Talk:Annunciation

message: The Annunciation is when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that God wanted her to be the mother of Jesus, God's son. Mary said yes, I am the hand maiden of the Lord God. Mary was chosen to be the mother of Jesus, because she was made free of original sin sense she consieved in her mothers womb, because God would not want his Son Jesus to be in a dirty womb.
By: Katelyn Coho
St. Elizabeth Elementary School
vbsgfsgfsdg
What's that 12 in the section The Annunciation in the Bible at the end of verse 34? --ExterayT.C 01:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: It looks like this is the page for the Christian holiday, as well as for the event it commemorates. (i.e. Feast of the Annunciation redirects here.)
Should the page have a holiday infobox, like Christmas and Easter do? It's a fairly important holiday in more traditional Christian denominations--not up there with Christmas and Easter, but up there with, say, Transfiguration.
If I don't hear any objections, I'll make it myself. If we ever split the holiday into its own page, we can move the infobox there. -- Narsil (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add holiday infobox? 

message: The article states that the annunciation date was selected because it was nine months before Christmas.  The Christmas article says that Christmas may have been selected because it was nine months after the annunciation.  This is an obvious, circular argument.  The Christmas article also proposes several other explanations for the December 25th date.  Anyone with a reliable source that sheds some light onto this is invited to add this information.  For example, the NT passage cited in this article states "...in the sixth month...".  I think a brief description about the month to which this passage references would be most useful.  Rklawton (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Persoally, I don't have time to do research on this, but years ago I saw a PBS documentary that discussed multiple explanations of the theories about the date for Christmas with no clear winning entry. Hence I am not sure if that issue can be settled anyway. History2007 (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, I'd be more interested in learning about how the date was set for the annunciation.  Rklawton (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess: they set Christmas first, then counted 9 months. But I have no references. History2007 (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Date

message: Back on 25 February 2006 (User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlanajo) changed the lead image with this comment:
added a more representative image, moving El Greco's hysterical picture to the left. 
This editor delievered a passing insult to the art of El Greco, and the previous editor who selected that picture. Ghirlandajo's choice of the famous Annunciation Icon from Ohrid is a fine and justifiable choice. 
However, every editor who has looked at this page and added to it or tweaked it since then has permitted Ghirlandajo to get away adding a caption that is totally meaningless to anyone except a student of the art of Orthodox Icons. 
A key piece of the Paleologan Mannerism - the Annunciation icon from Ohrid. 
Editors, do you realise that the term "Paleologan Mannerism" refers to a specific style of icon? Has such a specialised caption got any place in the heading of an article which is not specifically about icons, not specifically about Byzantine painting?  The caption has been taken from another website. 
Why has it taken nearly two years for someone to object to the extremely obscure and unlinked information that has been placed under the lead photo? Amandajm (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think it was a big deal. The El Greco comment was not within the article, and it would have been best to have a link to the Byzantine page. But in any case, only a 0...5% difference to teh article content in my view. No big deal really in my view. History2007 (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead picture

message: What is your reference that the Catholic tradition holds that the Annunciation took place in a desert? I've been a Catholic all my life and a priest for 35 years and never heard that one. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article seems to say Nazareth. I do not see desert in the article. History2007 (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the desert? 

message: In Christianity, the term God is widely understood to mean Holy Trinity. The article should perhaps explain the trinitarian character of the Annunciation. For instance, since dogmatic theology identifies Jesus as the pre-existing Word of God, it is almost as if He sent the angel himself to see Mary. It is also important to identify the proper role of the Holy Spirit in this event, since the Holy Spirit is actually high above the angelic rank of Gabriel in the annunciation narrative. Finally, it would also be relevant to describe the theological role of God the Father in the gospel story. ADM (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Holy Trinity

message: The disambiguation page leading to this article indicates that it is about the Annunciation, a event which occurred in the first century.  One more editors of the article seem to have confused it with the Feast of the Annunciation, an annual observance commemorating that event.  References to each or mixed in a confusing way.
Failure to distinguish between events and the holidays which commemorate them continues in the discussion of dates.  This is a problem because the dates of the celebrations can be identified with certainty, but the dates of the events which they celebrate cannot.
Chappell (talk)
Chappell (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about Article Topic 

message: Please compare the revisions of 18 December 2009 and 27 December 2009. Is it just me or do the changes lend to confusion rather than increase clarity? Particularly, the inclusion of the Iranian New Year seems completely non-germane to the article. Also, the Celtic reference is unsubstantiated and IMO the entire paragraph doesn't scan as smoothly as it did. Comments? Xrysostom (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary Information Added? 

message: The Annunciation is observed from very early on in the Christian calendar, probably predating Christmas. Thomas J. Talley, the great Anglican American liturgical scholar, in his definitive study "The Origins of the Liturgical Year"(2nd ed 1991, Liturgical Press) built on the work of Louis Duchesne in the 19th century in arguing that the origin of 25 March date for the Annunciation lies in Jewish tradition. Talley notes the cyclical nature of historical thinking in Jewish tradition and rabbinic thought. He notes in particular the tendency to celebrate births and deaths, beginnings and endings, etc. on the same day of the year, either on 14 Nisan (i.e. Passover) or at Tabernacles in Tishri. 
Talley argues that the overwhelming importance of 14 Nisan as Passover in Jewish and Christian tradition made it the obvious choice for Christians to choose as the date for the beginning of their own story - i.e. the Annunciation. 14 Nisan when translated from the Jewish lunar calendar becomes 25 March in the solar calendar. Hence the date, on which the dating of Christmas on 25 December is therefore dependent.   
Talley cites an early Christian tractate, 'De solstitiia et aequinoctia conceptionis et nativitatis domini nostri iesu Christi et iohannis baptista', which, evoking the tradition that the angel Gabriel appeared to Zechariah <U>in the Holy of Holies when he was serving as high priest on the Day of Atonement</U>, would have placed the conception of John the Baptist <U>during the feast of Tabernacles</U> and his birth nine months later at the time of the summer solstice. Since Luke's gospel states that the angel Gabriel appeared to the virgin Mary in the sixth month after John's conception, this would place the conception of Christ at about the time of the spring equinox, i.e., at the time of the Jewish Passover and his birth at the time of the winter solstice. This would mean that the early Christian community had modified the earlier Jewish tradition to associate the beginning of the lives of both John the Baptist and of Christ with their conception, rather than with their births. He quotes the 'De solstitiia' as explicitly stating this in an almost laconic way:
:"Therefore, our O Lord was conceived on the eighth of the calends of April in the month of March, which is the day of the passion of the Lord and of his conception. For on the day that he was conceived on the same he suffered."
Talley notes that Augustine was also aware of this tradition and cites it in his De Trinitate IV,5.The Origins of the Liturgical Year (New York: Pueblo Publishing Company, 1986) 91-99. Talley also points out that a similar tradition of dating of the passion and death of Christ on April 6 in the Eastern Church gives one the date of January 6 as the day of Christ's birth, a tradition which lasted long in the Eastern Church, especially in the Jerusalem Church and is still the day celebrated as the Nativity of Christ in the Armenian Church.
<BR clear=all />
 Temporary Reference section for above:
</TD></TR></TABLE>
The section entitled "The Origins of the Feast" was first added to the article 10 May 2009.
Section renamed to "Theories on the Origins of the Feast" 11 May 2009.
There was an uncommented change tagged "references removed" 29 November 2010.
Google books preview of the Talley book is found at: The origins of the liturgical year By Thomas J. Talley<BR>
In the Google preview, the main part of his arguments are on pages 91 thru 99, with the "Holy of Holies" claim on page 137, and footnotes numbered 21 to 28 on page 156.
The claim that Zacharias was "in the Holy of Holies when he was serving as high priest on the Day of Atonement" is totally bogus. Zacharias was an ordinary priest ministering "in the order of his course" (Luke 1:8) at the altar of "incense" (Luke 1:11) which is outside the vail. Zacharias was of the course of "Abia" (Luke 1:5) called "Abijah" in 1Chronicles 24:10 where it is the "eighth" of the twenty-four courses. Each course served one week at a time, twice a year, and all the priests served on the two one-week-long feasts, Unleavened Bread, and Tabernacles. The time of Zacharias' ministry would be either eight weeks after the spring feast of unleavened bread, or eight weeks after the autumn feast of tabernacles.
The claim that John's conception would have been "during the feast of Tabernacles" is also bogus, since the priests don't go home during feasts, and Zacharias was ministering in his course, not at a feast, when Gabriel appeared to him. It was after Zacharias returned to Hebron at the completion of his ministry that his wife Elisabeth conceived with John. His conception therefore would have been either eight weeks and one day after the feast of unleavened bread, or eight weeks and one day after the feast of tabernacles. (Assuming they did that, you know, birds and bees thing right away. :)
Another chronological wrinkle is the assumption that Mary conceived exactly six months after Elisabeth. Luke indicates that Elisabeth had only completed "five months" (Luke 1:24) and had then begun her "sixth month" (Luke 1:26) when Gabriel was sent to Nazareth. The time of the annunciation and of Mary's conception could have been as much as one day less than six months, or as little as five months plus one day after Elisabeth's conception.
Anyway, Talley is not a reliable source for the biblical date of the annunciation. I don't have any better source at this time. I need to move on to other things for the time being.<BR>Thanks. —Telpardec (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Telpardec, Talley seems to be "invoking the tradition" of John being conceived at this time, and cites an early Christian Tractate for that (I'm only going by what's in the talk page). If that's the case it's irrelevant whether or not the "tradition" is factually correct in the question of how the date for the Annunciation was set. There might be problems with the tradition, but if that was what was used to set the date then I think this should be included. If Talley was wrong about the existance of the tradition that's another matter. Peculiarist (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Theories on the origins of the Feast

message: This sentence appears in the lead section - "According to the Bible (Luke 1:26), the Annunciation occurred "in the sixth month" of Elisabeth's pregnancy with the child later called John the Baptist." 
That's wrong - the Annunciation occurred to Mary, not Elisabeth, and involved Jesus, not John the Baptist. But there was a separate angelic announcement to Elisabeth (according to the Bible); if the article wants to include that in the lead section, it should provide some detail in the body of the article, including distinguishing the two events. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 19:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is right but obviously not clear enough. The Annunciation to Mary was in the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy according to the secondary source above. The article does need general clean up, but there are larger fires to put out right now, with more problem articles.History2007 (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  John the Baptist - no detail 

message: "The first authentic allusions to it are in a canon, of the Council of Toledo (656), and another of the Council of Constantinople "in Trullo" (692), forbidding the celebration of any festivals during Lent, excepting the Lord's Day (Sunday) and the Feast of the Annunciation. An earlier origin has been claimed for it on the ground that it is mentioned in sermons of Athanasius and of Gregory Thaumaturgus, but both of these documents are now admitted to be spurious. A Synod of Worcester, England (1240), forbade all servile work on this feast day. See further Lady Day."
I'm assuming the "it" refered to in this paragraph is the date of the annunciation. The Christmas page of Wikipedia has the following paragraph:
:John Chrysostom preached a sermon in Antioch c. 386 which established the date of Christmas as December 25 on the Julian calendar since the conception of Jesus (Luke 1:26) had been announced during the sixth month of Elisabeth's pregnancy with John the Baptist (Luke 1:10-13) as dated from the duties Zacharias performed on the Day of Atonement during the seventh month of the Hebrew calendar Ethanim or Tishri (Lev. 16:29, 1 Kings 8:2) which falls in September–October.
Also, on this page (Annunciation) we have this paragraph:
:St. Ephraim the Syrian taught that the date of the conception of Jesus Christ fell on 10 Nisan on the Hebrew Calendar, the day in which the passover lamb was selected according to Exodus 12. Some years 10 Nisan falls on March 25, which is the tradition date for the Feast of the Annunciation.
St. Ephraim lived between 306 and 373, according to his Wikipedia page.
For this reason I think "the first authentic allusions to it" should be removed from the article. Unless, of course, the paragraph is refering to something else, such as the Anno Domini calander system. I would appreciate it if someone with more knowledge than me on the subject could assess my argument, and either fix the article or point out where I am wrong. Peculiarist (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It means the celebration of it as a feast day. I have clarified & edited a bit. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Johnbod, I appreciate that. Peculiarist (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authentic mentions of the Annunciation 

message: The quotation is given as an English translation from the Arabic original, but the word "Allah" has not been translated into English.  ("Allah" is the Arabic word (in standard English script) for "God").  I have translated "Allah" into English also. This is a common translation; to use "Allah" in an English translation of a sentence from the Qur'an makes as much sense as using "Gott" in an English translation of a sentence from Luther's Bible. Kmasters0 (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia editors generally should not change words within quotations. The Yusuf Ali translation is considered one of the best. The  link goes to a page with that translation and 2 more interlinear translations. None of them change "Allah" to "God".Have a nice day. —Telpardec  TALK  04:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The Annunciation in the Qur'an - use of "Allah"

message: There was a 
* 
at the end of the text. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Link_FA
*Then before the list of interlanguage links , simply add  in the wikitext.
But the interlanguage link (to ru.wikipedia.org/...) was missing. --Haigst-Mann (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Used Template:Link_FA 

message: The article makes this statement:
 The 2nd-century writer Irenaeus of Lyon regarded the conception of Jesus as 25 March coinciding with the Passion
There are two issues with this.
* Citing 4 pages for a point-fact—without any indication in the wordings of the statement (in the article) that this was argued, deduced or theorized in the cited source—raises serious questions of original synthesis. Did the book use up 4 pages to lay down what seems like a very straightforward claim?
* I'm fairly conversant with Irenaeus' Against Heresies, and I don't recall him assigning a day and month to the conception of Jesus (different from his birth date).
EyeTruth (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  25 March by Irenaeus? 

message: "Scholarship by apologist Jimmy Akin indicates that the date of Good Friday was April 3, AD 33; he could not identify any years in which a date of March 25 was possible.
Akin's hypothesis, and there are a number (See Crucifixion of Jesus), does not appear to mention the Annunciation. He discusses the Crucifixion, which he places in April, not March. It is not clear what bearing this has on the present article. (This whole section is arguably better under Feast Day.) Mannanan51 (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date and spiritual significance 

message: The Ethiopian image is not of the Annunciation of Mary, but the Annunciation of Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, as the caption clearly states. The Angel Gabriel appears to him to tell him that his wife will bear a son named John. So, this image should be removed from this entry. Or, the entry should be expanded to include other Annunciations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendybelcher (talk • contribs) 22:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Ethiopian Image

message: The articles Annunciation and Feast of the Annunciation mostly handle the same subject. Lots are repeated. If two separate articles are to be kept, content needs to be sorted inbetween them and if so, I fear the article on the non-feast day-related stuff will be short. --Hjordmån (talk) 07:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Seeing as how Jews don't think Jesus was the Messiah, I propose that his be changed to "Christian Messiah."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrhain (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Messiah? 

message: Switched NIV to DRA only to reflect that the angel's greeting forms the first part of the Hail Mary, and Mary's response is part of the Angelus. (Phrasing also used in NMB, RSVCE, and WYC, and in the Eastern Orthodox troparion for the feast day). If anyone finds this overly controversial, feel free to switch it back, but it won't reflect the information on the other two pages. Likewise switched Matthew to DRA as the "just man" is about more than simply being "faithful to the law". Manannan67 (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIV 

message: There is another page "the feast of the annunciation". Same, same! Francis Hannaway (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion above. Manannan67 (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge surely? 

message: The article is a bit over-crowded, which is natural when there are many interesting artworks. I suggest some is moved to a gallery-section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The current version of this article says, Gabriel told Mary to name her son Immanuel, meaning "God is with us”.  This statement is inaccurate.  In Luke 1:31 the angel Gabriel says, “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.” Gabriel never mentions the name Immanuel.  
The citation for the current version is Matthew 1:18-23.  In Matthew 1:18:23, an unnamed angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him to name the baby Jesus (Matthew 1:21).  In the next verse Matthew (not the angel) says the birth of Jesus fulfills the following prophecy: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will name Him Immanuel.”  The prophecy is from Isaiah 7:14.
It is not clear whether the mention of the Isaiah prophecy is strictly Matthew’s idea or the angel was the inspiration.  What is clear, however, is that Mary is not involved in Matthew 1:18-23, the angel in Matthew is not called Gabriel and the angels in Luke and Matthew instruct Mary and Joseph to name the baby Jesus.  In neither gospel does an angel instruct Mary or Joseph to name the baby Immanuel. BlessingsofLiberty (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus or Immanuel