solid bases, within the scripture's literal sense, but also include (2) lose bases, within the scripture's figurative/symbolical/typological sense. And, as I've shown here, there is plenty of the latter: 5 separate verses! Octavius2 (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The thing about sources is that we're meant to use secondary sources - some scholar says X, and we say the same, but in our own words, and put a source tag. (Good idea to make sure that the key words are actually those the source uses). In this case, there'll be good secondary sources in the bibliography (avoid the Protestant ones, naturally - they can be quite fair on many points, but not, I think, on this). Try Maunder's piece in the Oxford Handbook of Mary for starters. And I think you'd be justified in starting a new section, maybe immediately after Doctrine. Incidentally, I'm sure I've seen all those verses mentioned somewhere, but I can't remember where. I'll stop editing now to give you some space (but give me ten minutes to fix a red link that I accidentally created) Achar Sva (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Ok, finished, it's all yours. Achar Sva (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Re Boisclair and "no statement" or whatever she says: if you feel this is wrong: (1) first, check to see if this really is a reliable source. If Boisclair is an academic, and it was published in, say, the last 20 years, then it's a reliable source and you can't just delete it; (b) if you can't delete it, then search to see if other reliable sources say the opposite; if not, then, well, that's that; (c) think about what the source actually means. In this case, I think Boisclair means that there's no DIRECT statement, which would be true (no such statement in the New Testament); but, the Church holds that there are these inferred statements. So that makes Boisclair the idea starting point for the material you want to add. And now I'm off to watch TV. Achar Sva (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree she's counts as a "reliable source", so you (or eventually I) can and will probably re-add it, but then it's going to be embarassingly contradicted by my chart, right above it, which shows Church Fathers' discovery of "Basis" within the symbolism of the Old Testament. What she actually meant? I agree with you that she was trying to say that there's "no DIRECT statement" (our Catholic word would be-- no 'literal' statement) of Mary's Ever-Virginity within the New Testament, as nearly her whole discussion was dissecting the New Testament alone. However, she did trespass briefly into the Old Testament, in her (in my opinion) irrelevant foray into "Virgin Israel," which proves nothing, and so she ultimately erred by implying and claiming (in your "No Biblical basis" quote) that she had also adequately surveyed the Old Testament, too, when, in reality she hadn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octavius2 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Octavius2 - "Although Mary's perpetual virginity is nowhere attested in the literal sense of scripture, yet, several Church Fathers would ultimately see it symbolically prefigured in several Old Testament verses' typological senses". I think this sentence that you added is correct, but it really needs a source (meaning a tag tracing it to a book by a scholar), otherwise it can be deleted by someone with some comment about being original research. But I like what you're doing. Achar Sva (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Combative tones

Hey, so I noticed that these Catholic articles have combative tones, more or less, and I think the common denominator is @Achar Sva:. I don't know the background, but I think a more diverse editing team is needed than just a single person. --70.24.84.148 (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Achar Sva is a highly competent and highly learned editor. He is the most informed Wikipedian in respect to mainstream Bible scholarship. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware that the articles are combative - they simply rely on scholarly sources. Achar Sva (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I do not know him and thus, am not qualified to comment on their qualifications. I am not assuming bad faith on their part. I am just stating what I see. Every article that had this similar tone, involved Achar Sva making major reforms to the layout of the articles. Now, @Achar Sva: could maintain that the tone isn't combative, it's just that everyone prior to him was unscholarly, but I state what I see. I think regardless, everyone can agree that a monopoly on the article is not a good thing --174.88.213.73 (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You will find Catholic articles in the Catholic encyclopedia, not here. Springnuts (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

my edit

Apparently the information I added has caused some controversy so it should be discussed here ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

My edit

I changed a sentence that has been a point of contention for some time. I hope my wording is sufficient for everyone. Feel free to revert if you'd like. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I see the dispute is still ongoing. I have removed two unreliable sources. However, I disagree with Achar Sva's other changes. Is there any reason why we can't include the work of Raymond E. Brown or John P. Meier? Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Potatín5 Do you have anything to contribute to this dispute? Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Scorpions13256: This source [1] may be a valid substitute for the sources you deleted, as it exposes the same arguments for the doctrine but in a more scholarly format. What do you think about it? Potatín5 (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's worth a shot. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Potatín5 in case he hasn't received the message. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have. Potatín5 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Scorpions13256: How do you view my recent edit? Potatín5 (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Potatín5 I think it's fine. Thanks. However, I would also like to see what Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier had to say about all of this in case not everyone is satisfied. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia

@Pbritti: Please do not needlessly antagonize the experts. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Not sure what you're referring to, considering the "expert" in question has already be soundly told off for this specific behavior before. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit there are things we ought not use CE for (references to "backward Abyssinians" in liturgical articles come to mind). However, the scholarly merit of CE on matters of simple historic fact, such as the one AS removed, are unfounded. Don't needlessly antagonize your peers, tgeorgescu. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Pbritti , what precisely are you referring to? Achar Sva (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You may refer to the over half-dozen editors who have challenged your understanding of reliable sourcing directly on your talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

A half-dozen devout Catholic editors, whose offense at having their preconceptions challenged is an understandable but not a convincing reason for regarding 5th century Catholics as reliable on matters of history. Achar Sva (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The only place where the article is citing the CE is in a place where it is noted that Hegesippus may have disputed the dogma. I do not know how someone can describe that claim as a product of 'confessional bias' (I mean, what is biased in that statement?). Potatín5 (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

3RR exemption

Reverting vandalism is 3RR exemption. While having another POV can be accepted, wholesale deletion of sourced information can't. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)