Talk:Seed of the woman

Seed of the woman
"and the phrase "Seed of the woman" is sometimes counted as one of the titles of Jesus in the Bible.[7]"

This seems like a weak reference and claim. Gal 4:4 seems to come the closest, but I don't see much of a connection between the "seed of the woman" in Gen 3:15 and a title of Jesus. At least, it's really hard to find allusions to this verse in the NT authors, much less a direct title. Yekcidmij (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I suggest that Protevangelium be merged into this article (Seed of the woman). Both articles discuss the same Bible verse, only Protevangelium does so from an exclusively Protestant Christian perspective, while Seed of the woman is wider in scope. I think most of Protevangelium's content could be merged into the #Christ subsection of this article, which is currently underdeveloped. Dan from A.P. (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I went ahead since there were no objections. Dan from A.P. (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Dan from A.P., I support the merge, but the article title should be "protoevangelium", as that's the normal scholarly useage. Achar Sva (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead
"The seed of the woman or offspring of the woman is an unnamed person or community of people prophetically referred to in the biblical Book of Genesis. " Doesn't seem like a correct expression.

according to the view that it refers to all mankind, it would be neither a person, or a community of people, i also am not familiar with any views that suggest it refers to a community of people. I suggest changing to to say "The seed of the woman or offspring of the woman is a phrase used in biblical Book of Genesis." the rest of the lead still explains the views.

Please let me know if there are objections, or better alternatives, thanks. Prof.Silas (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Judaism" section of the article explains that the rabbinic view is to take it as a plural. I don't think "community" is the right word, though - "group" might be better. StAnselm (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * StAnselm and Prof.Silas, I've made the suggested change (have I understood the suggestion correctly?), but I think the article needs to be rewritten using much more recent scholarly sources. Anselm, are you interested in doing this? Achar Sva (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that seems a bit premature - I wasn't agreeing to the change. In general, the article should be about the thing rather than the phrase. StAnselm (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Achar Sva yes thats what I meant thank you very much. I agree
 * @StAnselm I agree that it would be better to phrase it about the thing not the phrase, I don't think group would quite fit (because the view is that it represents all of Eve's decedents, ie everyone)... maybe
 * "The seed of the woman or offspring of the woman is a subject referenced to in the biblical Book of Genesis."
 * or:
 * "The seed of the woman or offspring of the woman is a subject mentioned in the biblical Book of Genesis, believed to refer to either all of mankind or an specific unnamed descendant of Eve."
 * also as a separate note I think it would be good to add the Hebrew like this "The seed of the woman or offspring of the woman (Hebrew: זַרְעָהּ, "her seed"), is a subject..." Prof.Silas (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * St, what do you mean by "the thing"? I ask this because, so far as I can see, there's only the phrase. Achar Sva (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The referent, in this case. Who or what was it referring to, and how has that been understood. StAnselm (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

and, I've added a new lead sentence/definition to the article and kept the old one for comparison; I'd also like to revert the article title to Protoevangelium as this is the common academic usage; what do you think?Achar Sva (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , you didn't sign this, so the ping didn't work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks my friend, I have corrected my error. Achar Sva (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Achar Sva imo the new sentence works much better in the Christianity section, I think the lead should just briefly describe the positions and i think it worked better the other way so i reverted. Prof.Silas (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if the article was only referring to the Christian view, Protoevangelium would make sense, but seeing other faiths don't accept "זַרְעָהּ" as a protoevangelium, I think the current title is more neutral, and a redirect from protoevangelium works well. Prof.Silas (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)