text:
Talk:Christianity and Judaism

"Cafeteria Christianity"
Just noticed that under the heading "Common Christian views of Judaism", the following text appears:

"Some Christians who view the Jewish people as close to God seek to understand and incorporate elements of Jewish understanding or perspective into their beliefs as a means to respect their "parent" religion of Judaism, or to more fully seek out and return to their Christian roots. Christians embracing aspects of Judaism are sometimes criticized as Biblical Judaizers by Christians when they pressure Gentile Christians to observe Old Testament teachings rejected by many [modern Christians]."

The text in brackets redirects to a page entitled "Cafeteria Christianity", which, according to the page "... is a derogatory term used by some Christians, and others, to accuse other Christian[s]..."

The definition of "Cafeteria Christianity" clearly requires its placement in this article to be baised towards a particular theological dispute within Christianity.

I am going to go ahead and remove this link as it is:

1. A very clear bias against a particular opinion.

2. Factually incorrect. -According to the page on Cafeteria Christianity, this term appeared in 1986. -We know that the rejection of Jewish rites was proposed by      -Ignatius (100 CE) -The Synod of Elvira (306 CE) long before the term Cafeteria Christianity existed.

3. Shows a clear bias towards Christianity in the United States, as that is where the term orginiated.

4. Has no citiation

The paragraph itself in the article is of low quaility and will probably have to be replaced, as it does not respect several opinions on the subject.

jamiles1000 —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sin
Christians, or at least many mainsream Christians, believe sin must be atoned for through blood sacrifice. Jews used to believe this, but no longer. Pointing out this diference seems to be one of the things the articles is for so I donot know why debresser wants to delete it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I'll explain. The sentence I removed is "Christians believe that Christianity is the fulfillment and successor of Judaism, retaining much of its doctrine and many of its practices including monotheism, the belief in a Messiah, and certain forms of worship like prayer and reading from religious texts. Other beliefs, like the need for a blood sacrifice for sin, are beliefs that Rabbinical Judaism has since veered away from (since the Destruction of the Second Temple, see also Third Temple)."

 * The The reasons I give for the removal in the edit summary were (I'll elaborate here):
 * The paragraph is inconsistent, since it starts out with Christianity, and suddenly, in the middle of the sentence in which we expect to here which believes Christianity has not retained from Judaism, switches to what Judaism has (alledgedly) changed.
 * It is simply not true that Judaism has changed its doctrine in regard to the blood sacrifice of animals in the Temple service. It is simply that the Temple has been destroyed and no sacrifices can take place at the moment.

 * BTW, saying that Jews are practised blood sacrifice without the stipulation that we are talking about animals and about part of the service in the Jerusalem Temple, is a little dangerous. There was a modernised blood libel just this week... Debresser (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I'd like to point out that this sentence is unsourced and contentious, and that therefore the burden of proof is on the editor insisting on restoring it. Debresser (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Debresser has two problems: Please look up the word inconsistent in the dictionary. This is not being inconsistent. This is making a comparison; it is comparing Christianity to judaism, whichi is what the article is for. The passage does not say that Judaism has changed its doctrine towards blood sacrifice (although of course Reform jews and some Orthodox Jews have in fact changed). The article says that since the Temple was destroyed (destructed? destructed?  Debresser, what on earth do you mean???) Jews have stopped relying on blood sacrifice which in fact is a core Rabbinic doctrine, that with the Tenmple destroyed Jews do not need to rely on blook dsacrifice. This is what the article says. Debresser faults the article for saying what it says ... that is no basis for deletion! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 08:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The paragraph is inconsistent, since it starts out with Christianity, and suddenly, in the middle of the sentence in which we expect to here which believes Christianity has not retained from Judaism, switches to what Judaism has (alledgedly) changed.
 * 1) It is simply not true that Judaism has changed its doctrine in regard to the blood sacrifice of animals in the Temple service. It is simply that the Temple has been destructed and no sacrifices can take place at the moment.

Also Debresser does not await discussion because he does not assume good faith. Is it possible I know as much as you do, Debresser? Try assuming that. You made a change. Okay, I do not fault you for that, you were being bold. But your change was a mistake and I fixed it. Now, if you want to discuss it, we can discuss it. That is how Wikipedia works. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 08:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Debresser has another problem with the passage, that it implicitly accuses Jews of the infamous blood libel. But that is not what the passage says, and if ambiguity is really a problem it can easily be fixed by adding a few words, rather than deleting. But what the passage does say is that Jews used to believe sin could only be atoned for by blood and that Christians still believe this. If there is any risk of a blood libel against Jews, cal vchomer, the risk against Christians is far, far greater.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's take this step for step. Unfortunately, because of the 3 revert rule I can't undo the last edit of Slrubenstein, but I shall do so tomorrow, if nobody else has before then, or unless I would be proven wrong or otherwise persuaded not to do so. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The administrative side of things.
 * 2) Slrubenstein has violated the 3 revert rule with his last edit.
 * 3) According to this official policy, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material".
 * 4) Slrubenstein uses cheap rethorics instead of arguments. I quote: "Debresser does not  ... assume good faith" (I do. Slrubenstein is just wrong.) That is how Wikipedia works. (While in fact he violates the 3 revert rule, and seems unaware of the proper place of the burden of evidence.) "Debresser faults the article for saying what it says". (Indeed I do! If it is incorrect, it shouldn't be here.)
 * 5) The arguments.
 * 6) The paragraph is inconsistent with its appearent intent. If it were to compare Christianity and Judaism it should have said "Christians believe that ... Rabbinical Judaism on the other hand..." But that is not how the paragraph is constructed. At the moment the pargraph is misleading the reader as to its logical continuation.
 * 7) The contentious sentence says "Rabbinical Judaism has since veered away from [blood sacrifice]" . Which is the same as saying that it "changed its doctrine". And the fact is, it didn't. Even if somebody would propose to rephrase "Rabbinical Judaism doesn't rely any more on blood sacrifice", well, neither does Christianity. If one would argue that Christianity does rely on blood sacrifice, by way of the what they would call the sacrifice of their so-called savior, then so does Judiasm, where the daily prayers are considered to take the place of sacrifice.

My comment about the blood libel was not an argument, just a comment. But indeed, if the sentence were to be retained, it should be polished a little to avoid possible misunderstandings. Debresser (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I posted on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion/Interfaith_work_group and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism to ask for outside input on this discussion. Debresser (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Debresser is right about that content. Besides completely misrepresenting Judaism, it isn't even well written.  Slrubenstein, if you wanted something like it, why couldn't you have simply modified it to make it more appropriate and address Debresser's concerns?  Debresser, yes, it's animal sacrifice and not human, but the section is what Christians believe.  Just because they're wrong doesn't mean it isn't what they believe. -Lisa (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Thank you Lisa, for your improvements. I can live with this version. At the same time though, you haven't addessed the issue of sources. Although I am familiar with Christianity, at least at a basic level, I was not aware Christians believe such a thing about Judaism. I really think this should be sourced.
 * Also, I don't understand the flow of the sentence now: "and believe that Judaism has abandoned this since veered away from (since the Destruction of the Second Temple, see also Third Temple)".
 * Another question, not related to your edit, is why we need this "see also" here. That is what we have "See also" sections for, or Template:See also. Debresser (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * You're right. The sentence should say "and believe that Judaism has abandoned this since since the destruction of the Second Temple."  I plead "early in the morning".

 * As far as sources go, I'll go dig some up. It won't be hard.  Every missionary I've ever argued with has trotted out that old saw.  Take this.  Or this.  I'd just rather use something from a book, because I hate giving these sites the click-throughs.  And frankly, I don't keep books like that around.  So it may be a while, since I'll have to hit the library.  If someone else has books on the subject, please feel free to do it first. -Lisa (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Lisa, I really thought the text was fine before, which is why I objected to Debresser's deletion of it. I thought it was common knowledge that Christians believe that God demands blood.  That said, I am fine with your rewrite of it.  Debresser, had you suggested a rewrite of it rather than wholesale deletion, I would like to think I woul dhave been as receptive to your suggestions as I am to Lisa's.  Now, since we have moved away from just deleting, may I suggest another modification.  This is the current version:
 * Christians believe that Judaism requires blood sacrifice to atone for sins, and believe that Judaism has abandoned this since the destruction of the Second Temple.
 * How about something like this:
 * Christians believe that the Old Testament requires blood sacrifice to atone for sins, and believe that Jews have abandoned this since the destruction of the Second Temple.
 * (I personally do not like "Old Testament" but this is what they use). My reasoning is, we move away from claims about Judaism (which is arguably not the religion of Christians) to interpretations of the OT.  In other words - and maybe now I am finally understanding Debresser's point? - Christians don't care what Jews did or did not believe, they do care what they believe God wishes, and it is just that both Jews and Christians look to the Hebrew Bible to authorize our diverse practices.  I also have to say, I am ambivalent about the phrase "veered away from."  I won't delete it until we can come up with something better.  The point is that Judaism believes that in the absense of the Temple there are other ways to worship God and atone for sin.  Is there an easy way to just put this in?  Do either of you have ideas?  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, the section is called "Common Christian views of Judaism", so I think it davka should contain Christian claims about Judaism, no? Why move away from that in a section that's specifically about it?

 * Also... I don't think that Judaism ever held that "in the absense of the Temple there are other ways to worship God and atone for sin". On the contrary, repentence was always the essence of the process of getting atonement.  The sacrifice was a ritual necessity, but it wasn't what atoned.  And we can't (currently, temporarily) fulfill that ritual necessity just now.  Also, and this is a nitpick, because I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but Jews don't believe in "sin".  We believe in "sins".  "Sin", as used by Christians, is a state of being.  Jews don't recognize being in a state of sin, only committing sins and repenting for them. -Lisa (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(back to margin) Slrubenstein, I didn't suggest a rewrite, because I didn't see the kernel of truth that was in this sentence. Now that Lisa has uncovered it for me, I have no problem with either version, hers and the one you propose. Actually, I think yours is the more accurate one. And Lisa is basically right about the disctinction between "sin" and "sins", so I would change "sin" in this case to "sins". We could also dedicate a subsection to that subject, if anyone were willing to write about it. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I am sure that assuming good faith and discussing things here before deleting or changing anything we can come up with further improvements. Lisa is right that this secion is about Christian views about Judaism.  One possibility would be to move discussion of this up, to the sectioneon either sin or judgement, that are about differeces between Judaism and Christianity.  However, I suspect that whoever added this about Christians thinking Jews needed blood to atone etc. were actually trying to make an impoirtant oint about a Christian misconception and wanted to make it clear - clear that there is a Christian isconception - for reasons Debresser has pointed out, the blood libel.  I think we can go in two different directions.  one direction is purely action, and we would be addressing a difference between Christianity and Judaism that would belong in another section (Christians rely on blood sacrifice, Jews do not).  The other dirction is belief, and it would focuson a clear misunderstanding Christians have about Jews.  hat I get from both Lisa and Debresser is the section would have to b clearer about the extent of the misunderstanding, that Jews never felt blood was necessary for atonement, but that the sacrifice of animals iscentral to Temple practice, or something like this.  Oh, and by the way, I never violated 3RR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor did you ever say a lie in your life, right? :)) Debresser (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Debresser, that was uncalled for. We're all cooperating now, right?  So no one needs to snipe at anyone else.  (if you wanted to delete that last line, I'm sure no one would say anything about it) -Lisa (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have lied many times in my life, so I guess I just have to ask you to trust me in this case that I am not lying - generally speaking. As for 3RR, this is simple enough - it is easy to prove that i violated 3RR if you provide the edit diffs that demonstrate that.  You have not.  because I have not.  Now I am trying to engage in a civil conversation.  Aside from protecting content that I belive has value and importance in the article (even if, as Lisa has shown, editing may improve it) what have I done to hurt your feelings? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, it was said with a smile, if you didn't notice the smilie. But in actual fact, I provided the diffs on this page, a little higher up, some hours ago. My hurt feelings (remember what I wrote you on your talkpage) had nothing to do with it. It was a real joke. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I appreciate a joke and am glad you/we can joke about it. That said, you did not provide proo I iolated 3RR.  Above you provide three edit difs, not four.  So I did not violate 3RR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Oh boy! And I always thought the 3 revert rule means you are "wrong" when doing the 3rd revert. Now I see it means that the 3rd revert is still okay. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Revert wars suck and I am very glad that we have broken the cycle and are actually improving the artile. I have broken 3RR in the past and do not mind being reprimanded when i do so.  But i really have tried to watch myself ever since and I really was trying to be careful here to reign myself in.  Anyway, thanks, and back to editing! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Hi guys! Have you've read the No personal attacks? Just in case You would like to know, the same debate of blood atonement has a very long history in christianity too, compare Atonement (moral influence view), Atonement (ransom view) and Atonement (satisfaction view). Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

More sin!
While I find the section Sin being very interesting, it doesn't succeed in contrasting the Jewish and the Christian views against each other. As far as I can see the Jewish opinion is in accord with the Christian view, the other way around I know less about, but specifically the statement:
 * There is almost always a "way back" if a person wills it. (Although texts mention certain categories for whom the way back will be exceedingly hard, such as the slanderer, the habitual gossip, and the malicious person)

seems very similar to the "Catholic" (vs. the Donatists) claim that apostasy is always reversible, a claim which is shared by at least Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans and Orthodox churches. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I think the real difference in "sin" concepts is that the Christian sin (not the Catholic specifics, they're just a Catholic speciality not shared by other Christianities) counterparts het — "to go astray" — but that this het is a more or less continuous distance from God (?) in Judaism, remediable by following the traditions and the rabbis, while in Christianity it is a digital state (on/off) that can only be broken by "salvation" which is mostly interpreted as a submission under Jesus. The difference is the mode of remedy: in Judaism it is an adherence to a praxis, in Christianity it is generally (but not universally) regarded an emotional submission, lacking an immediate connection with acts and behavior. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3  !) 09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Antinomianism
Next to last paragraph in Sacred Texts claim:
 * Some Christians (see also Dual-covenant theology) agree that Jews who accept Jesus should still observe all of Torah, based on warnings by Jesus to Jews not to use him as an excuse to disregard it,[23] and they support efforts of those like Messianic Jews to do that, but other forms of Christianity oppose all observance to the Mosaic law, even by Jews, which is sometimes known as Antinomianism[clarification needed].

Non-observation of a religious law may certainly be called "Antinomianism" by some, but Antinomianism is not a religious objective term, it is an academic expression exclaiming something like "lawless scum"! So also these non-observing groups must have some detractors, criticisingly called those groups: "you scum!!" What group is that? I can easily imagine the following candidates: Which is it? Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 12:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jews are calling some Christian groups "Scum!!", or
 * other Christians are calling some Christian groups "Scum!!".

 * See Antinomianism and Luther for more details. 75.15.203.103 (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 * So to answer your question directly, some Christians call other Christians Antinomian. Judaism does not consider Christianity to be Antinomian as long as they follow the Noahide Laws which apply to all humans. 75.15.203.103 (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Also, if you want a Jewish view of Antinomianism, see Jewish Encyclopedia: Antinomianism, and for a Catholic view see Catholic Encyclopedia: Antinomianism. 75.0.8.252 (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Some comments on this article
There is a fundamental mistake, and it is, that you consider "Christianity" to be a single and unique set of beliefs. It may be possible to set the differences between: At least this level of differentiation should be considered. Right now the article is unclear and sometimes plain wrong. 201.253.237.170 (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "traditional" christians (catholics, orthodox, eastern)
 * "germanic" or "protestant" christians (or whatever you want to call them) and,
 * other sections at the end of the article for cults, sects etc.

 * I think it is not very serious, but thanks for pointing it out. Compared to Hinduism and f.ex. Buddhism, Christianity is one of the most coherent religions, generally but maybe not universally alleging:
 * Abrahamite statements,
 * Jesus is son of God,
 * Jesus sacrificed his life and died on the cross, after three days returning to life - and this he did in order to save all humankind from "death" (variously interpreted),
 * The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the three persons in God that constitute the Trinity,
 * Eucharist and the Baptism are central Christian rites,
 * The Bible is the Holy Scripture, with few variations of contents,
 * adherence to the Nicene Creed mostly, and the Apostles' Creed mostly, which defines some detailed aspects on which most Christianity agree.
 * most other religions, except the small ones, and the new ones, have a much greater variation than Christianity. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 12:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 * this is basically an article written from a Judeo-centric Gentilephobic and Xanthochroiphobic POV. It doesn't say anything about the hateful elements of the Talmud to Xtianity. nor does it note that Talmudic Judaism is a s much - if not more - of a deviation from the ancient Hebrew faith, especially, the concepts of Godhead in Chassidism, etc. but the latter Talmud in it's completion. Indeed, the notion of the 'Jews' as in - the Judeans is derivational from the shared ancestor faith of the Hebrews and not pure or original. This entire article - indeed it's location with the Jewish section of Wikipedia - is biased and centered within an Ashkinazi mindset which identifies that ethno-religious group as the sole 'real people' and well...it's awful and bigotted isn't it? 78.147.57.60 (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not aborting children
Hi, I'm Wikipedia's pilot347 and i believe that no human should be denied life. If you abort a baby, you have killed a person, and a baby at that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilot347 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC) It's pilot again. I just looked at the bible and found that killing children can send you straight to Hell.

 * This is not a forum discussion for expressing your personal opinions, unless those opinions regard the article named Christianity and Judaism. Questions and opinions that can be used for improving the article are however welcome. As for Hell, life is often a Hell for many, so we don't need an extra one. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 12:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Concepts of God
Iam deleting the this sentence of the text in the concepts of god part. It stands in absolut opposition to the introductional sentence and is wrong by logic.

"Some Jewish and Christian philosophers hold that due to these differences; based on these differences, Christianity and Judaism do not believe in the same God at all."

the introductional sentence:

"Traditionally, both Judaism and Christianity believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for Jews the God of the Tanakh, for Christians the God of the Old Testament, the creator of the universe."

I also remark that the text of the tanakh and the old testament are identic In Judaism the name is "Tanakh", in Christianity the name is "old testament" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote, and focus of this article
According to the hatnote,
 * This article is about widely diverging views between two religions. For the values held in common, see Judeo-Christian.

But the article Judeo-Christian is not a discussion of the values held in common. Rather, (and arguably appropriately, given its title), it is a discussion of the history and use of that particular phrase itself.

Can I therefore suggest that, as (in my view, correctly) Judeo-Christian is not doing the job advertised in the hatnote, then the hatnote needs to be changed; and more significantly, this article needs to step up to the plate.

If this article, Christianity and Judaism, is to live up to its title (and also be much more in line with wiki's policy against WP:POVFORK), then the proper function of this article, given its title, should be to be the top-level introduction to all aspects of relationships and comparison between Christianity and Judaism -- including, but not necessarily limited to, what may be common ground between the two faiths; where the two faiths may differ, both broadly and in detail; and also the historical nature of relations between the two faiths. For comparison, that is roughly the scope that Christianity and Islam and Islam and Judaism set themselves.

To make room for all of that, some of what is currently in the article probably needs to be condensed, or spun out to subsidiary articles, WP:SUMMARY-style. And of course, the detail of the most of what is not yet in the article no doubt similarly would be spun out summary-style.

But I think it would be only for the good, if WP could create a go-to article introducing all sides of the relation between Christianity and Judaism, a jumping-off point to all sorts of more detailed treatment, but on this page placing agreement and disagreement set out side by side. Jheald (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 * This article has a standing need to be merged into Judeo-Christian. This has already passed discussion but has not been done. See the top of this page: Talk:Judeo-Christian. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ  20:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 * No. Check the talk page archives on both pages (eg here). The merge was discussed at length, and at length was agreed to be inappropriate.  (One of the problems had been that the AfD which came to the merge decision hadn't even been mentioned on the Talk:Judeo-Christian page). We checked with an admin what the appropriate thing to do was, and their advice was that if consensus had changed, the AfD result could be set aside.  Strictly, after all, AfD is a decision to delete/not delete.  Merge counts as not delete.  But check the talk page archives for the full discussion.  I've raised at Template talk:Afd-merge from the desirability of creating a new template Template:Afd-merge-from not done to cover a situation such as this.  Jheald (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Interestingly, the view you yourself expressed was: "Do not delete nor merge. --Carlaude (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)"  Jheald (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jheald; this article should never be merged with "Judeo-Christian." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality in Subsection 5.4-"Right Action-Abortion"
I noticed the third from last sentence in the last paragraph, and last one talking about Catholicism, in this subsection at least, if it is neutral, seems not so.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Over simplified portrait of Jewish-Christian historical relations
I find the page to have a very narrow minded view on the Christian and Jewish historical relationship. Firstly, the page claims that Christians have persecuted Jews for centuries and thus has made their relationship very tensional. Although Christians have done many bad things towards Jews, the same can also be said on Jewish crimes against Christians. Christians, especially Jewish converts to Christianity, were persecuted by the Jews for centuries until Constantine made Christianity a licit religion. Secondly, Christians and Jews have enjoyed many moments were they were not fighting each other and tolerated and respected each other. Many Popes went out in defence of Judaism and spoke against and condemned Jewish persecution. After the Protestant reformation, Jews were allowed back into England after being banished for centuries. I think it's important to give a more nuanced perspective of the historical relationship between Judaism and Christianity were not only the bad is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorwegianCross (talk • contribs) 07:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Inter-relationship
The section on inter-relationship concentrates on anti-Semitism and Christian hostility towards Jews. This is misleading. Christianity has a generally positive attitude towards Jews. Conversely Jews have a generally negative attitude towards Christianity. To the extent that one hates the other, it is Jews hating Christians, not the other way around. Some of this ought to be reflected in the article.122.59.140.215 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia only summarizes (without addition or interpretation) professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. If you can point to statements in this article that are not reliably sourced, they could be removed.  If you have statements that are based on reliable sources, we can attempt to give it due weight in proportion to all other sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Problematic Citation?
Regarding this section: "Examples of this are certain commandments that God states explicitly shall abide "for ever" (for example Exo 31:16-17, Exo 12:14-15), or certain practices which God prohibits as abominations, but which are not prohibited by most Christian denominations."

Are there any other citations available for this that would be less problematic? The claim appears to be that Christians do not honor the Sabbath or celebrate Passover. The Sabbath is obligatory in every denomination (with exceptions for saving life, etc) while the latter is celebrated as part of Christian culture in almost all denominations, with most celebrating it as Palm Sunday by sharing unleavened bread. The dates are different and the exact practices vary widely.

Perhaps some other citations would more clearly illustrate the point being made - that a practice the Torah described as eternal is ignored by Christians. If there aren't any though, I would leave the article as it is, since the point being made is the Jewish perspective on the Christian Testament rather than arguing the merits of a theological claim. 65.50.81.169 (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Christianity and Judaism. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723215712/http://www.christianindex.org/1657.article to http://www.christianindex.org/1657.article

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Christianity
In the beginning of the article it says, "Christians believe in individual salvation from sin through repentance and receiving Jesus Christ as their God and Savior through Faith in Christianity." This might be a good representation of Protestant Christianity, but it is different from the view believed by Orthodox, Catholic and Armenian Christians. We believe in both individual and collective salvation. And we believe that salvation is a process called "Theosis" (Deification) which is participation in the very life of God. We also believe that a life according to faith and good works is inseparable from faith, and is therefore part of the process of salvation or Theosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D195:6170:FC74:2360:DC13:A29F (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Christianity and Judaism. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928080259/http://www.huc.edu/news/mi.html to http://www.huc.edu/news/mi.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141023183108/https://www.aleph.org/faq.htm to https://www.aleph.org/faq.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117214825/http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21820&sec=59&con=35 to http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21820&sec=59&con=35
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319205218/http://www.chiefrabbi.org/thoughts/vayigash5766.pdf to http://www.chiefrabbi.org/thoughts/vayigash5766.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128101917/http://noahide.org/article.asp?Level=493&Parent=88 to http://www.noahide.org/article.asp?Level=493&Parent=88

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

They only believe in one GOD
This is true because it is

Quoting Maimonides
In the "Heaven and Hell" subsection, someone has provided a quote from Maimonides, which equates women to "children and the ignorant". This is a quote DIRECTLY following a sentence concerning modern Judaism and its beliefs, yet a blatantly sexist, misogynistic quote is used. Modern Judaism does not believe women are ignorant or infantile. I will be updating this section with a more appropriate quote shortly. JointCompound (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Two sentence fragments under "Jewish self-identification"
The first two "sentences" of the second paragraph aren't complete sentences. But I'm not confident enough about the content to attempt fixing it myself. I think the wording, and the second "sentence" being uncapitalized, look like a fumbled edit to what used to be a run-on sentence. Maybe it's worth looking at older versions. (This is my first contribution to a Talk page, sorry if I'm going about this wrong.) 2001:1970:4D01:BD00:91B4:6DFC:FA12:7BD6 (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Christianity and Judaism


text:
Cesare Borgia

Cesare Borgia (Cèsar Borja ; César Borja ; 13 September 1475 – 12 March 1507) was an Italian cardinal and condottiero (mercenary leader), an illegitimate son of Pope Alexander VI and member of the Spanish-Aragonese House of Borgia. His fight for power was a major inspiration for The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli.

After initially entering the Church and becoming a cardinal on his father's election to the papacy, he resigned after the death of his brother in 1498. He served as a condottiero for King Louis XII of France around 1500, and occupied Milan and Naples during the Italian Wars. At the same time, he carved out a state for himself in Central Italy, but he was unable to retain power for long after his father's death. According to Machiavelli, this was not due to a lack of foresight, but his error in creating a new pope.

Early life
Like many aspects of Cesare Borgia's life, the date of his birth is a subject of dispute. He was born in Subiaco in Lazio, Italy in either 1475 or 1476, the illegitimate son of Cardinal Roderic Llançol i de Borja, usually known as "Rodrigo Borgia", later Pope Alexander VI, and his Italian mistress Vannozza dei Cattanei, about whom information is sparse. The Borgia family originally came from the Kingdom of Valencia, and rose to prominence during the mid-15th century. Cesare's great-uncle Alphonso Borgia (1378–1458), bishop of Valencia, was elected Pope Callixtus III in 1455. Cesare's father, Pope Alexander VI, was the first pope who openly recognized his children born out of wedlock.

Stefano Infessura writes that Cardinal Borgia falsely claimed Cesare to be the legitimate son of another man—Domenico d'Arignano, the nominal husband of Vannozza dei Cattanei. More likely, Pope Sixtus IV granted Cesare a release from the necessity of proving his birth in a papal bull of 1 October 1480.

Church office
Cesare was initially groomed for a career in the Church. Following school in Perugia and Pisa, Cesare studied law at the Studium Urbis (nowadays Sapienza University of Rome). He was made bishop of Pamplona at the age of 15 and archbishop of Valencia at 17. In 1493, he had also been appointed bishop of both Castres and Elne. In 1494, he also received the title of abbot of the abbey of Saint-Michel-de-Cuxa. Along with his father's elevation to Pope, Cesare was made Cardinal at the age of 18.

Alexander VI staked the hopes of the Borgia family on Cesare's brother Giovanni, who was made captain-general of the military forces of the papacy. Giovanni was assassinated in 1497 under mysterious circumstances. Several contemporaries suggested that Cesare might have been his killer, as Giovanni's disappearance could finally open to him a long-awaited military career and also solve the jealousy over Sancha of Aragon, wife of Cesare's younger brother, Gioffre, and mistress of both Cesare and Giovanni. Cesare's role in the act has never been clear. However, he had no definitive motive, as he was likely to be given a powerful secular position, whether or not his brother lived. It is possible that Giovanni was killed as a result of a sexual liaison.

On 17 August 1498, Cesare resigned the cardinalate, in order to pursue a military career. On the same day, Louis XII of France named Cesare Duke of Valentinois. This random title was selected as being homophonous with his nickname Il Valentino ("The Valencian"), derived from his father's papal epithet in Latin Valentinus ("The Valencian") indicating his birth in Xàtiva in the Kingdom of Valencia under the Crown of Aragon, and along with Cesare's former position as Cardinal of Valencia. On 6 September 1499, he was released from all ecclesiastical duties and laicised from his diaconal orders (because he only was ordained deacon on 26 March 1494 and never received other major orders as priesthood and bishop consecration ).

Military
Cesare's career was founded upon his father's ability to distribute patronage, along with his alliance with France (reinforced by his marriage with Charlotte d'Albret, sister of John III of Navarre), in the course of the Italian Wars. Louis XII invaded Italy in 1499; after Gian Giacomo Trivulzio had ousted its duke Ludovico Sforza, Cesare accompanied the king in his entrance into Milan.

At this point, Alexander decided to profit from the favourable situation and carve out for Cesare a state of his own in northern Italy. To this end, he declared that all his vicars in Romagna and Marche were deposed. Though in theory subject directly to the pope, these rulers had been practically independent or dependent on other states for generations. In the view of the citizens, these vicars were cruel and petty. When Cesare eventually took power, he was viewed by the citizens as a great improvement.

Cesare was appointed commander of the papal armies with a number of Italian mercenaries, supported by 300 cavalry and 4,000 Swiss infantry sent by the king of France. Alexander sent him to capture Imola and Forlì, ruled by Caterina Sforza (mother of the Medici condottiero Giovanni dalle Bande Nere). Despite being deprived of his French troops after the conquest of those two cities, Borgia returned to Rome to celebrate a triumph and to receive the title of Papal Gonfalonier from his father. In 1500 the creation of twelve new cardinals granted Alexander enough money for Cesare to hire the condottieri, Vitellozzo Vitelli, Gian Paolo Baglioni, Giulio and Paolo Orsini, and Oliverotto Euffreducci, who resumed his campaign in Romagna.

Giovanni Sforza, first husband of Cesare's sister Lucrezia, was soon ousted from Pesaro; Pandolfo Malatesta lost Rimini; Faenza surrendered, its young lord Astorre III Manfredi being later drowned in the Tiber by Cesare's order. In May 1501 the latter was created duke of Romagna. Hired by Florence, Cesare subsequently added the lordship of Piombino to his new lands.

While his condottieri took over the siege of Piombino which ended in 1502, Cesare commanded the French troops in the sieges of Naples and Capua, defended by Prospero and Fabrizio Colonna. On 24 June 1501, Borgia's troops stormed the latter to end the siege of Capua.

In June 1502 he set out for Marche, where he was able to capture Urbino and Camerino by treason. He planned to conquer Bologna next. However, his condottieri, most notably Vitellozzo Vitelli and the Orsini brothers (Giulio, Paolo and Francesco), feared Cesare's cruelty and set up a plot against him. Guidobaldo da Montefeltro and Giovanni Maria da Varano returned to Urbino and Camerino, and Fossombrone revolted. The fact that his subjects had enjoyed his rule thus far meant that his opponents had to work much harder than they would have liked. He eventually recalled his loyal generals to Imola, where he waited for his opponents' loose alliance to collapse. Cesare called for a reconciliation, but imprisoned his condottieri in Senigallia, then called Sinigaglia, a feat described as a "wonderful deceiving" by historian Paolo Giovio, and had them strangled. In 1503 he conquered the Republic of San Marino.

Later years and death
Although he was an immensely capable general and statesman, Cesare had trouble maintaining his domain without continued papal patronage. Niccolò Machiavelli cites Cesare's dependence on the goodwill of the papacy, under the control of his father, as being the principal disadvantage of his rule. Machiavelli argued that, had Cesare been able to win the favour of the new Pope, he would have been a very successful ruler. The news of his father's death in 1503 arrived when Cesare was planning the conquest of Tuscany. While he was convalescing in Castel Sant'Angelo from an attack of malarial fever (likely contracted on the same occasion when Alexander contracted his fatal illness), his troops controlled the September 1503 papal conclave.

The new pope, Pope Pius III, supported Cesare Borgia and reconfirmed him as Gonfaloniere, but after a brief pontificate of twenty-six days, he died. Borgia's deadly enemy, Giuliano Della Rovere, then succeeded by dexterous diplomacy in tricking the weakened Cesare Borgia into supporting him by offering him money and continued papal backing for Borgia policies in the Romagna; promises which he disregarded upon his election as Pope Julius II by the near-unanimous vote of the cardinals in the October 1503 papal conclave. Realizing his mistake by then, Cesare tried to correct the situation in his favour, but Pope Julius II made sure of its failure at every turn. Cesare was for example forced by Julius to give up San Marino, after occupying the republic for six months.

Cesare Borgia, who was facing the hostility of Ferdinand II of Aragon, was betrayed while in Naples by Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba, a man he had considered his ally, and imprisoned there, while his lands were retaken by the papacy. In 1504 he was transferred to Spain and imprisoned first in the Castle of Chinchilla de Montearagón in La Mancha, but after an attempted escape he was moved north to the Castle of La Mota, Medina del Campo, near Segovia. He did manage to escape from the Castle of La Mota with assistance, and after running across Santander, Durango and Gipuzkoa, he arrived in Pamplona on 3 December 1506, and was much welcomed by King John III of Navarre, who was missing an experienced military commander, ahead of the feared Castilian invasion.

Borgia recaptured Viana, Navarre, which had been in the hands of forces loyal to Louis de Beaumont, the count of Lerín and Ferdinand II of Aragon's conspiratorial ally in Navarre, but not the castle, which he then besieged. In the early morning of 11 March 1507, an enemy party of knights fled from the castle during a heavy storm. Outraged at the ineffectiveness of the siege, Borgia chased them, only to find himself on his own. The party of knights, discovering that he was alone, trapped him in an ambush, where he received a fatal injury from a spear. He was then stripped of all his luxurious garments, valuables, and a leather mask covering half his face (disfigured, possibly by syphilis, during his late years). Borgia was left lying naked, with just a red tile covering his genitals.

Remains
Borgia was originally buried in a marbled mausoleum King John III had ordered built at the altar of the Church of Santa María in Viana in Navarre in northern Spain, set on one of the stops on the Camino de Santiago. In the 16th century the Bishop of Mondoñedo, Antonio de Guevara, published from memory what he had seen written on the tomb when he had paid a visit to the church. This epitaph underwent several changes in wording and meter throughout the years and the version most commonly cited today is that published by the priest and historian Francisco de Alesón in the 18th century. It reads:

Borgia was an old enemy of Ferdinand of Aragon, and he was fighting the count who paved the way for Ferdinand's 1512 invasion against John III and Catherine of Navarre. While the circumstances are not well known, the tomb was destroyed sometime between 1523 and 1608, during which time Santa María was undergoing renovation and expansion. Tradition goes that a Bishop of Calahorra considered it inappropriate to have the remains of "that degenerate" lying in the church, so the opportunity was taken to tear down the monument and expel Borgia's bones to where they were reburied under the street in front of the church to be trodden on by all who walked through the town.

Vicente Blasco Ibáñez, in A los pies de Venus, writes that the then Bishop of Santa María had Borgia expelled from the church because his own father had died after being imprisoned under Alexander VI. It was held for many years that the bones were lost, although in fact local tradition continued to mark their place quite accurately and folklore sprung up around Borgia's death and ghost. The bones were in fact dug up twice and reburied once by historians (both local and international—the first dig in 1886 involved the French historian Charles Yriarte, who also published works on the Borgias) seeking the resting place of the infamous Cesare Borgia. After Borgia was unearthed for the second time in 1945 his bones were taken for a rather lengthy forensic examination by Victoriano Juaristi, a surgeon by trade and Borgia aficionado, and the tests concurred with the preliminary ones carried out in the 19th century. There was evidence that the bones belonged to Borgia.

Cesare Borgia's remains then were sent to Viana's town hall, directly across from Santa María, where they remained until 1953. They were then reburied immediately outside of the Church of Santa María, no longer under the street and in direct danger of being stepped on. A memorial stone was placed over it which, translated into English, declared Borgia the Generalissimo of the papal as well as the Navarrese forces. A movement was made in the late 1980s to have Borgia dug up once more and put back into Santa María, but this proposal was ultimately rejected by church officials due to a recent ruling against the interment of anyone who did not hold the title of pope or cardinal.

Since Borgia had renounced the cardinalate it was decided that it would be inappropriate for his bones to be moved into the church. It was reported that Fernando Sebastián Aguilar, the Archbishop of Pamplona, would acquiesce after more than 50 years of petitions and Borgia would finally be moved back inside the church on 11 March 2007, the day before the 500th anniversary of his death, but an Archbishopric spokesman declared that the church doesn't authorize any such practice. The local church said that "we have nothing against the transfer of his remains. Whatever he may have done in life, he deserves to be forgiven now."

Evaluation
Niccolò Machiavelli met the Duke on a diplomatic mission in his function as Secretary of the Florentine Chancellery. Machiavelli was at Borgia's court from 7 October 1502 through 18 January 1503. During this time he wrote regular dispatches to his superiors in Florence, many of which have survived and are published in Machiavelli's Collected Works. In The Prince, Machiavelli uses Borgia as an example to elucidate the dangers of acquiring a principality by virtue of another. Although Cesare Borgia's father gave him the power to set up, Cesare ruled the Romagna with skill and tact for the most part. However, when his father died, and a rival to the Borgia family entered the Papal seat, Cesare was overthrown in a matter of months.

Machiavelli attributes two episodes to Cesare Borgia: the method by which the Romagna was pacified, which Machiavelli describes in chapter VII of The Prince, and the assassination of his captains on New Year's Eve of 1502 in Senigallia.

Machiavelli's use of Borgia is subject to controversy. Some scholars see Machiavelli's Borgia as the precursor of state crimes in the 20th century. Others, including Macaulay and Lord Acton, have historicized Machiavelli's Borgia, explaining the admiration for such violence as an effect of the general criminality and corruption of the time.

Borgia and Leonardo
Cesare Borgia briefly employed Leonardo da Vinci as a military architect and engineer between 1502 and 1503. Cesare provided Leonardo with an unlimited pass to inspect and direct all ongoing and planned construction in his domain. While in Romagna, Leonardo built the canal from Cesena to the Porto Cesenatico.

Before meeting Cesare, Leonardo had worked at the Milanese court of Ludovico Sforza for many years, until Louis XII of France drove Sforza out of Italy. After Cesare, Leonardo was unsuccessful in finding another patron in Italy. King Francis I of France was able to convince Leonardo to enter his service, and the last three years of Leonardo's life were spent working in France.

Personal life
On 10 May 1499, Cesare married Charlotte of Albret (1480 – 11 March 1514), a sister of King John III of Navarre. The arrangement was part of a plan by the Navarrese monarchs to ease tensions with the newly proclaimed French King Louis XII by offering a royal blood bride in his dealings with the Holy See. They were parents to a daughter, Louise Borgia (1500–1553).

Cesare was also the father to at least 11 illegitimate children. Among them are Girolamo Borgia who married Isabella Contessa di Carpi and Camilla Lucrezia Borgia (the younger) who, after Cesare's death, was moved to Ferrara to the court of her aunt Lucrezia Borgia (the elder).

There are accounts recorded by Machiavelli during his time spent with Cesare Borgia that provide insight into the man. Machiavelli found that he could be at times secretive and taciturn, at other times loquacious and boastful. He alternated bursts of demonic activity when he stayed up all night receiving and dispatching messengers, with moments of unaccountable sloth when he remained in bed refusing to see anyone. He was quick to take offence and rather remote from his immediate entourage and yet very open with his subjects, loving to join in local sports and to cut a dashing figure. However, at other times, Machiavelli observed Cesare as having "inexhaustible" energy and an unrelenting genius in military matters, and also diplomatic affairs, and he would go days and nights on end without seemingly requiring sleep.

He is said to have possessed a high intelligence that was recognized early during his time at the University of Pisa. Nearly all contemporary accounts of Cesare Borgia mention this intelligence, sometimes elaborated further by accounts made by allies, and other times, only briefly mentioned by those who most likely had a personal antipathy towards Cesare, but was still hinted at or briefly mentioned nonetheless. With his personality, he was able to win the unwavering loyalty of his troops and also with his most trusted friend and "manservant", Micheletto Corella.

Character discussed in works of philosophy

 * The Prince (1532) by Niccolò Machiavelli
 * The Antichrist (1895) by Friedrich Nietzsche
 * Beyond Good and Evil (1886) by Friedrich Nietzsche
 * Twilight of the Idols (1889) by Friedrich Nietzsche
 * Minima Moralia (1951) by Theodor Adorno
 * The Philosophy of the Encounter (2006) by Louis Althusser

Non-fiction literature

 * The Life of Cesare Borgia (1912) by Rafael Sabatini
 * Cesare Borgia: The Machiavellian Prince (1942) by Carlo Beuf
 * A Triptych of Poisoners (1958) by Jean Plaidy
 * Cesare Borgia (1976) by Sarah Bradford
 * The Borgias (1981) by Sarah Bradford and John Prebble
 * The Artist, The Philosopher and the Warrior (2009) by Paul Strathern
 * The Borgias: The Hidden History (2013) by G. J. Meyer
 * Cesare Borgia in a Nutshell (2016) by Samantha Morris

Fictional portrayals

 * Cesare is a character in Prince of Foxes, a 1947 historical fiction novel by Samuel Shellabarger. In the 1949 film adaptation of the story, he is portrayed by Orson Welles.
 * In the 1981 BBC TV series The Borgias, Cesare is portrayed by Oliver Cotton.
 * Cesare appears as the main antagonist of the 2010 video game Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. He is voiced by Andreas Apergis. The game was developed primarily by Ubisoft Montreal with contributions by four other Ubisoft branches: Annecy, Singapore, Bucharest, and Quebec City.
 * In The Borgias, a 2011 American TV series, Cesare is portrayed by Francois Arnaud.
 * In Borgia, a 2011 European TV series, Cesare is portrayed by Mark Ryder.
 * In series 4 of Horrible Histories, the cast performed a parody of The Addams Family about the lives of the Borgia family. Mathew Baynton portrayed Cesare Borgia.
 * The Hatsune Miku & KAITO song "Cantarella" is based on Cesare Borgia and his sister Lucrezia Borgia.
 * The Cantarella manga by You Higuri is a dark fantasy historic fiction on Cesare's life with some supernatural elements.
 * Cesare: Il Creatore che ha distrutto is a manga by Fuyumi Soryo that chronicles his life from the age of 15. A musical adaptation premiered in 2023. Cesare was portrayed by Akinori Nakagawa in the original cast.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Cesare Borgia


text:
Talk:Celibacy

Adding celibate partnerships
Do other editors think it would be helpful to expand the "celibate homosexual Christians" to include celibate partnerships. Some Christian denominations, including the Church of England and Anglican Church of Southern Africa, support celibate same-sex relationships. Also, should a section be added, in general, as other cultures/traditions/faiths have encouraged celibate partnerships as a calling for platonic and/or romantic relationships, committed friendships? SeminarianJohn (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Christian views in lead
The lead touches on Jewish and Islamic perspectives on celibacy, but Christian views are absent. That seems to be a glaring oversight. Considering that the majority of the article is focused on Christian teachings and practice of celibacy, I have expanded the lead to reflect the content of the rest of the article. I am noting my change here in case there is a unknown reason/justification for this information being missing. --Hazhk (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Religious hermits?
I think there might be an extra comma in this sentence which changes the meaning:

"In addition to the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, the Anglican Communion and some Protestant churches or communities such as the Shakers also know a promise or vow of celibacy for example for religious, hermits, consecrated virgins and deaconesses."

Is it meant to be "religious hermits" or "religious, hermits"? Yellowpelican (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just follow the links. In fact it is "religious, hermits, consecrated virgins…"--Medusahead (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks like an extra comma; 'religious' is obviously not a noun. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is, the Latin religiosae. I tried to find another wording.--Medusahead (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not sure that's correct. I think there's some Catholic jargon about "the religious", which seems to mean monks and nuns.  Johnbod or Pbritti would probably know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, answering: religious, in this context, refers to a type of Christian who joins a religious order (as distinct from secular or diocesan bodies; see Secular clergy for more on this distinction). is correct: religious is a noun here. Best ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, OED meaning B. I don't know why you call it "jargon", it is in the fact the original main sense of both "religious" and "religion", going back to 1200 or 1300. It has the advantage of being broader than clergy, which doesn't really include nuns. In French I think religieuse is still a very normal term for a nun; obviously that no longer works in English. It was by no means restricted to Xtianity, the OED quotes from the 19th century cover Islamic & Hindu etc. "religious" also - in fact it's a useful catch-all term there, where the structures & usages don't match Western Christian ones. One of their quotes talks of "The priests and religious of [pre-conquest] Mexico...".  But outside Catholicism peoople now find it puzzling, as they do how to term a Shivaite religious (if they don't know saddhu) if they encounter one. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Relevant Celibacy edit worth adding to article - or not?
An edit about Celibacy seems relevant to the main article - edit was originally added to the article, but afterwards reverted - the edit is as follows:

"According to Jason Berry of The New York Times, "The requirement of celibacy [especially in the Catholic Church] is not dogma; it is an ecclesiastical law that was adopted in the Middle Ages because Rome was worried that clerics' children would inherit church property and create dynasties."

QUESTION: Is the edit worth adding to the main article - or not? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Drbogdan (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Assuming it's true, etc., then it definitely shouldn't have WP:INTEXT attribution to a journalist, as if he were the main proponent of that idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. It certainly is true, and not well explained here; nor should we attribute it to a stray journalist. Clerical celibacy covers the pretty slow development in the CC, the 5th Act denoument being:

"The First Lateran Council (1123), a General Council, adopted the following canons:

"Canon 3: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, and subdeacons to associate with concubines and women, or to live with women other than such as the Nicene Council (canon 3) for reasons of necessity permitted, namely, the mother, sister, or aunt, or any such person concerning whom no suspicion could arise.

Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved, and that the persons be condemned to do penance." " That or similar should be added here. I've tried to clarify the passage discussed in the previous section a bit. Monks were always required to be celibate in the CC & EO, priests only much later, and still not in the EO (EO bishops aren't allowed to get married, I think, though existing wives are ok). Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Celibacy


text:
Chronicle

A chronicle (chronica, from Greek χρονικά chroniká, from χρόνος, chrónos – "time") is a historical account of events arranged in chronological order, as in a timeline. Typically, equal weight is given for historically important events and local events, the purpose being the recording of events that occurred, seen from the perspective of the chronicler. A chronicle which traces world history is a universal chronicle. This is in contrast to a narrative or history, in which an author chooses events to interpret and analyze and excludes those the author does not consider important or relevant.

The information sources for chronicles vary. Some are written from the chronicler's direct knowledge, others from witnesses or participants in events, still others are accounts passed down from generation to generation by oral tradition. Some used written material, such as charters, letters, and earlier chronicles. Still others are tales of unknown origin that have mythical status. Copyists also changed chronicles in creative copying, making corrections or in updating or continuing a chronicle with information not available to the original chronicler. Determining the reliability of particular chronicles is important to historians.

Many newspapers and other periodical literature have adopted "chronicle" as part of their name.

Subgroups
Scholars categorize the genre of chronicle into two subgroups: live chronicles, and dead chronicles. A dead chronicle is one where the author assembles a list of events up to the time of their writing, but does not record further events as they occur. A live chronicle is where one or more authors add to a chronicle in a regular fashion, recording contemporary events shortly after they occur. Because of the immediacy of the information, historians tend to value live chronicles, such as annals, over dead ones.

The term often refers to a book written by a chronicler in the Middle Ages describing historical events in a country, or the lives of a nobleman or a clergyman, although it is also applied to a record of public events. The earliest medieval chronicle to combine both retrospective (dead) and contemporary (live) entries, is the Chronicle of Ireland, which spans the years 431 to 911.

Chronicles are the predecessors of modern "time lines" rather than analytical histories. They represent accounts, in prose or verse, of local or distant events over a considerable period of time, both the lifetime of the individual chronicler and often those of several subsequent continuators. If the chronicles deal with events year by year, they are often called annals. Unlike the modern historian, most chroniclers tended to take their information as they found it, and made little attempt to separate fact from legend. The point of view of most chroniclers is highly localised, to the extent that many anonymous chroniclers can be sited in individual abbeys.

It is impossible to say how many chronicles exist, as the many ambiguities in the definition of the genre make it impossible to draw clear distinctions of what should or should not be included. However, the Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle lists some 2,500 items written between 300 and 1500 AD.

Citation of entries
Entries in chronicles are often cited using the abbreviation s.a., meaning sub anno (under the year), according to the year under which they are listed. For example, "ASC MS A, s.a. 855" means the entry for the year 855 in manuscript A of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The same event may be recorded under a different year in another manuscript of the chronicle, and may be cited for example as "ASC MS D, s.a. 857".

English chronicles
The most important English chronicles are the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, started under the patronage of King Alfred in the 9th century and continued until the 12th century, and the Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland (1577–87) by Raphael Holinshed and other writers; the latter documents were important sources of materials for Elizabethan drama. Later 16th century Scottish chronicles, written after the Reformation, shape history according to Catholic or Protestant viewpoints.

Cronista
A cronista is a term for a historical chronicler, a role that held historical significance in the European Middle Ages. Until the European Enlightenment, the occupation was largely equivalent to that of a historian, describing events chronologically that were of note in a given country or region. As such, it was often an official governmental position rather than an independent practice. The appointment of the official chronicler often favored individuals who had distinguished themselves by their efforts to study, investigate and disseminate population-related issues. The position was granted on a local level based on the mutual agreements of a city council in plenary meetings. Often, the occupation was honorary, unpaid, and stationed for life. In modern usage, the term usually refers to a type of journalist who writes chronicles as a form of journalism or non-professional historical documentation.

Cronista in the Middle Ages
Before the development of modern journalism and the systematization of chronicles as a journalistic genre, cronista were tasked with narrating chronological events considered worthy of remembrance that were recorded year by year. Unlike writers who created epic poems regarding living figures, cronista recorded historical events in the lives of individuals in an ostensibly truthful and reality-oriented way. Even from the time of early Christian historiography, cronistas were clearly expected to place human history in the context of a linear progression, starting with the creation of man until the second coming of Christ, as prophesied in biblical texts.

Lists of chronicles

 * Babylonian Chronicles (loosely-defined set of 25 clay tablets)
 * Burmese chronicles
 * Cambodian Royal Chronicles (loosely-defined collection)
 * List of collections of Crusader sources (most of them chronicles)
 * List of Danish chronicles
 * List of English chronicles
 * Muslim chronicles for Indian history
 * Chronicles of Nepal
 * List of Rus' chronicles
 * Serbian chronicles

Alphabetical list of notable chronicles

 * History of Alam Aray Abbasi – Safavid dynasty
 * Alamgirnama – Mughal Empire
 * ''Alexandrian World Chronicle - Greek history of the world until 392 AD
 * Altan Tobchi - Mongol Empire
 * Anglo-Saxon Chronicle – England
 * Annales Bertiniani – West Francia
 * Annales Cambriae – Wales
 * Annales Posonienses – Kingdom of Hungary
 * Annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae – Poland
 * Annals of Inisfallen – Ireland
 * Annals of Lough Cé – Ireland
 * Annals of the Four Masters – Ireland
 * Annals of Spring and Autumn – China
 * Annals of Thutmose III – Ancient Egypt
 * The Annals of the Choson Dynasty – Korea
 * Babylonian Chronicles – Mesopotamia
 * Anonymous Bulgarian Chronicle – Bulgaria
 * Barnwell Chronicle - England
 * Bodhi Vamsa – Sri Lanka
 * Books of Chronicles attributed to Ezra – Israel
 * Buranji – Ahoms, Assam, India
 * Bychowiec Chronicle Lithuania
 * Cāmadevivaṃsa – Northern Thailand
 * Culavamsa – Sri Lanka
 * (Chronica Polonorum): see Gesta principum Polonorum
 * Cheitharol Kumbaba – Manipur, India
 * Chronica Gentis Scotorum
 * Chronica Hungarorum – History of Hungary
 * Chronica seu originale regum et principum Poloniae – Poland
 * Chronicle of 754 - Spain
 * Chronicle (Crònica) by Ramon Muntaner – 13th/14th-century Crown of Aragon. Third and longest of the Grand Catalan Chronicles.
 * Chronicle of Finland (Chronicon Finlandiae) by Johannes Messenius – Finland
 * Chronicle of Fredegar - France
 * Chronicle of the Slavs – Europe
 * Chronicle of Greater Poland – Poland
 * Chronicle of Jean de Venette – France
 * Chronicle of the Bishops of England (De Gestis Pontificum Anglorum) by William of Malmesbury
 * Chronicle of the Kings of Alba - Scotland
 * Chronicle of the Kings of England (De Gestis Regum Anglorum) by William of Malmesbury
 * Chronicles of Mann - Isle of Man
 * Chronicon of Eusebius
 * Chronicon Scotorum – Ireland
 * Chronicon of Thietmar of Merseburg
 * Chronicon Paschale - 7th century Greek chronicle of the world
 * Chronicon Pictum – History of Hungary
 * Chronographia – 11th century History of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) by Michael Psellos
 * Comentarios Reales de los Incas
 * Conversion of Kartli – Georgia
 * Cronaca - Chronicle of Cyprus from the 4th up to the 15th century by Cypriot chronicler Leontios Machairas
 * Cronaca fiorentina – Chronicle of Florence up to the end of the 14th Century by Baldassarre Bonaiuti
 * Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum – Poland
 * Croyland Chronicle – England
 * Dawn-Breakers (Nabil's Narrative) – Baháʼí Faith and Middle East
 * Dioclean Priest's Chronicle – Europe
 * Dipavamsa – Sri Lanka
 * Divan of the Abkhazian Kings – Georgia
 * Epic of Sundiata - West Africa
 * Epitome rerum Hungarorum – History of Hungary
 * Eric Chronicles – Sweden
 * Eusebius Chronicle – Mediterranean and Middle East
 * Fragmentary Annals of Ireland – Ireland
 * Froissart's Chronicles – France and Western Europe
 * Galician-Volhynian Chronicle – Ukraine
 * Georgian Chronicles – Georgia
 * Gesta Hungarorum – History of Hungary
 * Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum – History of Hungary
 * Gesta Normannorum Ducum – Normandy
 * Gesta principum Polonorum
 * Grandes Chroniques de France – France
 * General Estoria by Alfonso X – c. 1275-1284 Castile, Spain.
 * Henry of Livona Chronicle – Eastern Europe
 * Historia Ecclesiastica – Norman England
 * Historia Scholastica by Petrus Comestor - 12th century France
 * The Historie and Chronicles of Scotland, Robert Lindsay of Pitscottie
 * História da Província Santa Cruz a que vulgarmente chamamos Brasil – Brazil
 * History of the Prophets and Kings – Middle East and Mediterranean
 * Hustyn Chronicle – Eastern Europe
 * Jami' al-tawarikh by Rashid-al-Din Hamadani - Universal history
 * Jans der Enikel – Europe and Mediterranean
 * Jerome's Chronicle – Mediterranean and Middle East
 * Jinakalamali – Northern Thailand
 * Joannis de Czarnkow chronicon Polonorum – Poland
 * Kaiserchronik – Central and southern Europe, Germany
 * Kano Chronicle – Nigeria
 * Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh by Sujan Rai - History of India
 * Khwaday-Namag - History of Persia
 * Kilwa Chronicle - East Africa
 * Kojiki - Japan
 * Lethrense Chronicle – Denmark
 * Livonian Chronicle of Henry - Livonia
 * Livonian Rhymed Chronicle - Livonia
 * Libre dels Feyts – Book of the Deeds by James I of Aragon, first of the Grand Catalan Chronicles
 * Madala Panji – Chronicle of the Jagannath Temple in Puri, India, related to the History of Odisha
 * Mahavamsa – Sri Lanka
 * Maronite Chronicle – The Levant, anonymous annalistic chronicle in the Syriac language completed shortly after 664.
 * Manx Chronicle – Isle of Man
 * Nabonidus Chronicle – Mesopotamia
 * Nihon Shoki - Japan
 * Novgorod First Chronicle - Russia
 * Nuova Cronica – Florence
 * Nuremberg Chronicle
 * Old Tibetan Chronicle - History of Tibet
 * Parian Chronicle - Ancient Greece
 * Paschale Chronicle – Mediterranean
 * Pictish Chronicle - Scotland
 * Primary Chronicle – Eastern Europe
 * Puranas – India
 * Rajatarangini – Kashmir
 * Roit and Quheil of Tyme – Scotland, Adam Abell
 * Roskildense Chronicle – Denmark
 * Royal Frankish Annals – Frankish Empire
 * Scotichronicon – by the Scottish historian Walter Bower
 * Shahnama-yi-Al-i Osman by Fethullah Arifi Çelebi – Ottoman empire (1300 ac – the end of Sultan Suleyman I's reign) which is the fifth volume of it Süleymanname
 * Skibby Chronicle – Danish Latin chronicle from the 1530s
 * Swiss illustrated chronicles – Switzerland
 * Timbuktu Chronicles – Mali
 * Zizhi Tongjian – China

title: Chronicle


text:
Talk:Concubinage

"In twenty-first-century parlance, 'concubine' refers either to a mistress or to a sex slave."
There isn't really any "typical" usage of the word alone. The word tends to be always contextualized, and the contexts can be very different from each other. --Grufo (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 * According to ... what source exactly? And in what context? In academic literature, or in more general usage? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The source for this is The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History, which is a pretty reliable source.VR talk 14:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Having a source might not be enough, especially when a sentence lowers down the quality of an article. What one thinks when they hear the word concubine is inherently a subjective thing, and we tend not to hear the word alone. I am honestly unable to imagine an example of a sentence where the word concubine appears without being contextualized, either explicitly or implicitly. If a woman says today "I am a concubine", the first thing I will think will be the oddity of the sentence, the second thing I will think will be that she lives with the boyfriend, the third think I will do will be asking "What do you mean?". --Grufo (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that the statement is at once correct and incorrect on both counts. Conceptually, a concubine is more bonded than a mistress but freer than a slave. Genghis Khan had concubines whose power and status exceeded that of some of his lesser wives, just as court eunuchs have become grand viziers. The great modern fallacy of interpretation is to impose our moral values on historical situations that we can barely grasp the implications of. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is really subjective, . When I hear the word concubine alone there will no meanings at all until I am able to contextualize. I would definitely not think about Genghis Khan, since I never think about Genghis Khan, and the last thing I will think about will be Islamic Harems. If you really force me to think about something (but you have to force me), I will likely think about European aristocratic persons from the past, and the concubine will be aristocratic too. --Grufo (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we are have our biases, but ultimately we have to go with what sources say. If there are sources that say other things, they can be included. But a high-quality academic source should be complemented by another high-quality academic source. Don't use a WP:PRIMARY source to say "Academic source says X, but primary source says Y". That's an example of WP:FALSEBALANCE.VR talk 15:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't automatically use what sources say if a statement is inherently subjective, we are free to omit it (WP:UNDUE) --Grufo (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view (NPOV) applies: "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analysing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." Omitting those truths that do not suit an editor's point of view is not consistent with NPOV. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A subjective statement is not a “truth”. It is also not a secondary source in this case, since it does not interpret what a primary source says. Regarding this specific sentence the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History becomes a primary source and offers no means for WP:V. --Grufo (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you calling an encyclopedia a primary source? That's ridiculous. An encyclopedia is almost the most secondary type of source you can get - as with Wikipedia, typically collating the input of legions of other secondary sources to come up with fair, balanced and neutral definitions. It's not primary because you don't like it. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I got this slightly wrong. Since encyclopedias are derived from secondary sources, Wikipedia considers them one step further still for the purposes of source categorisation, labelling them WP:TERTIARY. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not free to omit anything simply because you 'think' it is subjective, unless of course there are no objections from any other editors or of course you achieve a consensus in talk that something is indeed WP:POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually came here to question the same phrase. Reviewing three modern dictionaries, (Merriam Webster, Cambridge, Collins) two of them include "mistress" as a common meaning or synonym, and all of them mention social status, but none of them mention slavery. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Can refer to" is not the same as "defined as". I think the Oxford source is saying some concubines in the 21st century happen to be sex slaves, not that that's how the term is defined. Also the Collins source you mentioned does say the concubine is regarded as "sexually subservient".VR talk 05:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The article reads "it typically refers" rather than "can refer to", but if we clarified the "sex slave" part of that sentence as "can refer to" then my objections would be resolved. As for Collins, "sexually subservient" and "sex slave" are not synonyms. BilledMammal (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I quote the rather pertinent tertiary source cited by VR on Talk: Sexual slavery in Islam: "Voluntary concubinage should be distinguished from involuntary concubinage. In the latter the woman is sold, usually by her family. As a concubine she is rarely a slave, at least legally...yet in practice, the life of an involuntary concubine may look very much like a slave." The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History. The reality is that the concepts of freedom and slavery were often greyer and more blurred in the ancient and medieval world. A concubine, who may well be "sexually subservient" to a master, and even sold by their parents, might still not be legally classified within society as a slave. This a rather good illustration of the oversimplicity that can creep in when a reductive approach is taken to define a term. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are slightly mistaken about the topic we are discussing; we are discussing "In the twenty-first century, it typically refers explicitly to extramarital affection, "either to a mistress or to a sex slave", without the same emphasis on the cohabiting aspect of the original meaning", which is about how the word is used in the twenty-first century, not how it was used in the ancient or medieval world. BilledMammal (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say that the way in which the term is used differs depending on whether it is being used to refer to events in the 21st-century or events in the distant past. In any case, the definition of "either to a mistress or to a sex slave" also encapsulates the way in which the term can refer to range of roles where a participant may be free or very much enslaved. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In any case, would you object to the clarification that VI seemed to propose, using "can refer to"? BilledMammal (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

LDS section
I'm removing the recently added section on the Latter Day Saint movement for a few reasons: Which brings me back to the first point - we need reliable, secondary sources to really answer the other concerns, imo. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The principal reason is that it is using a single primary source. What we need are secondary sources, which leads into the next concerns I have...
 * 2) Right now it seems like it fails WP:UNDUE, which is actually really hard to gauge based solely on a primary source since the weight should reflect the weight in secondary sources. I also don't think that the Latter Day Saints are unique in saying OT figures had concubines. I'm pretty sure that other Christian groups use or have used similar verbiage for most if not all of these individuals, so why is it important to single out Latter Day Saints? Again, secondary sources would help.
 * 3) Context feels like it is an issue. The paragraph is based on the occurrence of the word/concept in the movement's scriptures which themselves are commenting on occurrences in the ancient world. But does that mean that it belongs in a the New World section that also tends towards the modern era? This isn't really a New World occurrence of the practice of concubinage. I am uncertain where it makes sense for this mention to occur or if it even should occur, again largely without secondary sources to put the mention in Latter Day Saint scripture in context.

 * I agree that secondary sources would be better. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Indonesia?
Why there is no mention of indonesia on this article despite it has undocumented infos of concubine system? Eg yogyakarta concubinage in pre modern age. 2404:8000:1027:2C72:C42A:D8CC:B3DA:AF04 (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Zionist Nonsense
Keep the Zionist nonsense off of this article, please. Hagar was not Abraham's concubine; she was his second wife. 70.55.216.171 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

1000 apologies
Hi, I tried to make a page for Norse co-wives, the fridla, but klutzed up the public sandbox ... so I turn to this page to store the text, which is a very rough draft (apology for that, too) written by a non-nativr EN speaker (blame my parents for that one). Hit me over the head if you need to. Here below, in sandbox'stead, my oeuvre, appended.

Friðla refers to a «free woman», a free and independent woman who lives with a man to whom she is not married. The man could also be married to another woman, and the friðla then acted as a "co-wife". A friðla who had been received into the household as a co-wife was called an ‘aarenelja’. A friðla was not under her husbands ‘mund’ (‘ward’), instead she was still a member of her original clan.

Etymology Friðla (from Norse friðla, 'mistress', from friðill 'lover, beloved'), from the same root as the words «free», "fred» («peace") and "frende" («friend, fellow»),

Friðlar in pagan times According to Saxo's Gesta Danorum, Danish chieftains had friðlar in the 9th and 11th centuries. Judging by the Norse sources, friðlar seem to have been quite widespread in Norway in the Middle Ages. The parishes have many rules on friðlar and friðlar children, and the laws regulate the arrangement, especially when it comes to inheritance. Children of friðlar could inherit from their father if he had acknowledged paternity; but children born to a full wife took precedence.

The friðlar could be resourceful women from the same social strata as the male party, such as Sigurd Jorsalfare's friðla Borghild Olavsdatter, mother of the later Magnus IV. In this way the friðlar could attain high social status both through a liaison with the male party, and also through the children she might bear him; but the custom may also have had its roots in efforts to rise from poverty.

Becoming a friðla was a free choice: Harald Fairhair wanted Gyda Eiriksdatter to be his friðla, she refused and became queen instead.

In Iceland In Iceland, most chieftains from the end of the 12th century until the 1260s had relationships with several friðlar at the same time. This is how they entered into binding relationships with the most influential families in the local population. The relationships were entered into with the consent of the girls' families, who thus secured extra protection. The girls themselves had secured their position in society. If the frill had a son who later became a chieftain, he’d be a source of pride for her family, and in any case it was better for many to be a chieftain's frill than a poor farmer wife. If the chief married, he could send the frill home without damaging relations with her family, and she herself could still get married.

The Icelandic legislation Grågås set as a condition for marriage that the couple dispose of the equivalent of the value of six cows. Many did not. In the Sturlungasagaen, it is told about the alliances a big man was able to obtain with the help of his daughters-in-law. Of the children Snorre had with his three friðlar, two daughters were married to Iceland's most powerful chieftains - one of these was later responsible for the execution of his father-in-law Snorre.

Inheritance rights of friðla children

A friðla child was entered into the father's clan if he acknowledged paternity. Friðla children often grew up with their mothers or foster parents. Njål Torgeirsson in Njål's saga and Rodny Hoskuldsdaughter together had an son out of wedlock, Hoskuld, named after his maternal grandfather. The boy is mentioned as one of "Njål's sons", and when he was killed, he was avenged by his half-brothers whom Njål had in his marriage.

Friðlar in the Christian era In Norse times, the parents' marital status did not affect the status of their children, as long as both parents were freeborn. A king's son had the right of inheritance to the throne whether the father had been married to the boy's mother or not. But with the increasing dominance of Christianity, Canon Law dmanded that "children of harlots" should have no right to any paternal inheritance. Older Nordic laws enter into a compromise between canon law and pre-Christian laws. An illegitimate child could therefore inherit his mother in the same way as half-siblings born in marriage, while the right of inheritance from the father was limited. This was nevertheless counteracted by the fact that the father, before his death, might bequeathe upon any friðla child various gifts; however, the church's growing power gradually weakened the legal protection of friðla children.

Towards the end of the 12th century, Bishop Øystein Erlendsson decided that friars were not allowed to receive sacraments if they did not promise to marry, but in 1280 there was a response from Eirik Magnusson's council of guardians which stated: "It is forbidden for a man to be forced to take that oath that he should marry the woman with whom he had an affair, when he sleeps with her after he went to confession and penance." Unmarried nobles still kept friðlar, but did not want to comply with the church's injunction to marry them. Beyond the 14th century, the bishops made several orders that people who lived in an adulterous relationship should marry, but the only Norwegian woman known to have been sanctioned for having lived in an extramarital relationship is Groa Munansdatter, who in 1317 offered to make amends for 23 years of illegal cohabitation with Simon of Tangen.

Although Canon law condemned adultery, the friðla custom was common and accepted. Only in 1237 was marriage for priests prohibited in a papal bull. From Laurentius' saga (around 1300) we know that the Icelandic bishop Laurentius Kalvsson (1267-1331, bishop of Hólar from 1322) had been taught church law by the learned Jon Flamlending, who had a frill that was downright unbelievably ugly. When Laurentius asked why he stayed with such an ugly woman, Jon replied, "I am hot-tempered and would not tolerate someone luring my handmaiden away from me." The pious Laurentius himself had an affair with whom he had a son who later became a priest. The arrangement must have been widespread, based on the amount of dispensation letters from the Pope for illegitimate children who were nevertheless ordained into priesthood.

In the cities, owners of a house had the exclusive right to brew and serve beer, but could rent out the right to a beer wife. It was nevertheless specified that it must be a "dannekone" (a woman with a good reputation), because "no friðlar or loose women are allowed to tap beer". A law codicil reinforced that Friðlar were not allowed to sell goods other than their own. This was meant to curb the Hanseatics at Bryggen in Bergen who were not allowed to run retail trade, but could conceivably use their friðlar as intermediaries.

A statute from the Norwegian bishops' college in the 1340s established that "fornication and all kinds of carnal pleasure that is done with human reproductive organs outside of marriage are forbidden and cursed by God himself and the Holy Church". The church had always demanded that monks and nuns live in celibacy, and from 1237 the requirement also applied to parish priests in Norway.

In an ordinance from 1305, Håkon V emphasized that marriage was the only legal form of cohabitation, and marked the difference between legal wives and mere cohabitants by allowing wives to wear "such clothing as God bestows on them". In comparison, friðlar and loose women were not allowed to own clothes more expensive than a cost of 2 1/2 English shillings per ell, and they were not allowed to wear silk, gold and silver. But since 2 1/2 English shillings were two-thirds the price of a cow, they were still able to dress nicely, even by medieval standards, when people could invest fortunes in presentable attire.

Famous friðlar Dyveke Sigbrittsdatter, courtesan of Christian II of Denmark-Norway Tora Guttormsdotter, friðla of Harald Gille, mother of Sigurd Munn Tora Jonsdatter, friðla of Olav Kyrre, mother of Magnus Berrføtt Tora Mosterstong, friðla of Harald Hårfagre, mother of Håkon the Good Inga from Varteig, friðla of Håkon Sverresson, mother of Håkon Håkonsson

Refs

Frille (ODS) Frende osv. (ODS) Nordbø, Børge: «frille» i Store norske leksikon på snl.no. Hentet 11. februar 2022 fra [1] Jón Vidar Sigurdsson: Den vennlige vikingen (s. 31), forlaget Pax, Oslo 2010, ISBN 978-82-530-3359-4 Erik Gunnes: «Rikssamling og kristning», Norges historie bind 2 (s. 299), forlaget Cappelen, ISBN 82-574-0435-7 Den nordiske verden 2 (s. 190), Gyldendal 1992, ISBN 87-01-79040-4 Emblem, Libæk, Stenersen: Norge 1 (s. 36), forlaget Cappelen, ISBN 82-02-14174-5 Njåls saga, avsnitt 25 Maiko Yasuda: Mellom saga og historieverk (s. 43), UiS 2015 Den nordiske verden 2 (s. 190), Gyldendal 1992, ISBN 87-01-79040-4 Arnvid Nedkvitne: Ære, lov og religion i Norge gjennom tusen år (s. 120), forlaget Spartacus, 2011, ISBN 978-82-304-0070-8 Stephan Tschudi-Madsen m.fl.: Norges kulturhistorie: Kaupang og katedral (s. 221), Aschehoug, Oslo 1984, ISBN 82-03-11208-0 Sandvik, Gudmund: «retterbot» i Store norske leksikon på snl.no. Hentet 10. februar 2022 fra [2] Stephan Tschudi-Madsen m.fl.: Norges kulturhistorie: Kaupang og katedral (s. 205-08) Arnvid Nedkvitne: Ære, lov og religion i Norge gjennom tusen år (s. 117) Sverre Bagge: Mennesket i middelalderens Norge (s. 124-5), forlaget Aschehoug, Oslo 2005, ISBN 82-03-23282-5

T 2A02:FE1:E16B:CC00:68B2:3BD7:B626:6563 (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Concubinage