Jump to content

Talk:Presentation of Jesus

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

Proposal to merge Purification of the Virgin and Presentation of Jesus at the Temple

[edit]

The names "Purification of the Virgin" and "Presentation of Jesus at the Temple" are alternative names for the same feast, and one should just be a redirect to the other. Only one of the two can be the actual page title. I think "Presentation of Jesus at the Temple", increasingly being the main event celebrated, is the best choice.  --LambiamTalk 16:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree because someone may be looking for a reference to the former custom, and refer to the feast by "Purification of the Virgin" as I was. While it is true that the custom has been changing to "Presentation of Jesus at the Temple" this has not been historically the case. Therefore, it is best to leave the link, but not to merge the two pages. Incidentally, "Purification of the Virgin" is still in fact the reality of Mary's being able to "Present Jesus at the Temple" as Orthodox Jewish women must wait apx. 40 days/6 weeks to go to temple. I'd like to see it left as is.Mldhesg 04:29, 13 January 2007 Mldhesg 04:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)(UTC)mldhesg.[reply]

I disagree, too... I am a native of Mayagüez, Puerto Rico. My hometown's "patron saint," so to speak, is the Virgin of Candlemas. There has been so much historic significance given to the specific date of 2 February that suggesting that the reference for the Virgin Mary not be used when naming the feast is puzzling at least. I do reckon that both names depict essentially the same event.Demf 21:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree too -candlemas has varied historical and cultural associations in england which should be reflected in the entry. We should be careful not to lose the nuancing of the festival in the past (not simply associated with the purification of women)... there should be more about what candlemas meant and still means to many.

The ease with which items can be cross referenced means that the distinctive titles can be retained - but making sure that the complex uses to which Feb 2nd is put (Candlemas, Presentatation, Purification, Groundhog day, Scottish quarter day etc) can be easily accessed. ~~PJT~~

Well, I'm odd man out it seems. I agree with the proposed move. These titles all refer to one and the same thing, and a single article tracing the historical evolution - including the name - would make more sense than having to jump between two. The modern name of the feast day is "The Presentation of Christ," and it is not so difficult to make "Presentation of Jesus," "Feast of the Presentation," "The Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary," the "Purification of Mary," the "Presentation of the Lord," and "Candlemas" - phew! - redirects to a single main article. I urge others to reconsider their votes. Fishhead64 18:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I also agree on the grounds that they are two different names for the same thing, and therefore should have a single article (Note to PJT - "Groundhog Day" isn't the same thing. It's a different thing that happens on the same day). There seems to be a perception that a redirect somehow diminishes the idea that February 2 is the Purification of the Virgin. That isn't the idea. The idea is to eliminate a redundancy. In fact, I think that "Purification of the Virgin" should be the main article, and "Presentation" should redirect THERE, since that IS the name most people use (Roman Catholicism being far larger than any other group.) Carlo 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the name the RCC oficially uses, then I agree. It is the largest Christian denomination by far, and the name is one that is also alternatively used by Anglicans and other Christian groups. Fishhead64 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's the name that the RCC officially uses. As the article says, it's now trying to promote the name "Presentation" rather than "Candlemas". In the Church of England, the feast is actually called "The Presentation of Christ in the Temple (Candlemas)", so a merger of the two articles would certainly make finding out how it's celebrated in the CofE easier. I'm all for the merger (under the "Presentation" name), as it's the same feast, but with different names and different emphases. Incidentally, does anyone know what the official name for the feast now is in the official Roman Catholic English translation? DTOx 11:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be very wrong of me to merge the two and redirect the page to the "Presentation of Jesus Christ in the Temple" and redirect any possible synonyms to it? These discussions have a way of continuing interminably, and the rationales offered by opposing editors are invalid. These aren't two different festivals - they're the same festival. Fishhead64 16:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inventing a new name sounds like we're naming the page after the event "the presentation of Jesus in the Temple", which then is a distinct event from "the purification of Mary". However, if we're naming the new page after the feast (as I think we should), then I think we should find out what the official RC name for it is. Although I'm an Anglican too, we did after all derive this feast from the Catholics. DTOx 06:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles should be merged. There is no longer a celebration of the Blessed Virgin's purification. I suppose the name and emphasis was changed since the Purification is not Scriptural. Since "Presentation" is the current name of the feastday, that should be the main article. A redirect at "Purification" should be sufficient for anyone who still knows or refers to it by that name.68.65.122.80 13:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the material from Purification to Presentation on 2 February, but haven't completely ironed out the edges. —ExplorerCDT 10:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer "Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary", the traditional name of the feast, but the current Roman Missal refers to it as the "Presentation of the Lord" ("In Praesentatione Domini"). PaulGS 05:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCC Name

[edit]

Is there a source for the lead's statement that its "formal name" in the Latin Rite Church is "Presentation of Jesus in the Temple"? Because my breviary gives the name as "Presentation of the Lord". Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to this, giving the source. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican names

[edit]

Also, Misha, what was your reasoning on changing the list of what its called in various parts of the Anglican communion from a footnote to having it in the lead? I liked it the way it was more, as now the lead is largely a long list of bolded titles. How about we create a "Naming" section to put all of this [including the non-Anglican communities] in, if you dislike the footnote? Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! This much detail should certainly not be in the lead, but well down the page, whether in a section or note. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I gave it its own section. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twelfth Night

[edit]

It would be interesting to know exactly where it is recorded that the first production of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night took place on on Candlemas. Logically, if one takes December 25 as the "First Night" of Christmas, then the "Twelfth Night" is January 5. This seems probable, in that January 6 (traditionally the Feast of the Epiphany) was often considered the end of the Christmas season and of its revelries. The argument is strengthened by the fact that Twelfth Night is the only play of Shakespeare's, the title of which bears no relation to its subject matter. However, if a reliable, contemporary source records a first production on Candlemas, then this changes everything. Therefore, could you please let us know where such a record can be found!--PeadarMaguidhir (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Pagan Celebrations

[edit]

I have added footnotes regarding modern Pagan belief and the ancient origins of Imbolc. There are literally thousands of sources about modern Pagan belief. Scholarly material about the ancient Celts is harder to come by on the Net, due to the plethora of fluffy Neopagan sites--but I persevered. Berkeleysappho (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Class Rating

[edit]

I have upgraded this article to B class since I think it defenitely deserves it. This is not my area of speciality but I think that if someone fills in the necessary citations it would merit a Good Article rating. Unfortunately, it appears to have been dormant now for two years.--Tomaterols (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forty days

[edit]

Someone came along and tried to change "forty days" to "thirty-nine days", because if you actually count them all, it's 39 days from December 25 to February 2. I reverted this and added (inclusive) after the counts, because 40 days is the important number and this was the easiest, non-invasive way to explain it. Thoughts? Elizium23 (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a lot of people don't know about inclusive counting since we don't do it anymore. But it's very important for counting days between events in both Judaism and Christianity. —Angr (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL

[edit]

I figured it was best to ask here first. Am I correct that the external links for the Bible verses quoted in this artcle go against the recommended guidelines? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right. —Angr (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are generated by the {{Bibleverse}} and {{Bibleref}} templates, and it seems to me that they are specifically allowed as reference tools. (edit) in the template documentation, it says Note parentheses: (See WP:EL). Inline external links (this template links offsite) must be separated from the article text by parentheses. (Parentheses are deliberately not included in this template to allow for flexible usage). Elizium23 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you're right. I was thinking of the links in the External links section at the end of the article. —Angr (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(un-labelled comment)

[edit]

"although there is often a choice made to show only one of this and the visually similar Circumcision of Jesus"

The one of this and the visually similar is unidiomatic and obscure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 8 December 2011‎

Latha Fheill Bride

[edit]

I recently edited the gaelic term and quotation in the “Traditions and superstitions” section with this edit. These changes were reverted with the summary “rv unexplained removal of {{lang}} tags)”. To be clear, I :-
"added italics for a non-english term" as non-english terms should be italicized, per WP:MOS#Italics, and
"added italics" and "deleted redundant templates" because they don’t appear to be doing anything (and there’s nothing on this page to say what they do, either).
A further explanation of the revert would be welcome. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the italics in is OK, but not really necessary since the quotes are already visually distinct from English text (they're on separate lines, not inserted into the middle of English prose). The lang tags are there so that non-English text is marked as such in the HTML code, which is useful metainformation for things like screen readers. See the documentation of Template:Lang. Angr (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, if the templates have some wider function (is that explained anywhere BTW?). Though the lang|gd| template page has nothing on it at all to say what it does: And other language templates automatically render their content into italics, don't they? Do you know why this one doesn't? I still think the phrases ought to be in italics, though (per convention and guideline); if you have no objection I'll put them back in again. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The various {{lang-xx}} templates put their contents in italics, when the language is written in the Latin alphabet, thus {{lang-gd|latha}} renders as "Scottish Gaelic: latha". But {{lang}}, taking a language code as its first parameter, doesn't put its contents in italics, thus {{lang|gd|latha}} renders as "latha". The reason is that only the Latin alphabet should ever be written in italics at Wikipedia (and in the real world, only the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets should be). And since {{lang-gd}} specifies which language it's for, we already know that italics are OK, but {{lang}} doesn't specify what language it's for, so users have to say explicitly whether its contents are italicizable or not. As I said, I have no objection to italics here. Angr (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes sense now (and my apologies; you told me that already, and I missed it!) I've put the italics back in. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for Candlemas Day

[edit]

I am pretty sure that there was an old rhyme that went as follows:

Candlemas Day, if you be clear It shall betide a happy year

The rhyme then said something about Candlemas Day being wet and drizzly was a portent of a bad year, so I wonder whether this should be put in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

who calls it Candlemas?

[edit]

The first sentence strikes me as wrong. "The Presentation of Jesus at the Temple is an early episode in the life of Jesus that is celebrated by the Church on the holiday of Candlemas." In the RC Church there is no such thing as "the holiday of Candlemas". And isn't this backwards? Doesn't the word "Candlemas" come from candles held during the celebration of the Mass on the liturgical commemoratin of the Presentation? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odd then that the French call it "La Chandeleur". In fact Candlemas was the usual name in pre-Reformation England also. Johnbod (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Candlemas article, the candles are derived from pagan festivals that were appropriated by Pope Gelasius I. The wording makes sense in that context. Ibadibam (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Candlemas article,"the link made by Cardinal Baronius between the presentation of Jesus and Lupercalia is probably inaccurate..." and "...the Gelasian Sacramentary shows a strong Gallican influence and was actually compiled between AD 628 and AD 731, so it is possible that the addition of the celebration was not due to Pope Gelasius at all." According to Frederick Holweck, (not cited in the article) "The feast was certainly not introduced by Pope Gelasius to suppress the excesses of the Lupercalia..." [1]. I've recently read (and now can't find it) that in some places beekeepers drew the beeswax in January, and therefore, it was simply appropriate to bless the new candles in February. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lupercalia didn't involve torches or flames. That link comes from Imbolc and other pagan observances. Anyway, to get to your original question, Candlemas appears to be an English name for the observance of the Presentation, to differentiate from the Biblical episode itself. The OED gives its first written use in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 1014 (as candel mæsse). Ibadibam (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

an awful lot about the liturgical practice

[edit]

Isn't there an awful lot of material here that should be in the article about "Candlemas"? Especially since the article starts with an explicit distinction. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest we have an article about the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple, and another one about Candlemas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's already the case. I think Richardson is suggesting some content be moved to the other article. Ibadibam (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sensible - Candlemas is a rather ropey article, mostly folklore and alleged pagan antecedents. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed the other article. Why does this article's lead say "the church", and which church is meant? Germany has two names for celebrations, depending on denominations that would also call themselves "church", - Candlemas is at present no good article to cover them, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be primarily about the event, that is the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple and the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The article about the feast commemorating these events, Candlemas, should detail the liturgical celebration [for example, we have an article about the Nativity of Jesus (event) and Christmas (the liturgical feast)]. I agree with User:Richardson, User:Ibadibam and User:Johnbod that some of the information in this article can be moved there. User:Gerda Arendt, the Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran Churches, among others, celebrate this feast day (as mentioned in the infobox). I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Presentation of Jesus at the Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French name

[edit]

Is it La Chandeleur in French?

MG3207 MG3207 (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Johnbod (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

[edit]

"The Presentation of Jesus at (or in) the Temple is an early episode in the life of Jesus, describing His presentation at the Temple in Jerusalem, to be redeemed by the parents' sacrifice from His birth-state of sanctity, i.e. and predestined by His firstborn status to serve as a priest." Is this a traditional, sourced, Christian interpretation, because it includes two [understandable] confusions: between the sacrifice which would have related to his mother's status (not his) and a misunderstanding of how pidyon haben worked, and indeed still works today. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it certainly isn't, & I have restored the long-standing older version: "... in order to officially induct him into Judaism,...". Something tentative could be added lower down on pidyon haben , by someone who knows more about the subject. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Introduced here, exactly a year ago! Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is complicated stuff. Pidyon haben doesn't "officially induct" people into Judaism, which is lucky, because only a tiny minority of Jewish babies are required to have it. Can I suggest (with humility, bearing in mind my ignorance about Christian sources and traditions) this: "The Presentation of Jesus at (or in) the Temple is an early episode in the life of Jesus, describing His presentation at the Temple in Jerusalem, for his redemption as a firstborn son, ..." --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this introduction was in my opinion that it wanted to say something about the Feast of the presentation of the Lord. The feast, on the other hand, is not about the introduction of Jesus into Judaism, so I tried to change this accordingly.--Medusahead (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd take issue with the edits you've made. Our article on the feast is at Candlemas. You've stripped from the introduction any understanding now of where this comes from and what the terminology of the name means --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked it a bit, but not adding on the meaning. That I think needs better referencing (initially down below) on what the ceremony meant around the year zero. In terms of sourcing Pidyon haben jumps from the earlier books of the OT to 1565; there must be more secondary sources on this. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you want primary or secondary. If primary... that's the beauty of Jewish halachic development - codification didn't begin until the early modern period. You could go with a reference from the Mishna, which was codified not long after this period, but the Mishna is hard to cite pithily, as it assumes [a lot of] knowledge, among other problems. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 17:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt - that's why I won't be touching it with a bargepole. I meant secondary sources: NT scholars saying what the ritual was & meant at the time, not OR jumping back 1500 years. Johnbod (talk)
Sorry for rather late reply: as previously indicated, I'd rather separate the information on the episode and the information on the feast. What about

"The Presentation of Jesus at (or in) the Temple is an early episode in the life of Jesus, describing his presentation at the Temple in Jerusalem, for his redemption as a firstborn son. This is described in chapter 2 of the Gospel of Luke in the New Testament. Within the account, Luke's narration of the presentation in the temple "combines the purification rite with the Jewish ceremony of the redemption of the firstborn (Luke 2:23–24). The Feast of the presentation of Jesus Christ, that is celebrated by many churches 40 days after Christmas, is in the vernacular often called Candlemas."

Would this wording meet your requirements, Dweller, Johnbod? --Medusahead (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so - it seems rather confusing. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julian/Gregorian date

[edit]

The Gregorian/Julian date in the infobox was not incorrect, but it was confusing: 2 February on the Gregorian calendar currently falls on 15 February for Revised Julian calendar users. I've simplified it to Gregorian only; Julian users can apply their own current calculation, and the infobox won't require perpetual updates as the date shifts throughout coming decades. Elizium23 (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presentation_of_Jesus&oldid=1243901506"