Jesus becomes subject of ARBPIA

[rnu]

Ironcladded (T-C-L) went to dispute resolution over the question whether the historical Jesus lived in Judea or in Palestine.

Users added that Jesus lived "in Palestine" for the first time in the article's history in December of this year, 2 months into a brutal and divisive war in Israel and Palestine. The name of the region Jesus lived in was historically known as Judea until 132CE, when the name for the province was changed by Roman rulers to be "Syria Palestina". Users have engaged in a protracted edit war over the user of the term Palestine over Judea. The user of contemporary terms for historical figures is atypical. Caesar is a roman ruler, not an Italian one. Brasidas was a Spartan general, not a Greek one. Jesus was a Judean, not a Palestinian. Usage of contemporary terms with a politically-charged connotation is inappropriate in an article about the historicity of Jesus.

At 2:11 they were blocked for two weeks by ToBeFree (T-C-L) for editing in the ARBPIA topic without EC status.
At 2:43 they were unblocked by ToBeFree.
At 3:02 ToBeFree added a note to the log saying that "The block was incorrect".
At 5:58 they were blocked for a month by Bradv (T-C-L) for editing in the ARBPIA topic without EC status.
At 634 they reported Bradv for "misuse of moderation privileges".

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... y_of_Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... of_WP:MEAT
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1192213973
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 220#Revert

[SerkaVerduchka]

Both Jesus and my beloved Eurovision Song Contest 2024 (T-H-L) (not even hosted in Israel!) are under ARBPIA now. Oh, is nothing sacred.

[AndyTheGrump]

Both Jesus and my beloved Eurovision Song Contest 2024 (T-H-L) (not even hosted in Israel!) are under ARBPIA now. Oh, is nothing sacred.

Things allegedly being sacred (and to whom) has a lot to do with the problem in the first place...

[JarrBarr]

Jesus Christ Prophet our Messiah not the Messiah IDFK. (Jesus, I've definitely gone too far...)

[rnu]

Jesus Christ Prophet our Messiah not the Messiah IDFK. (Jesus, I've definitely gone too far...)

Jesus, adopted son of a cuck who was stupid enough to believe his "virgin" girlfriend when she said the baby was from the "holy spirit". (Did I go too far, too?)

[AndyTheGrump]

There are good reasons to suspect that the whole 'virgin' thing was a mistranslation - possibly intentional. Only two of the four canonical gospels make any mention of it.

[JarrBarr]

Jesus Christ Prophet our Messiah not the Messiah IDFK. (Jesus, I've definitely gone too far...)

Jesus, adopted son of a cuck who was stupid enough to believe his "virgin" girlfriend when she said the baby was from the "holy spirit". (Did I go too far, too?)

For this horrid blasphemy, our bodies shall forever walk on a never-ending desert tormented by flakes of fire.

At least that's what Dante said.

[Catfish Jim & spd]

There are good reasons to suspect that the whole 'virgin' thing was a mistranslation - possibly intentional. Only two of the four canonical gospels make any mention of it.

Definitely a mistranslation. I don't think it was a deliberate mistranslation... more likely an attempt by Aramaic-speaking, early Christians to fit Jesus into their paraphrased, mistranslated versions of what they thought the Prophets said about the Messiah. Matthew in particular makes a hash of his Old Testament quotations.

By the time anyone thought to check, it was too late.

[rnu]

At 14:58 Ironcladded was indeffed as NOTHERE and for disruptive editing by Bbb23 (T-H-L).

[Vigilant]

There are good reasons to suspect that the whole 'virgin' thing was a mistranslation - possibly intentional. Only two of the four canonical gospels make any mention of it.

I mean, three rich dudes arrive on the day that your 'virgin' wife is giving birth bearing gifts for the kid....

[Midsize Jake]

At 14:58 Ironcladded was indeffed as NOTHERE and for disruptive editing by Bbb23 (T-H-L).

We should probably mention that Mr. Ironcladded is clearly a "single-purpose account," created just yesterday (Dec. 27) and almost certainly a sock-puppet of an established user who doesn't want their main account to be "sullied" with an inevitable block for edit-warring. I guess you can't really blame someone who does that, but either way he should have chosen a name that was less "metal."

[Ming]

There are good reasons to suspect that the whole 'virgin' thing was a mistranslation - possibly intentional. Only two of the four canonical gospels make any mention of it.

Definitely a mistranslation. I don't think it was a deliberate mistranslation... more likely an attempt by Aramaic-speaking, early Christians to fit Jesus into their paraphrased, mistranslated versions of what they thought the Prophets said about the Messiah. Matthew in particular makes a hash of his Old Testament quotations.

By the time anyone thought to check, it was too late.

Not to rain on your parade or anything, but the Matthew passage quotes Isaiah from the Septuagint, the standard Greek translation of the day.

[lonza leggiera]

There are good reasons to suspect that the whole 'virgin' thing was a mistranslation - possibly intentional. Only two of the four canonical gospels make any mention of it.

Definitely a mistranslation. I don't think it was a deliberate mistranslation... more likely an attempt by Aramaic-speaking, early Christians to fit Jesus into their paraphrased, mistranslated versions of what they thought the Prophets said about the Messiah. Matthew in particular makes a hash of his Old Testament quotations.

By the time anyone thought to check, it was too late.

Not to rain on your parade or anything, but the Matthew passage quotes Isaiah from the Septuagint, the standard Greek translation of the day.

That's precisely where the mistranslation is supposed to have occurred. The Septuagint renders the Hebrew עַלְמָה (almah) of Isaiah 7:14 as Παρθένος (parthenos). While the latter Greek word refers specifically to a virgin, the former Hebrew one apparently doesn't.

[Catfish Jim & spd]

There are good reasons to suspect that the whole 'virgin' thing was a mistranslation - possibly intentional. Only two of the four canonical gospels make any mention of it.

Definitely a mistranslation. I don't think it was a deliberate mistranslation... more likely an attempt by Aramaic-speaking, early Christians to fit Jesus into their paraphrased, mistranslated versions of what they thought the Prophets said about the Messiah. Matthew in particular makes a hash of his Old Testament quotations.

By the time anyone thought to check, it was too late.

Not to rain on your parade or anything, but the Matthew passage quotes Isaiah from the Septuagint, the standard Greek translation of the day.

Matthew's use of what we call the "Septuagint" (the actual LXX was only the Torah) has been blamed for a lot of his approximate use of quotes. I don't buy it completely. He used other quotations that only occur in Hebrew texts. The mistranslation of almah to parthenos and Matthew's subsequent misunderstanding is obviously compelling, but I've seen it argued the other way... that parthenos was inserted into Isaiah to agree with Matthew. An interesting theory and not completely outlandish. Convenient "adjustments" of texts were not uncommon in early Christianity.

Irenaeus was aware that their preferred version of the OT texts were different from other greek translations at the end of the second century, but appears to have assumed the translation to neanis was incorrect. Origen demonstrated it was the other way round in his Hexapla about 50 years later.

[rnu]

There are good reasons to suspect that the whole 'virgin' thing was a mistranslation - possibly intentional. Only two of the four canonical gospels make any mention of it.

Definitely a mistranslation. I don't think it was a deliberate mistranslation... more likely an attempt by Aramaic-speaking, early Christians to fit Jesus into their paraphrased, mistranslated versions of what they thought the Prophets said about the Messiah. Matthew in particular makes a hash of his Old Testament quotations.

By the time anyone thought to check, it was too late.

Not to rain on your parade or anything, but the Matthew passage quotes Isaiah from the Septuagint, the standard Greek translation of the day.

That's precisely where the mistranslation is supposed to have occurred. The Septuagint renders the Hebrew עַלְמָה (almah) of Isaiah 7:14 as Παρθένος (parthenos). While the latter Greek word refers specifically to a virgin, the former Hebrew one apparently doesn't.

Here is a short blog post laying out this theory:
patheos: Debunking the Nativity: The Mistranslation of “Virgin”
See also Almah (T-H-L).

[rnu]

There are good reasons to suspect that the whole 'virgin' thing was a mistranslation - possibly intentional. Only two of the four canonical gospels make any mention of it.

And in the case of Luke there is discussion about whether the story was originally a part of the Gospel or whether it is a later addition (presumably by a different author).
See: Virgin_birth_of_Jesus#Texts (T-H-L)
That section includes a decidedly odd statement:

Matthew underlines the virginity of Mary by references to the Book of Isaiah (using the 2,200 year old Greek translation in the Septuagint, rather than the only 1,300 year old mostly Hebrew Masoretic Text) and by his narrative statement that Joseph had no sexual relations with her until after the birth (a choice of words which leaves open the possibility that they did have relations after that).
(Emphasis added)

This makes it sound like Matthew used an outdated translation. Well it is 2,200 years old now.

[Catfish Jim & spd]

There are good reasons to suspect that the whole 'virgin' thing was a mistranslation - possibly intentional. Only two of the four canonical gospels make any mention of it.

And in the case of Luke there is discussion about whether the story was originally a part of the Gospel or whether it is a later addition (presumably by a different author).
See: Virgin_birth_of_Jesus#Texts (T-H-L)
That section includes a decidedly odd statement:

Matthew underlines the virginity of Mary by references to the Book of Isaiah (using the 2,200 year old Greek translation in the Septuagint, rather than the only 1,300 year old mostly Hebrew Masoretic Text) and by his narrative statement that Joseph had no sexual relations with her until after the birth (a choice of words which leaves open the possibility that they did have relations after that).
(Emphasis added)

This makes it sound like Matthew used an outdated translation. Well it is 2,200 years old now.

Usual attempt to make it sound like the Septuagint is older therefore more authoritative than the Masoretic text, thus virgin is the correct translation for Isaiah 7:14. The suggestion is that those naughty Jews changed the text to dilute its christology. The trouble is that the Great Isaiah scroll from Qumran (circa 200 BCE) clearly says Almah, and Early Church Fathers were well aware of the problem. Justin Martyr covered it in Dialogues with Trypho in the mid first century (his argument amounts to it says virgin in the LXX and that's that).

[rnu]

There are good reasons to suspect that the whole 'virgin' thing was a mistranslation - possibly intentional. Only two of the four canonical gospels make any mention of it.

And in the case of Luke there is discussion about whether the story was originally a part of the Gospel or whether it is a later addition (presumably by a different author).
See: Virgin_birth_of_Jesus#Texts (T-H-L)
That section includes a decidedly odd statement:

Matthew underlines the virginity of Mary by references to the Book of Isaiah (using the 2,200 year old Greek translation in the Septuagint, rather than the only 1,300 year old mostly Hebrew Masoretic Text) and by his narrative statement that Joseph had no sexual relations with her until after the birth (a choice of words which leaves open the possibility that they did have relations after that).
(Emphasis added)

This makes it sound like Matthew used an outdated translation. Well it is 2,200 years old now.

Usual attempt to make it sound like the Septuagint is older therefore more authoritative than the Masoretic text, thus virgin is the correct translation for Isaiah 7:14. The suggestion is that those naughty Jews changed the text to dilute its christology. The trouble is that the Great Isaiah scroll from Qumran (circa 200 BCE) clearly says Almah, and Early Church Fathers were well aware of the problem. Justin Martyr covered it in Dialogues with Trypho in the mid first century (his argument amounts to it says virgin in the LXX and that's that).

I think in this case it is supposed to show that Matthew used a poor source. The weird thing is the implicit suggestion that he should have used a text that didn't even exist (in this form) when he was writing.

[Ming]

There are good reasons to suspect that the whole 'virgin' thing was a mistranslation - possibly intentional. Only two of the four canonical gospels make any mention of it.

And in the case of Luke there is discussion about whether the story was originally a part of the Gospel or whether it is a later addition (presumably by a different author).
See: Virgin_birth_of_Jesus#Texts (T-H-L)
That section includes a decidedly odd statement:

Matthew underlines the virginity of Mary by references to the Book of Isaiah (using the 2,200 year old Greek translation in the Septuagint, rather than the only 1,300 year old mostly Hebrew Masoretic Text) and by his narrative statement that Joseph had no sexual relations with her until after the birth (a choice of words which leaves open the possibility that they did have relations after that).
(Emphasis added)

This makes it sound like Matthew used an outdated translation. Well it is 2,200 years old now.

Usual attempt to make it sound like the Septuagint is older therefore more authoritative than the Masoretic text, thus virgin is the correct translation for Isaiah 7:14. The suggestion is that those naughty Jews changed the text to dilute its christology. The trouble is that the Great Isaiah scroll from Qumran (circa 200 BCE) clearly says Almah, and Early Church Fathers were well aware of the problem. Justin Martyr covered it in Dialogues with Trypho in the mid first century (his argument amounts to it says virgin in the LXX and that's that).

Well, it's not so simple (for one thing, the DSS Isaiah testifies to a different textual tradition than the Masoretic) but be that as it may, the article is the typical mess resulting from a tug-of-war between textual/religious skeptics and more-or-less naive believers, with positions outside these two rather caught in the middle. For example, in the lead Frederick Bruner is cited as saying that the NT narrative "rests on very slender historical foundations", which is a very strange admission in a book published by Eerdmans, and indeed some pages later Bruner makes an argument for historicity. these articles are some of the least obviously unreliable articles out there. They are cited out the wazoo, but they are typically written as though there is scholarly consensus where there really isn't-- the consensus is achieved by simply ignoring everyone who isn't an inerrantist Protestant or a Tridentine Catholic.

[Catfish Jim & spd]

Well, it's not so simple (for one thing, the DSS Isaiah testifies to a different textual tradition than the Masoretic) but be that as it may, the article is the typical mess resulting from a tug-of-war between textual/religious skeptics and more-or-less naive believers, with positions outside these two rather caught in the middle. For example, in the lead Frederick Bruner is cited as saying that the NT narrative "rests on very slender historical foundations", which is a very strange admission in a book published by Eerdmans, and indeed some pages later Bruner makes an argument for historicity. these articles are some of the least obviously unreliable articles out there. They are cited out the wazoo, but they are typically written as though there is scholarly consensus where there really isn't-- the consensus is achieved by simply ignoring everyone who isn't an inerrantist Protestant or a Tridentine Catholic.

My understanding is that the Great Isaiah Scroll is one of the DSS that is in agreement with the MT, albeit with some textual variations. But the rest of it, 100%... I don't have the energy or time to take that on.