Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus

Mary had other children

“Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him.” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭6‬:‭3‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ https://bible.com/bible/114/mrk.6.3.NKJV 41.164.33.145 (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

That is WP:POV and WP:OR. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

There's been a lot of discussion of this over the centuries. It is usually taken to mean cousins or wider kin (many cultures are still rather less precise in using kinship terms) and/or other children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. See Holy Kinship. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary rules out Mary having other children for many denominations. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I tried to add these other children, but was reverted and asked to discuss that here. Since there is/was already a discussion, this hint was kind of missleading. Anyhow, I restart thethreat and ask whether there are any reasons NOT to include the bible-mentioned children.Nillurcheier (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If we're using the Bible as our source here—from my understanding many Christians interpret the passages in Matthew and Mark in line with the perpetual virginity of Mary, i.e. that they are Joseph's children from another marriage. Understanding that stepchildren are still children, I understand it to be an "infobox isn't for this level of nuance" issue. Infoboxes are meant to be plain summaries of an article, not packed to the gills with controversies and footnotes. Remsense留 12:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there was a discussion already so nothing misleading about that revert... and as you can see from the comments above yours, there was not remotely a consensus in the discussion that we should assert Mary as having other children. As Johnbod says, the "brothers" and "sisters" attributed to Jesus in the bible are typically thought of as cousins or wider family, and to read anything else into it would be WP:OR and/or WP:FRINGE.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Biblical scholars all agree James was brother of Jesus. You are espousing specifically Catholic dogma designed to maintain the perpetual virginity of Mary in their millenia of idolatry. Laughable that anyone should presume to enforce dogma from one or any Christian denomination in an article like this. Any "debate" can be a section in the article describing why some do or do not ascribe. Of course, that would be a reasonable solution. Hardly the norm on Wikipedia where pseudo-intellectual experts expound endlessly and recruit all their little Wiki friends to back them in the argument. Further, it is not even agreed by those who believe in facts over Catholic dogma that she was a virgin. This was quite likely a mistranslation (possibly with malice and forethought to conform to what became Catholic dogma). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.137.20.57 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"Biblical scholars all agree James was brother of Jesus." One of them. We have a group article about the Brothers of Jesus:James, Joses (a form of Joseph), Simon, and Jude. Sisters of Jesus are briefly mentioned , but none is actually named in the canonical gospels. Dimadick (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2024

The infobox image, while potentially interesting to some (as per the caption, it is possibly the oldest surviving icon of Mary), it is visually quite ugly. I request that we use a different image, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lusenberg-Virgin.jpg (which is used on several other pages regarding Mary).

I don't have much experience writing alt-texts, but here's what I would write:

A sculpture of a woman wearing blue, gold and white, standing in front of a sunburst with her hands folded. Beneath her feet are a serpent and a crescent moon. At the bottom is a label reading "Tota Pulchra est Maria," or "Mary is all beuatiful." That might be a bit too long, I'm not sure what the guidelines for alt-texts are. If needed, we can always cut out the second sentence.

For the image caption:

Virgo by Josef Moroder-Lusenberg

This is the same caption used on other uses of this image, so I assume it would be fine.

I've never submitted an edit request before, so please let me know if I've done something wrong! 😀 2601:602:8800:98B:BDD4:A380:EDD2:1802 (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

See the archive, for example [1] – there has been a quite voluminous debate on this, and the image used is the result of a consensus.--Medusahead (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Many apologies. I didn't check thoroughly enough. 2601:602:8800:98B:1A9:43EE:B1AD:BAA8 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2024

Please add that Mary was of Levite descent from her mother side which makes Jesus from the house of Levite on his mother side and house of Judah on Joseph's side. Metrixexpress (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Irltoad (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Literally interpreted, the Bible says nothing about Mary's genealogy. There are two different genealogies of Joseph, but no genealogy of Mary. Nothing about her being of Levite ancestry (though, similar to what's argued at [2], all Israelites at that time were of Levite ancestry). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024

Add to Cinematic Portrayals section: The Chosen (2017 TV series), played by Vanessa Benavente. Innovationonline2018 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done --Ferien (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2024

"Per the Jewish customs surrounding marriage at the time, and the apocryphal Gospel of James, Mary was approximately 13–14 years old when giving birth to Jesus.[1] Her year of birth is therefore contingent on that of Jesus, and though some posit slightly different dates (such as Meier's dating of c. 7 or 6 BC)[2] general consensus places Jesus' birth in c. 4 BC,[3] thus placing Mary's birth in c. 18 BC."

Mary being this young is probably false, it would be more appropriate to say she was more around her late teens to early twenties (18-20). It would be more appropriate to add this or replace the original lines all together.

Here are my sources if your curious to read them.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233495632_Children_and_Childhood_in_Light_of_the_Demographics_of_the_Jewish_Family_in_Late_Antiquity

"On the basis of rabbinic sources (and ancient documents) scholars suggest that the average age of the first marriage in Palestine and the Western Diaspora was in the late teens or early twenties for women and around thirty for men" Page 330-331

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691002552/jewish-marriage-in-antiquity

"A twenty-year-old Jewish woman from Egypt who died while, apparently, betrothed us described as 'ripe for marriage like a rose in a garden nurtured by fresh rain....these sources suggest that in the Palestine and the Western Diaspora, Jewish (elite?) men might have typically married around thirty to women who were in their (mid or late?) teens" (107-108)

Also the Catholic Document you attached does not affirm it.

"It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Jospeh's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings."

This is my first time doing anything with Wikipedia so please let me know how i screwed up. Thank you.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm Tylerlikesbees (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is your original research; Wikipedia does not publish original research. Remsense诉 05:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Im Confused what you mean. I have attached sources and pages numbers. These are all from scholars. Tylerlikesbees (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, and none of them say "Mary was likely this age". That is a conclusion you've synthesized from various things you've read, which is considered original research. You need to (a) cite a source that directly comes to the conclusion itself, and (b) weigh it against the other reliable sources on the subject to determine how much weight it should be due in the article. I recommend reading the Wikipedia policy and guideline pages I've linked above. Remsense诉 06:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

As already mentioned, this is original research as none of the sources directly support this claim. Extrapolating from an average age for the region to a specific person is quite a leap. ResearchGate is also not considered a reliable source here. Jamedeus (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I understand what you mean however I still believe it would be appropriate to give a more generalized approach instead of stating a approximate age. Since all the sources do not mention a specific age for Mary also unless if i somehow missed something. Theirs also scholarly discourse on the matters of Mary's actual age and the Apocrypha. I would replace "Mary was approximately 13–14 years" to "Mary was a teen." Also the researchgate article is available on other websites. Tylerlikesbees (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The Sources i am referring to is Sources 1-3. Tylerlikesbees (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That would be based on original research. If you think a claim is not supported by its sources, I recommend putting a {{citation needed}} tag on it. Remsense诉 06:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok That works, however i still do not believe using the Apocrypha as part of the evidence is not a good idea unless scholars mostly agree which i believe in the context of the Gospel of James is not. Most churches deny the Apocrypha and so do scholars.

The source that is cited states fully also,

"It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age..."

Thus the generalization to provide a unbiased claim. Scholarly and church opinion is debated. you can look up "Gospel of James is it reliable" and get a bunch of different opinions. Tylerlikesbees (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I Am sorry i forgot the Catholic Doctrine on source 1 states " A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age" However my point still stand the Acrophya is still debated. Tylerlikesbees (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Every opinion is debated. We need sources that attest the extent of this debate explicitly. Remsense诉 07:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The first source already claims their unreliable. Do you need any additional sources? Im sorry i am brand new to Wikipedia. Please be patient with me lol

Also can you add the "citation needed" i do not believe i can add them.

For Source 1:

Tylerlikesbees (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the claim is presently adequately supported by its sources. It attributes where the estimate is from, and it provides an inline citation accordingly. If this didn't say Per the Jewish customs surrounding marriage at the time, and the apocryphal Gospel of James, then there might be a problem, but it does. If there are alternate claims about Mary specifically, they may be worth noting also. Remsense诉 07:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not know about Jewish customs surrounding marriage to comment on it, however i would reword the apocrypha part slightly differently.

Per the Jewish customs surrounding marriage at the time, and the apocryphal Gospel of James (which is debated for its legitimacy use this source)

Theirs also no need to add other sources since the source already claims its a gray area for the apocrypha's. Tylerlikesbees (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The source i provide its just a generalization of disputes of the apocrypha in general if you would like specifically for the Gospel of John let me know. Tylerlikesbees (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This gives the best general take. Tylerlikesbees (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Also I would add "Scholars suggest" to so it would look like this

"Scholars suggest, Per the Jewish customs surrounding marriage at the time, and the apocryphal Gospel of James (which is debated for its legitimacy use this source)

I'm hoping I'm not spamming anything however I believe this adequately shows a good adequate approach to it. Tylerlikesbees (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Also I would add "Scholars suggest"

How else would we know? It is often difficult to balance attributing viewpoints to inadvertently casting undue doubt on them, but I think this particular passage threads the needle fine as is. Others may disagree though. Remsense诉 10:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think adding "(which is debated for its legitimacy)" would add more context for the reader. Also the reason why I would add "Scholars suggest" is that I have never seen this approximate age represented, except outside a small handful of articles. I feel like it would be appropriate to add more sources or either add that specific sentence to the start of the article. Since the source itself listed for it is weary on its legitimacy. To avoid confusion like I have experienced. Tylerlikesbees (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)