Talk:Ecclesia and Synagoga

Very Good!
Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Pope Francis
... for visiting that new statue... otherwise, we wouldn't have known about it. &mdash; Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 01:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Ecclesia and Synagoga → Ecclesia et Synagoga – (Edit for clarity) This is an article about the antisemitic medieval church pairing of Ecclesia et Synagoga. The name in sources that is used to discuss this topic is normally "Ecclesia et Synagoga" - that is the "common name". From what I can tell, the page was moved from this title without discussion in 2012. While I can understand the reasoning cited ("no need for Latin"), the "no Latin" version of this would be "Church and Synagogue", not the one third English, two thirds Latin phrase "Ecclesia and Synagoga" which is used, but relatively infrequently, as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, "Church and Synagogue" is also, as far as I know, not a (commonly?) used term in relation to the medieval Latin anti-Semitic images referred to in this topic, and is also somewhat ambiguous as a result. See Google Books search for "Ecclesia et Synagoga" vs "Ecclesia and Synagoga". Post script: See list of citations for use of this form below. Jim Killock (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support . One third English, two thirds Latin is just awkward. There is no reader who will understand the phrase with 'and' but not 'et'. Srnec (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Revising to oppose per Johnbod's comments below. Ecclesia and Synagoga are indeed mostly treated as two distinct figures in art. When I think of the Ecclesia–Synagoga pair I am more likely to think of literary treatments like Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae, but they are more important in art history. Srnec (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the article is discussing the medieval antesemitic pairing, primarily, with examples of separate depictions as background information. See the definitions of Ecclesia et Synagoga listed in the citations below.
 * The article here says "Ecclesia has an earlier history, and in medieval art Synagoga occasionally appears alone in various contexts, but the pair, or Ecclesia by herself, are far more common." In the sources, similarly, the discussion is about the conjuction of the two figures. If Synagoga is encountered alone, that is particularly unusual. Thanks for being open minded on this in any case. Jim Killock (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Oppose the ghits comparison is ridiculous - most of the "et" hits are a) in Latin and/or b) refer to one or more medieval Latin tracts actually called Ecclesia et Synagoga. The most on-target source here is Rowe, Nina, The Jew, the Cathedral and the Medieval City: Synagoga and Ecclesia in the Thirteenth Century, 2011, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-19744-9, ISBN 978-0-521-19744-1, google books. I don't believe for a moment that "The name in sources that is used to discuss this topic is normally "Ecclesia et Synagoga"" - I think you are getting mixed up with the texts, none of which are covered in the article. For example: Murray, Peter and Linda, The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture, 1996, OUP, ISBN 0198661657 - their entry is under "Ecclesia and Synagoga". Schiller, Gertrud, Iconography of Christian Art, Vol. II, p. 111, 1972 (English trans from German), Lund Humphries, London, ISBN 0853313245 uses "Ecclesia and Synagogue". The two are individual named figures, typically found together, but by no means always, as the article explains. Most sources with any detail discuss the two individually, and it is ridiculous and "just awkward" to keep jumping from Latin to English. You might use the same logic to push for Castor et Pollux (oh well, that's a French opera - the main article is of course at Castor and Pollux) or Cupid et Psyche. Is there any other article title on Wikipedia where two Latin names in an article title are treated this way? What happened to WP:USEENGLISH? There is one article title in German that uses "et" and is picked up in a lot of footnotes and bibliographies, that distorts the "et" ghits. The article says at the start it is specifically about "a pair of figures personifying the Church and the Jewish synagogue, that is to say Judaism, found in medieval Christian art", and the usage relevant to that alone is what matters here. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are certainly some that use ecclesia and synagoga, but I had never heard it used before I stumbled on the WP article.
 * The article here discusses the antisemitic concept of the pairing, which is normally but not always referred to as Ecclesia et Synagoga. WP often uses whole Latin phrases, how about "Cogito, ergo sum", or "Caveat emptor"? Or the very many (other) legal or scientific articles that use Latin phrases; the question is whether the concept within the literature usually uses a particular formulation as per WP:COMMONNAME.
 * For example
 * (and various other journal articles by Joe Hillaby);
 * Ecclesia et Synagoga. In Encyclopedia of Jewish History and Culture Online, 2017;
 * Ecclesia in Via: Ecclesiological Developments in the Medieval Psalms Exegesis and the Dictata Super Psalterium (1513-1515) of Martin Luther By Scott H. Hendrix · 2022 "Tracing the popular Ecclesia et Synagoga (church and synagogue) motif over time reveals the increasingly pronounced negative valuation of Judaism." p. 339
 * Multiculturalism, Globalization, and Antisemitism, The British Case By Efraim Sicher · 2009; p. 14 "Ecclesia et Synagoga, which represented the notion that the Jews were blind to the coming of the Christian messiah and perversely followed an unacceptable and satanic belief"
 * The Medieval Roots of Antisemitism: Continuities and Discontinuities from the Middle Ages to the Present Day 2018. Jonathan Adams, Cordelia Heß "Ecclesia et Synagoga motif (the two religions — the Church and Judaism - represented by two women, one triumphant and one defeated and blindfolded) is most often found on the façades of thirteenth - century German churches"
 * A History of Judaism and Christianity Towards Healing of the Original Wound of Division Donald Swenson 2021 "Ecclesia et Synagoga, artforms, were socially constructed"
 * Encyclopaedia Judaica: A-Z, Ed: Cecil Roth (1972) Ecclesia et Synagoga
 * The Jew's Daughter A Cultural History of a Conversion Narrative By Efraim Sicher, Noa Sophie Kohler, 2017 "Ecclesia et Synagoga represents the dispute between the triumphant Church" p. 39
 * Everyman's Judaica An Encyclopedic Dictionary 1974 "Ecclesia et Synagoga, name given to representations symbolizing the victory of Church over Synagogue"
 * Searching for My Brothers: Jewish Men in a Gentile World Jeffrey K. Salkin 2000; Page 92 "Ecclesia et Synagoga "the Church and the Synagogue." The Church, Christianity, was portrayed as a beautiful, erect woman. The Synagogue, Judaism, was portrayed as a blindfolded woman with a broken sword"
 * The Bible and Civilization Gabriel Sivan (1974) p342 "Ecclesia et Synagoga motif (contrasting the "enlightened" Church with the obstinately "blindfold" Synagogue) was prominent in Christian art of the Middle Ages"
 * Journal articles, dissertations, etc
 * Lapidus, Daniel Roy. 2023. Visualizing Supersessionism: The Case of Ecclesiae et Synagoga. Master's thesis, Harvard Divinity School. https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37376434
 * "Unveiling the Obvious—Synagogue and Church: Sisters or Different Species?" Synagogue and Church "A famous motif in Medieval Christian iconography is the sculptural couple: Synagoga et Ecclesia."
 * If there is a divide, it would appear it is between history articles, theology and antisemitism studies on the one side and art history on the other, by the look of the sources. In which case, the question would be, should the title follow practice by one field, or the majority of fields? Jim Killock (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said above "The article says at the start it is specifically about "a pair of figures personifying the Church and the Jewish synagogue, that is to say Judaism, found in medieval Christian art", and the usage relevant to that alone is what matters here." It is an art-historical article, and should follow that, not to mention WP:USEENGLISH (as you say above, nobody much uses "Church and Synagoga"). Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that so far mainly art historical sources have been consulted, rather than that they are the only sources or commentary relevant to the topic of these two figures. The categories include Supersessionism; Christianity and Judaism; Christian terminology; Christian iconography; Personifications; Christian anti-Judaism; Jews and Judaism in art. The relevant projects include: Visual arts; Christianity; Judaism; Jewish history; Middle Ages. Jim Killock (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Of these at least: Christian iconography; Personifications; Jews and Judaism in art fall under "art history", and specialist sources on the first and last at least are used. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. They're two personifications called by Latin names in English; that's no reason for the conjunction "and" to be in Latin as well. Ham II (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the nominator thinks the links to Google Books searches show, because Google Books Ngram Viewer shows "Ecclesia and Synagoga" being used more frequently than "Ecclesia et Synagoga". Ham II (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; clearly it's just my bias in what I've read. We can stop there and I will withdraw my request. Jim Killock (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Not bothered by the hybrid language term, these things do exist from time to time. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the status quo that has both Latin and English words and the proposed move that has only Latin; was that !vote meant to be an Oppose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ham II (talk • contribs) 08:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but after 10 days, this is the only support (if that's what it is) so time to close this. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

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.

Italicisation of Latin
Whatever we do with the title, it is generally regarded as best practice to italicise Latin or non-English terminology. Both Ecclesia and Synagoga are non-English and typically italicised in the sources. Thsi article should in my view follow suit. This would also help with accessibility, if screen readers are given instructions to pronounce the words as Latin. Jim Killock (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This is now done. I spotted one extra Latin word in the text and will give it a further check. Jim Killock (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Italicisation of "Crucifixion"
I didn't mark Crucifixion or Crucifixions as Latin because AIUI this is an English word; the Latin being Crucifixio, Crucifixionis, nom pl Crucifixiones. So I'm not sure why it's Italicised but thought it better to leave it as is. If someone knows the rationale that would be helpful to know. --Jim Killock (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Blank scrolls
Scrolls are mentioned here, but AIUI these are usually presented as blank, in order to convey Jewish "inability" to understand the word of God contained within them. Will try to find source explaining this. Jim Killock (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hostility narrative
This is correct, that the hostility presented in the pair peaked in the 1180-1450 period, but it doesn't seem to be Nina Rowe vs the traditionalists making this point. Edwards 1955 says it, and cites an Italian source from 1901 making the same point. So I think this is better portrayed as widely understood if possibly not the common perception rather than a new outlook brought up in the last few years. Jim Killock (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)