Talk:List of names for the biblical nameless
![]() | List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 April 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of names for the biblical nameless on 15 April 2010. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of names for the biblical nameless article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Notes
I took down the architect of the Temple of Solomon, since he is indeed named in the bible- see Kings 1, Chapter 7.
I also suggest taking down Nimrod's wife, for the reason that she is not at all a biblical figure. The scriptures make no mention of such a person, not even by implication (in contrast to the patriarchs' mates, who, while not directly mentioned, their existance can be deduced from the fact their children are mentiond). The very dubious source cited makes for another concideration. Harvest day fool 18:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I Kings 7 calls him Hiram of Tyre; the full name Hiram Abif is not set forth. This is a judgment call. The legend that has Semiramis being the wife of Nimrod was something I added later, mostly on account of its notoriety. Smerdis of Tlön 20:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, he is most certainly not a nameless biblical figure. Harvest day fool 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The serpent
The unnamed serpent in Genesis is named as Satan in Revelations
70 Disciples
I don't know how to add things to articles, but there is a wikipedia article that gives a list of names of the 70 Disciples sent out by Jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventy_Disciples 128.100.110.88 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Were they not referred to as the 72 others? Sent out two by two? Should they not be included too? Yes, indeed they are in there as Seventy Disciples, But why not here on this Article Page ??
MacOfJesus (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
All the names of these were given to Maria Valtorta, if you believe that she was granted these. Her books in five volumes are popular (Centro Editoriale Valtortiano)(Grafica PieroLuigi Albery)(Copyright 1989 03036 Isola del Liri, Fr. Italy). Many of them agree with what is given in the article page. (Sorry can't quote). I highly recommend.
MacOfJesus (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The lady who offered Jesus the towel on the road to Calvary, should be added to the article page. Maria Valtorta calls her Nike. "Veronica" became to be known as veil or towel, which was called after her.
MacOfJesus (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I view "nameless", as a person who came once and "disappeared", but may have been briefly named, but nothing else. Such as Simon of Cyrene, father of Alexander and Rufus.
MacOfJesus (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
St. Philip the Apostle and the Ethiopian
Acts 8: 26-40.
This person, one of the first from the continent of Africa to be Baptised, if not the first, is not mentioned by name and should be in the article page. He was "an officer at the court of the kandake".
MacOfJesus (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Damned rich man
This is a parable of Lk 16: 19-31. It is truly stretching reason to seek the name of the rich man, "Dives", as the Latin indicates that his name means literally: rich man. Whereas Lazarus means literally: poor man.
Would you perhaps interrupt Jesus in giving the parable of the man who fell upon robbers on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem, to ask where exactly on the road did this happen, a bit like a modern policeman?
MacOfJesus (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The Martyrdom of the seven brothers and their mother
Discussion relating to deuterocanonical section
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. StAnslem, has removed this reference as it is not in the Hebrew Bible. However, it is in the Catholic Bible in the Second Book of Maccabees, a book of the Bible, Chapter 7: 1-42. I therefore ask you to return this reference. The Books of Maccabees 1&2 are essential Books of The Bible for a Catholic. Canonisity of The Bible goes back to The Council of Trent. If you treat this Article page from a narrow point of view then we should not have any entry on the page. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for coming back on this. The Deuteroconical Books plus The Book of Wisdom are for the large majority an essential part of the Bible. The History of their deletion I have mentioned already, Biblical canonisity, because of their reference to The Resurrection, and one of their clear first declaration is on the mouth of one of the seven brothers. The Book of Wisdom was never deuteroconical, and again has clear references to The Resurrection. In the first Bibles this was the first Book of The New Testament. After that I don't know where to begin? If you look at this talk page I question the name saugth for some in Our Lord's parables, as though they were real literal people, but I did not take the step of deleting the entry. MacOfJesus (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, an Encyclopaedia is meant to be comprehensive coverage of subjects. If we take things in a narrow field as standard then they militate against the very ethos of an Encyclopaedia. For if we take it that we should accept the standard as the Hebrew Bible then we should have nothing on the Gospels, Saint Paul, etc. If we take the standard to compromise, and take a middle road, this of itself negates the notion of Encyclopaedia. I would like to see an article page of Jubilees, as there is aleady one on the Gospel / Acts of Pilate, associated with the same. In fact there is such an article page. So what is so out of place in an entry here of the seven sons and mother? This article page is by its name full of unknowns; what is so out of place? As I have said already Deuteroconical is not the same as Apocryphal, and Deuteroconical Books does not / did not include The Book of Wisdom, which is not included in The Hebrew Bible. The nameless people that occur in The other Apocryphal books would not be out of place on this article page. Hence, I ask that this entry on the article page be returned, it was not out of place. Particularly so as the name is: "..Biblical nameless". Often the reason for keeping the names out, originally, was out of need to protect against persecution. This is evident in the Letter to The Hebrews or because the point being made is a contentious one. This point is particularly apt in understanding the Book of Job.
ConsensusAn Encyclopaedia is a vehicle for a comprehensive coverage of subjects. The name of this article page is: List of names for the Biblical Nameless. Removing some because the book is not in some Bibles but is in one of the largest Christian group's is truly questionable; which borders on sensorship. The page should be expanded to include Apocryphal Books too. An enquiring mind coming to an Encyclopaedia expects to find a comprehensive coverage not a consensus opinion with a narrowing of the scope of coverage. Have you studied the history of the Deuteroconical literature? Why they were deleted and by whom? And for what reason? An Encyclopaedia must be all embracing in its coverage, and its scope of coverage. This is not what "a consensus opinion" is meant to handle. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The answer is in the history of the Deuteroconical literature, why it was deleted, and for what reason. This literature belonged to the Bible originally, it is not an add-on to or a seperate from. There is no indescriminate literature here, for even in the Apocrypha, as distinct from the Deuteroconical literature, it was viewed in connection to the Books of The Bible. In the case of Gospel / Acts of Pilate it was meant to be a definite witness to the Gospels. The answer is in the reason for an Encyclopaepia. Who are we trying to protect? And from what? If the Deuteroconical literature was actually part of The Bible and was deleted, then we do need to study its history. MacOfJesus (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
So why have a Hebrew Bible list for the Biblical nameless only? Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical are utterly seperate and have a different history. There are already quite a number missing, of the nameless, as it stands, from The Hebrew Bible. I could indeed add all these, but why should I, if someone deletes the entry / entries for some arbitary reason? I could not agree for Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical, in this view, to be lumped together. They have a different definition. MacOfJesus (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
There are a number missing from the Hebrew Bible, in the article page at it stands. There are quite a number of questions of sources that Scripture Scholars have identified. Yes, I can name quite a number from all of these but I do not like the notion of others coming back and deleting my work, who have not studied the work themselves or the history. MacOfJesus (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Scripture for me is a life study. Naming just the unnamed, would be a rather simple task. But I would want to put in people who were named once and then disappeared. I would want to place in material that we are unsure of in its author. So would I be opening a can of worms? I want to study / write of Scripture from a serious point of view. So why name only the nameless? Would this make anyone study Scripture? Or satisfy curiosity only? MacOfJesus (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC) If we have not agreed on what is a Bible, then why begin in this task? MacOfJesus (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I do understand clearly. It is my personal policy not to delete other's work, but to revert (sorry, refer) to it on the talk page, etc. I think there are too many differences between us with little or no empathy, at this stage. There is little or no agreement yet, to make a working relationship. The name of the article page seems to evoke a wider field, particularly so as there is no mention, in the title, to Hebrew Bible. MacOfJesus (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1. The name of this page is: List of names for the Biblical nameless. The adjective; Biblical, certainly indicates a much wider field not a narrower one. 2. A working empathy / agreement needs to be clear, and this would appear to be common sense. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC) The Bible is The Word of God, and that for me incorporates The Deutroconical Books and The Book of Wisdom, and these in their correct places, not relegated to an appendage area. This then is a matter of conscience not a matter of concensus opinion. So I could not see a section entitled Deutroconical & Apocrypha, grouped together as one section, giving credence to them as appendages, whereas Deutroconical are an essential part of The Bible for me. I have written about these subjects already in Biblical Canonicity. I have tried to point you to the history of this. I do represent quite a large section of "the populas" in this. So we truly are "singing from different song-sheets". MacOfJesus (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
In the system viewed above in three sections: 1. Hebrew Bible, 2. Apocrypha/Deuteroconical, 3. New Testament, no provision has been made for The Book of Wisdom, an essential Book of The Bible for a Catholic and the problem of grouping Deuteroconical and Apocryphal remains. This method, therefore, excludes a Catholic. MacOfJesus (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I have written on the meaning of Deuterocanonical in the Article page Biblical Canonicity. The word goes back to the Council of Trent. It referred to a section of books that were under review at a certain stage. They were all accepted as part of the Canonical Bible, whereas, the Apocrypha were not. I do not wish to impose my opinion on anyone. I simply said that this method excludes a Catholic, that statement does not mean that I wish to impose my will on anyone. I wish to see the "mother and the seven brothers" in "the list of the Biblical nameless", but not demand it. I have not deleted any entry on the article page, or indeed in any article page, it is my policy not to. MacOfJesus (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I do understand I was not being targeted with edit-waring. However, I had to say what I said above, so everyone can see where I stand. Originally The Book of Wisdom, as I understand, was not considered as under scrutiny (deuterocanonical) at Trent approx. 1600. Now, for simplicity it can be termed Deuteroconical. The Deuterocanonical Books are all accepted (for a Catholic) as an intrical part of The Bible, whereas, Apocryphal are not. If we accept that The Bible is The Word of God, then I cannot accept this grouping. If there were a grouping Deuteroconical Books, and another Apocryphal, that would be acceptable. I can name the Books in question, and parts of other Books. There are quite a few of them. I am not blaming King James for this, he did not have these Books, of indeed the printer Thomas Guy. By the way: Thanks to all for "listening" and answereing my comments. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I would be comfortable with a section entitled: Deuterocanonical and another entitled: Apocryphal. If there are Books in exeption to that they should be delt with under a different title, as Deuteroconical or Apocryphal would not be appropriate or proper. The books that were rejected by Trent would be thermed Apocryphal. This would indeed be safe ground for the whole Exeget world. When we come to Jubilees, we would have to ask what term would be acceptable by that Church. Thank you. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. However, Deuteroconical Books are not termed Apocryphal, for a Catholic. The Biblical Apocryphal would be Books such as; Gospel /Acts of Pilate. It means that these Books (Deuteroconical) were under scrutiny at Trent, but were all accepted as Canonical, calling them Biblical Apocryphal, or part of a Biblical Apocryphal, would be unacceptable and ever offensive to a Catholic. I accept your point, Radagast, that the rejected Books of Trent should not be termed Apocryphal. Hence a good beginning would be to list The Apocryphal literature, and keep Books that are accepted by a Church seperate. If this issue was cleared up, I would be willing to go through them and others to find entries. Further up this page I have discovered a few, and there are a few more. However, the vastness of all the literature involved would mean it would have to be divided up. Too, this area, to be cleaned up would indeed be quite rewarding for we would be "making history"! This should have been done years, even centuaries ago. Persevere, the rewards are good. (God is on your side). {sorry, humour, better than cookies any day}! MacOfJesus (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC) (On a seperate note: Til Eulenspiegel, I have left a note at the end of your page: Religious narratives as a sacred canon, regarding myth, which I have come across in other studies, you may be interested in). MacOfJesus (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree. Take for instance The Gospel / Acts of Pilate. This almost indepentant witness to The Gospel / To The Christ is perhaps invaluable, and deserves the name; Biblical. So many today want independant witness to the fact of Christ. The totally independant witness Pleny and Pleny the Younger would not be Biblical. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The name of this article incorporates the word Biblical, that is anything pertaining to Bible. I have not objected to definition of Hebrew Bible just a seperate one for both Deutroconocal and Apocryphal,seprately. The purely Catholic opinion woud be to see Bible including Deutroconical Books in their correct place in The Bible, as they are an intrical part of it. So I have conceded ground. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I am not overly familiar with Acts of Pilate, or it's history. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Therefore, I can see a clear way forward: 1. The Hebrew Bible 2. The New Testament 3. Deutroconical Books and literature (As parts of the Book of Daniel are here). 4. Apocryphal I think covers everything? MacOfJesus (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that it is important to have them. For they give another witness. And secondly we cannot be 100% certain of their value. I do not define Apocryphal as despensable. The dictionary: "(of a story) of questionable authority". If Encyclopaedia is meant to be a comprahensive cover, then why not. Why is there a need for an economy of space/type/megabytes? I think they are entitled to the term Biblical, to a greater or lesser extent. They should not come under the title Deuteroconical as this term, used by Trent 1600, to describe those Books that were to be decided on at the second stage of definition, when Apocryphal was "left behind". MacOfJesus (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Why don't one of you just get an RfC already.. might be easier to get consensus if you get input from more people.. just use
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
The Name of the page
The Name of the page changed (April 15, 2010), from: List of Biblical nameless, to: List of names for Biblical nameless, even as I was placing in entries!
MacOfJesus (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, the name hasn't changed. It's had this name since 2003. Rather, an AfD discussion, which you were part of, closed with a consensus to merge relevant content from List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible) into this article. See the top of this page. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Woman taken in adultery
I removed this passage from Woman taken in adultery:
- Name: Naomi
- Source: The Spear by Louis de Wohl
- Appears in the Bible at: John 8
- De Wohl's historical novel tells the story of the centurion who pierced Christ's side. Named Cassius Longinus, he falls in love with a young Jewish woman named Naomi who is married to a much older rich merchant. She is convicted of adultery and sentenced to be stoned, but is saved by Christ.
The article's opening limits it to names from tradition, so I didn't think a characterization from a 20th-century novel would count. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- And to comment on my own comment, I don't think "tradition" should just mean "Judeo-Christian", so have added Islam to the specs. Otherwise, Bilqis wouldn't fit in, and that's the most popular name for the Queen of Sheba, in my experience. And while The Book of Mormon is relatively modern, it describes genuine belief tradition, so I should think it belongs. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Mother of WHO?
I removed the assertion that Zuleikha was the mother of Joseph's eventual wife. She is stated as the daughter of Potipherah, not of Potiphar. I also scaled back the assertion that he found her charms tempting. Marc W. Abel (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Moses' wife
Under the information about Moses' wife, the paragraph then switches and begins talking about Abraham's women. This is confusing - should this section only talk about Moses, and then another section talk about Abraham? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlbail01 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Young man running from Gethsemane in Mark 14
"51 A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked." I suppose this young man to be Mark himself, but have no evidence. Anyone? Cgmusselman (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of names for the biblical nameless. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101129031511/http://scoes.org/adah.htm to http://www.scoes.org/adah.htm
- Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvTobi.sgm&images=images%2Fmodeng&data=%2Ftexts%2Fenglish%2Fmodeng%2Fparsed&tag=public&part=12&division=div1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of names for the biblical nameless. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://archive.is/20130226033055/http://www.avbtab.org/rc/read/nod.htm to http://www.avbtab.org/rc/read/nod.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Rodkinson Talmud
I am in the process of replacing references to the tractates of the Talmud published by Michael Levi Rodkinson in the early 1900s. This incomplete translation, which he farmed out to itinerant students, was notoriously bad. There are much better ones available, at least one of which is out of copyright. I stress that discrepancies between Rodkinson's work and other ones is not a matter of opinion: there is literally no dispute over the extent that his work has so many misreadings, mistranscriptions, and mistranslations as tyo make it actually useless. Joe in Australia (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)