text:
Gray mouse lemur

The gray mouse lemur (Microcebus murinus), grey mouse lemur or lesser mouse lemur is a small lemur, a type of strepsirrhine primate, found only on the island of Madagascar. Weighing 58 to 67 g, it is the largest of the mouse lemurs (genus Microcebus), a group that includes the smallest primates in the world. The species is named for its mouse-like size and coloration and is known locally (in Malagasy) as tsidy, koitsiky, titilivaha, pondiky, and vakiandry. The gray mouse lemur and all other mouse lemurs are considered cryptic species, as they are nearly indistinguishable from each other by appearance. For this reason, the gray mouse lemur was considered the only mouse lemur species for decades until more recent studies began to distinguish between the species.

Like all mouse lemurs, this species is nocturnal and arboreal. It is very active, and though it forages alone, groups of males and females form sleeping groups and share tree holes during the day. It exhibits a form of dormancy called torpor during the cool, dry winter months, and in some cases undergoes seasonal torpor (or hibernation), which is unusual for primates. The gray mouse lemur can be found in several types of forest throughout western and southern Madagascar. Its diet consists primarily of fruit, insects, flowers, and nectar. In the wild, its natural predators include owls, snakes, and endemic mammalian predators. Predation pressure is higher for this species than among any other primate species, with one out of four individuals taken by a predator each year. This is counterbalanced by its high reproductive rate. Breeding is seasonal, and distinct vocalizations are used to prevent hybridization with species that overlap its range. Gestation lasts approximately 60 days, and typically two young are born. The offspring are usually independent in two months, and can reproduce after one year. The gray mouse lemur has a reproductive lifespan of five years, although captive individuals have been reported to live up to 15 years.

Although threatened by deforestation, habitat degradation, and live capture for the pet trade, it is considered one of Madagascar's most abundant small native mammals. It can tolerate moderate food shortages by experiencing daily torpor to conserve energy, but extended food shortages due to climate change may pose a significant risk to the species.

Etymology
The gray or lesser mouse lemur is named for its brownish-gray fur and mouse-like size and appearance. The genus name, Microcebus, derives from the Greek words mikros, meaning "small", and kebos, meaning "monkey". The Latin version of kebos, cebus, is a common suffix used for primate names, despite the fact that the gray mouse lemur is a lemur, and not a monkey. The species name, murinus, means "mouse-like" and derives from the Latin word mus, or "mouse", and the Latin suffix -inus, which means "like".

The lemur is known locally by several names in Malagasy, depending upon the region. Around Tôlanaro (Fort Dauphin), it is called pondiky. In the northern end of its range, it is known as tsidy. Around Morondava, it is referred to as koitsiky, titilivaha , and vakiandry. In many cases, these Malagasy names are also used for other visually indistinguishable mouse lemur species that live within its range.

Taxonomy
As its name implies, the gray mouse lemur is a lemur, a type of primate, and belongs to the suborder Strepsirrhini and infraorder Lemuriformes. Within Lemuriformes, it belongs to the family Cheirogaleidae, which contains the mouse lemurs, dwarf lemurs, giant mouse lemurs, fork-marked lemurs, and hairy-eared dwarf lemur. The mouse lemur genus Microcebus includes the smallest primates in the world. Phylogenetic analyses of D-loop DNA sequences of various lemur species suggest that the gray mouse lemur may be most closely related to the reddish-gray mouse lemur (M. griseorufus).

In 1777, the English illustrator John Frederick Miller included a hand-coloured plate of the gray mouse lemur in his Icones animalium et plantarum and coined the binomial name Lemur murinus. The species was moved to the genus Microcebus by the French naturalist Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire in 1834. M. murinus remained the only species of its genus, as well as the name used for all mouse lemurs on Madagascar, between the first major taxonomic revision in 1931 and an extensive field study conducted in 1972. The field study distinguished the brown mouse lemur, M. rufus—then considered a subspecies—as a distinct, sympatric species in the southeastern part of the island. Upon this revision, the gray mouse lemur was thought to account for all mouse lemurs that lived in the drier parts of the north, west, and south, while the brown mouse lemur represented the eastern rainforest mouse lemurs. More recently, scientific understanding of the distribution and diversity of the mouse lemurs has become much more complex. Additional field studies, genetic testing, and resulting taxonomic revisions throughout the 1990s and 2000s identified numerous new mouse lemur species, demonstrating that the genus includes at least 17 cryptic species.

Anatomy and physiology
The gray mouse lemur shares many traits with other mouse lemurs, including soft fur, a long tail, long hind limbs, a dorsal stripe down the back (not always distinct), a short snout, rounded skull, prominent eyes, and large, membranous, protruding ears. It has large eyes and a tapetum lucidum to enhance its vision at night. The dorsal coat is brownish-gray with various reddish tones, the flanks are light gray to beige, and the ventral fur has discrete dull beige or whitish-beige patches along portions of the belly. On the rounded face, there is a pale white patch above the nose and between the eyes; some individuals have dark orbital markings. The furred portions of the hands and feet are off-white.

The gray mouse lemur is one of the smallest primates in the world, yet it is also the largest mouse lemur. Its total length is 25 to 28 cm, with a head-body length of 12 to 14 cm and a tail length of 13 to 14.5 cm. The average weight for this species is 60 g, with ranges of 58 and 67 g and 40 and 70 g reported. This is smaller than the world's smallest monkey, the pygmy marmoset, which ranges between 85 and 140 g. Weight varies by season, with both sexes building fat reserves, up to 35% of their body weight, in the tail and hind legs prior to the dry season and periods of dormancy. The tail of the gray mouse lemur can increase fourfold in volume during the wet season when it is storing fat. Even in captivity when environmental limitations are not an issue, mouse lemurs have shown a seasonal dietary preference with a greater protein intake during what would be their more active season.

Researchers have identified differences in the tooth morphology of the first and second molars between the gray mouse lemur and the reddish-gray mouse lemur. In the reddish-gray mouse lemur, the first lower molar (m1) is squared and both the first and second upper molars (M1 and M2) have slight indentations around the middle of the posterior margin. The gray mouse lemur has a more elongated m1 and lacks the aforementioned indentation on M1 and M2. In terms of its general dentition, the gray mouse lemur shares the same dental formula as all other members of its family, Cheirogaleidae:

This species has 66 chromosomes, closely resembling the karyotype of the dwarf lemurs (genus Cheirogaleus). Except for the X chromosome, all chromosomes are acrocentric (with the short arm absent or virtually absent). Its genome size is 3.12 picograms (pg).

Ecology
Like all other members of the family Cheirogaleidae, the gray mouse lemur is nocturnal and arboreal. It inhabits lowland tropical dry forest, sub-arid thorn scrub, gallery forest, spiny forest, eastern littoral forest, dry deciduous forests, semi-humid deciduous, moist lowland forest, transitional forest, and secondary forests or degraded forests (including plantations) all ranging up to 800 m above sea level. The species is more common in secondary forest than in primary forest, particularly bush and scrub habitat, where it occupies a "fine branch" niche, restricting the vertical range to fine branches, fine terminal supports, lianas and dense foliage. These lemurs are usually seen on branches less than 5 cm in diameter. The gray mouse lemur tends to prefer lower levels of the forest and the understory, where branches and vegetation are dense.

In secondary forest, it is generally observed from ground level up to 10 m above ground, yet 15 to 30 m in the canopy of primary forest. Studies have found that the species can spend as much as 40% of its time below 3 m, with 70% of its time spent at this level during the end of the dry season, when plant food is limited and insects compose a larger percentage of the diet. The species is more numerous in spiny forest, such as the Andohahela Special Reserve, than in the gallery forest, preferring drier, littoral forest, whereas the brown mouse lemur prefers inland rain forest.

The limits of the distribution are poorly understood. It is believed to range from the Onilahy River or Lake Tsimanampetsotsa in the south to Ankarafantsika National Park in the north. There is also an isolated and disjointed population in the southeastern part of the island, near Tôlanaro and the Andohahela National Park, up to the Mandena Conservation Zone. Individuals tend to occupy small home ranges of 1 to 2 ha. The gray mouse lemur is also sympatric with the reddish-gray mouse lemur, golden-brown mouse lemur, Madame Berthe's mouse lemur, and several other cheirogaleid lemurs. In Ankarafantsika National Park, where it coexists with the golden-brown mouse lemur, the gray mouse lemur's relative population density was highest at higher altitudes and in drier habitat, while the golden-brown mouse lemur preferred the opposite. Another study has looked at the coexistence of the gray mouse lemur and Madame Berthe's mouse lemur and found small, exclusive clusters of each species and a high degree of feeding niche overlap.

The gray mouse lemur can reach high population densities up to several hundred individuals per square kilometer (up to 167 individuals/km2 at Ankarafantsika National Park to 712 individuals/km2 at Kirindy Mitea National Park). This abundance is not uniform and tends to concentrate in "population nuclei", suggesting that it is difficult to accurately estimate population densities when extrapolating from a small area (from various studies) to a large area. The difficulty in finding individuals during some times of the year, particularly during the dry periods, can further complicate the problem of estimating population densities.

Mouse lemurs are omnivorous, and favor fruit and insects for the bulk of their diet. The gray mouse lemur may even come down to the ground to catch insect prey, though it quickly returns to the protective cover of the understory to consume its catch. Nectar is also a part of the gray mouse lemur's diet, making it a potential pollinator for local plant species. A single instance of a male cannibalizing an adult female is known.

Predation
The most significant predators of the gray mouse lemur are the Madagascar owl and barn owl. Studies conducted in Beza Mahafaly Reserve and Kirindy Mitea National Park indicate a predation rate of around 25% (percent population taken by predators per year), the highest known for any primate species. However, given the species' high reproductive potential, predation does not appear to have a drastic effect on its populations. Other raptors, such as Henst's goshawk and other owls, also prey upon this species. Snakes, such as Ithycyphus miniatus (a native colubrid snake) and the Madagascar tree boa, as well as mammalian predators, such as the ring-tailed mongoose, narrow-striped mongoose, fossa, and domestic dogs are also known to prey on the gray mouse lemur. Mammalian predators often discover tree holes serving as nests, and enlarge the opening so they can catch and eat the occupant. This puts strong selective pressure on the choice of nest hole opening diameter and deepness.

Due to its non-gregarious nature, the gray mouse lemur, like other nocturnal lemurs, primarily defends itself from predators using avoidance strategies, although group defense through the use of alarm calls and predator mobbing has been observed in this species. Studies involving the placement of predator and non-predator fecal odor with captive populations have demonstrated a genetic predisposition for predator recognition through the detection of metabolites from meat digestion. The mouse lemurs were shown to avoid locations where they typically received rewards, as well as exhibit increased activity and anti-predator behavior, when the odor of predator feces were present in that vicinity, but not when the fecal odor of Malagasy non-predators was present.

During the day, when they are most vulnerable, individuals shelter inside tree holes, sometimes forming nests. They may use three to nine different tree holes within their home range, yet individuals may use one particular hole for up to five consecutive days. Mouse lemurs tend to prefer tree hollows, but also commonly make spherical constructions out of leaves. Nests are usually found in tree holes with a minimum diameter of 5 cm, with a median of 13 cm, suggesting that this range in diameter of tree holes may be crucial for maintaining a healthy habitat. The gray mouse lemur also spends most of its time in dense vegetation, limiting its visibility and accessibility to predators. Furthermore, it has a high reproductive rate to counter losses to predation.

Behavior
The gray mouse lemur is nocturnal, sleeping during the day in tree holes lined with leaf litter or purpose-built spherical nests constructed from dead leaves, moss and twigs. It usually forages alone at night, but may sleep in groups during the day, the composition of which depends on gender and season. Tree holes can be shared with up to 15 other individuals, although males tend to sleep alone while females tend to share nests. All mouse lemurs are highly active at night, often scurrying like mice and leaping over 3 m, using the tail as a balancing organ. When moving among the terminal branches of bushes and trees, they grip using all four feet and move with four legs. When on the ground, either to catch insects or cross short open areas, mouse lemurs hop like a frog. When hunting, the grey mouse lemur is known to catch invertebrates and small vertebrates with quick hand grasps.

In the dry season, the gray mouse lemur faces the challenge of exploiting sparsely distributed feeding resources efficiently. Results of a recent study on this showed that the gray mouse lemur does not move around randomly, but rather use spatial cues to find food resources in the absence of sensory cues, and that they seem to reuse common, highly efficient routes with regard to travel distance. It is believed that rather than using a route-based network, the gray mouse lemur has some sense of mental representation of their spatial environment, which they use to find and exploit food resources.

Foraging behavior is often slow, with height and direction changing continuously. Predation of insects occurs primarily on the ground. Before descending, the ear pinnae move alternately to help pinpoint the precise location of their prey. Insects are captured during a rapid dash across the leaf litter and are transported by mouth up into the relative safety of the branches. Studies with captive gray mouse lemurs have shown that vision is primarily used for prey detection, although the other senses certainly play a role in foraging.

The gray mouse lemur is omnivorous, feeding primarily on fruit and invertebrates. Local populations appear to specialize on locally available fruit. At both Marosalaza and Mandena, beetles are the primary insect prey, although moths, praying mantids, fulgorid bugs, crickets, cockroaches, and spiders are also eaten. Less than half the diet consists of insects, with fruit making up a slightly larger fraction. This lemur also consumes flowers, gums and nectar from Euphorbia and Terminalia trees, leaves (Uapaca sp.), exudates (Homopteran larvae secretions), and small vertebrates such as tree frogs, geckos, and chameleons. Its diet is seasonally varied and diverse in content, giving it a very broad feeding niche compared to other species such as the Madame Berthe's mouse lemur. Therefore, it is affected more by food availability than by niche partitioning where sympatry occurs.

Dormancy
As with all members of the mouse lemur genus, the gray mouse lemur is known to enter short states of daily torpor, particularly during the cool, dry Southern Hemisphere winter. This rare trait in primates, coupled with the ease of observing the species within its wide geographic distribution and its good representation in captivity, makes it a popular subject for research as a model organism. The gray mouse lemur is unique among the mouse lemurs studied so far because it is the only species to exhibit prolonged seasonal torpor, but this behavior has only been observed to occur in one locality. Activity patterns can differ noticeably between sexes as well as populations. At the Ampijoroa Forestry Station in Ankarafantsika National Park, males and females exhibit daily, rather than seasonal torpor. At Kirindy Forest, both sexes share the same daily torpor, yet during the dry season (April/May through September/October), females become completely inactive for several weeks or up to five months to conserve energy and reduce predation. However, males rarely remain inactive for more than a few days and become extremely active before the females revive from torpor, allowing them to establish hierarchies and territories for the breeding season. The use of alternative energy-saving strategies under the same environmental conditions was observed directly in 2008, providing the first physiological confirmation from the field. This pattern of seasonal versus daily torpor may relate to the seasonality of the region, since Kirindy is the only location west of the eastern mountain rainforests that experiences very low temperatures at night during the winter months. By entering extended torpor, sometimes referred to as hibernation, this would reduce the thermoregulatory stress in females, whereas males remain more active in preparation for the upcoming mating season. No difference in mortality has been shown between hibernating females and active males.

During torpor, the gray mouse lemur's metabolic rate slows and its body temperature drops to the ambient temperature, as low as 7 °C. During the cooler months of May though August, the species selects tree holes closer to ground level, where ambient temperatures remain more stable. This allows them to remain in torpor longer, and to conserve metabolic resources. One study showed that during the breeding season, both males and females reduced their energy expenditure by 20% when they nested in pairs, and a maximal energetic benefit of 40% was achieved when three mouse lemurs nested together. Even during the nonbreeding season, maximal energetic gain was observed two or more animals nested together, because resting metabolic rate was already decreased.

While the gray mouse lemur is found in both primary and secondary deciduous forests, they have lower population densities in secondary forests. This is because variations in gray mouse lemur abundance are linked to their capacity to enter torpor during the dry season, especially for females, which tend to hibernate longer than males. In primary forests, they can maintain daily torpor or hibernation as long as their body temperatures remain below 28 °C, but in secondary forests that have fewer large trees, temperatures are higher and inhibit the gray mouse lemur's ability to maintain torpor for prolonged periods of time. In addition, the gray mouse lemur in secondary forests tend to have a lower body mass than those in primary forests, as well as lower survival rates. This is likely because those with lower body mass are less likely to enter torpor, and therefore expend around 40% more energy than those that do maintain torpor.

This unusual ability for a primate to exhibit dormancy, in addition to the diminutive size, has led researchers to speculate that ancestral lemurs, and possibly ancestral primates, may have shared some traits with mouse lemurs. Consequently, the gray mouse lemur has once again been used as a model organism for studying lemur and primate evolution. For example, lemurs are thought to have colonized Madagascar by rafting to the island around 60 million years ago according to molecular phylogenetic studies. Before the discovery that ocean currents were the opposite of what they are today, thus favoring such an event, it was thought that it would have taken too long for any animal not capable of entering a state of dormancy to survive the trip. Therefore, the mouse lemurs, such as the gray mouse lemur, were thought to have shared this plesiomorphic (ancestral) trait with the ancestral lemurs.

Social systems
The gray mouse lemur is described as solitary but social, foraging alone at night, but frequently sleeping in groups during the day. This social pattern varies by gender, season, and location. Females tend to share nests with other females and their offspring, whereas males tend to sleep alone or in pairs outside of the breeding season. Groups of females sharing a nest can be relatively stable, consisting of two to nine individuals, although a male may be found with a group of females outside the breeding season. During the breeding season (September through October), males and females may sleep in the same tree hole. Mixed sex groups can be common at this time, with single males sharing nest sites with three to seven females or single females sharing nest sites with one to three males.

Research has shown that home ranges for the gray mouse lemur are usually small, possibly less than 50 m. Males typically travel further at night and have home ranges that are twice as large as those of females, often overlapping with one another, and always overlapping with at least one female's home range. Male home ranges increase threefold during the breeding season.

Female home ranges overlap less than those of males, although localized concentrations, or "population nuclei", tend to form in some areas, where the sex ratio favors females to males by three or four to one at the nucleus core. Genetic studies indicate that females arrange themselves spatially in clusters ("population nuclei") of related individuals, while males tend to emigrate from their natal group. Research has shown that females in this species may maintain smaller ranges and associate more closely with other females than in some other mouse lemur species due to a more opportunistic feeding niche and, in the case of populations at Kirindy, the use of extended, seasonal torpor.

Communication
Vocalizations and scent are the primarily modes of communication within this species. Home ranges are scent marked with urine and feces. Vocalizations are complex and very high-pitched (ranging from 10 to 36 kHz), sometimes beyond the range of human hearing (0.02 to 20 kHz). These include calls for seeking contact, mating, distant communication, alarm, and distress.

Like other mouse lemurs, the gray mouse lemur uses what has been described as a harmonic whistle call that is lower in frequency and shorter in duration than its close relative, the brown mouse lemur. In addition, it has been found that the types of vocalizations emitted by the gray mouse lemur can be dependent upon the environment. In the more open dry forest habitats favored by the gray mouse lemur, trill calls are more common and effective since they carry faster and are less likely to be masked by the wind, while chirp calls are more common in the brown mouse lemur, which favors closed rain forest habitats.

As with other social mammals, the calls reveal the sex and identity of the individual. Dialects have also been detected between communities. The male trill call, part of the male mating display, is much like a bird song in terms of its ordered sequence of broadband frequency modulated syllables, ranging between 13 and 35 kHz in pitch and lasting 0.3 to 0.9 seconds, repeating up to 1.5 times per minute. Each locality has its own theme of trill calls that is distinct from those of neighboring communities, and resident males produce individually distinct trill calls within that theme. These calls are not genetically programmed. During play, young males produce early attempts at the trill call, which show high degrees of variability. Research has shown that the male mouse lemurs consciously manipulate the dialect to resemble those of their neighbors, when transferred from their home to a new neighborhood. This may reduce aggression and foster social acceptance for emigrant males as they transfer from their natal group upon maturity.

Because mouse lemurs are cryptic species, and therefore visually indistinguishable, their social calls help individuals select mates of their own species. This differentiated signaling and recognition system has promoted species cohesiveness through premating isolation, and helped researchers distinguish and identify species.

Breeding and reproduction
The mating system is described as multi-male and multi-female. Males establish dominance hierarchies prior to the mating season, however, some studies in the wild have shown no male aggression or visible competition for receptive females. Males in captivity become highly aggressive and form strict dominance hierarchies. These captive males may show the highest plasma testosterone levels found in mammals, and even the odor of a dominant male can lower the testosterone levels and sexually inhibit a subordinate male. During the breeding season, male testes increase significantly in size, facilitating sperm competition due to female promiscuity. Studies with the gray mouse lemur have shown that the optimal insemination period, during which a male is most likely to sire offspring, occurs early during a female's receptivity. Only during the mating season does male mortality rise above that of female mortality.

Although the gray mouse lemur displays multi-male, multi-female mating patterns, studies have shown that females do exhibit indirect mate selection (a form of selected polyandry). During the study, females would mate with 1–7 males up to 11 times during their single night of receptivity, but would avoid or counteract males that attempted to monopolize mating. Dominant males that attempt to monopolize tend to be larger and heavier individuals. Female selection however, has been shown to help increase genetic diversity among offspring.

The gray mouse lemur is considered overall sexually monomorphic, but seasonally fluctuating sexual dimorphism in terms of body mass has been recorded. While the body mass of both sexes fluctuates over the year as a function of food availability, being highest in the rainy season, the differing behavioral repertoires of the sexes lead to sex-specific patterns in this fluctuation. For example, male body mass increases prior to the mating season due to a substantial increase in testes volume that likely enhances the males' success in sperm competition.

The females are receptive for 45 to 55 days between September and October, with estrus lasting 1 to 5 days. Females advertise estrus by distinctive high-frequency calls and scent-marking. Gestation lasts 54 to 68 days, averaging 60 days, typically resulting in 2 or 3 offspring weighing 5 g each. Infants are born in a leaf nest or tree hole in November prior to the onset of the rainy season. Weaning occurs after 25 days, and the infants are either left in the nest or carried in the mother's mouth and deposited on a branch while she forages. Infant mouse lemurs do not cling to the mother's fur. Independence is attained in 2 months, while sexual maturity is reached at 10 to 29 months in females and 7 to 19 months in males. Closely related females remain loosely associated after maturation (female philopatry), whereas males disperse from their natal area. In the wild, the gray mouse lemur's reproductive lifespan is no more than 5 years, although captive specimens have reportedly lived as long as 15 years and 5 months, or even as long as 18.2 years.

The gray mouse lemur uses cooperative breeding as a form of family insurance. The female regularly transfers her offspring to other females' nests—and likewise grooms and cares for offspring other than her own. While this can have a high physiological cost on a lactating female that is already expending a lot of energy, it can be beneficial overall to insuring survival among closely related groups with high mortality risk. A study that took place over three breeding seasons showed that closely related females form breeding groups mainly when there is a shortage of suitable roosts; when there is an advantage of a communal nest for defense, or when there are thermoregulatory benefits. In the event of offspring adoption, when a parent dies and a closely related female takes over care, it is believed that this is beneficial to groups with high mortality risk.

Conservation status
The gray mouse lemur was listed in Appendix 1 by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in 1975, declaring it as threatened with extinction and prohibiting international trade of specimens except for non-commercial use, such as scientific research. The 2008 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List assessment lists it as a species of least concern (LC) with a decreasing population trend.

Its greatest threats are habitat loss from slash-and-burn agriculture and cattle-grazing, as well as live capture for the local pet trade in the northern and southern parts of its range. Although this species inhabits secondary forests, studies have shown that decreased habitat quality adversely affects its populations since fewer tree holes offer fewer opportunities to conserve energy, increasing stress and mortality. One study found nine species of parasites in the fecal matter of the gray mouse lemur living in forests that suffered degradation and fragmentation. In small fragments of good quality forest, as well as forests with high levels of degradation, the gray mouse lemur showed a higher prevalence of parasitic nematodes and protozoans than those in larger good quality forest fragments. Studies in the late 1960s and 1970s showed that heavy logging between 1968 and 1970 seemed to result in decreased body weight, the use of smaller trees for nesting sites, and a smaller maximum female nesting group size (down to 7 from 15). There is also a concern that although daily torpor can help conserve energy and resources during moderate food shortages, extended food shortages brought about by climate change could create too much stress and severely impact the survivability of the species.

The gray mouse lemur is considered one of Madagascar's most abundant small native mammals, found in seven national parks, five special reserves, the Berenty Private Reserve, and other privately protected forests within the Mandena Conservation Zone.

This species of mouse lemur breeds very well in captivity, although it is not commonly displayed in zoos like some larger, diurnal lemurs. In 1989, more than 370 individuals were housed by 14 International Species Information System (ISIS) and non-ISIS institutions across the United States and Europe, 97% of which were captive born. In March 2009, 167 were registered at 29 ISIS institutions, including the Duke Lemur Center.

title: Gray mouse lemur


text:
Talk:Epistle to the Romans

"Homosexual behavior"
This is some clever parsing by someone trying reverse engineer the bible to say what they want it to say. "Leaving the natural use of women" means that God's natural design of human beings is as heterosexuals and that homosexuality goes against that design and is not in God's favor. This doesn't mean that Paul is only condemning people "on the down low" and not speaking to gay people, too. It's silly and dishonest to assert otherwise. --98.198.18.187 (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree that the "among heterosexuals" phrase you excised is not a universally-accepted interpretation of the passage and should have been removed. However, the current wording - condemning all "homosexual behavior" without qualification - is not without controversy.  (Of course, neither interpretation is a "silly or dishonest" interpretation since the text doesn't specifically preclude either).  See the discussion of Romans 1:26 here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm and http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc4.htm  If anything, the section should be rewritten to acknowledge conflicting viewpoints of the text.  I've modified it to attempt neutrality in the meantime. 173.79.14.8 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Co-incident with SCOTUS gay marriage ruling, someone attempted to modify the article back to "homosexual behavior." In light of the (supported and linked) dispute acknowledged by the above comment, I reverted to neutral viewpoint. If you want to rewrite to say "homosexual behavior," the other viewpoint should be acknowledged as well. 65.114.147.218 (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All such discussion on this topic misses the larger context: that the main point of these verses was Paul's explanation for *how* and *why* homosexual acts between men happened in Rome, which he declares is ultimately due to the Romans' idolatry (i.e, because they worshipped the wrong gods, this caused God to "give them up" to unnatural desires, wives gave in and let their husbands do them in the bum, and once they'd gotten that far, men started going for each other).

This, in a nutshell is Paul's explanation for why homosexuality exists. Maybe a plausible hypothesis at the time and place it was written, but 2,000 years of being put to the test did not confirm that one. (Note also, Paul's passive reference to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians was while making the point that Christians who go to laws against other Christians in court suits will be damned just as much as these various kinds of sinners...) Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 23:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

– Per WP:CONSISTENCY with First Epistle of John, Second Epistle of John, Third Epistle of John, First Epistle of Peter, Second Epistle of Peter, Epistle of James, and Epistle of Jude, all of which include the author's name in the title. This is style is also more WP:PRECISE.  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 16:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Epistle to the Romans → Epistle of Paul to the Romans
 * First Epistle to the Corinthians → First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
 * Second Epistle to the Corinthians → Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
 * Epistle to the Galatians → Epistle of Paul to the Galatians
 * Epistle to the Ephesians → Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians
 * Epistle to the Philippians → Epistle of Paul to the Philippians
 * Epistle to the Colossians → Epistle of Paul to the Colossians
 * First Epistle to the Thessalonians → First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
 * Second Epistle to the Thessalonians → Second Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
 * First Epistle to Timothy → First Epistle of Paul to Timothy
 * Second Epistle to Timothy → Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
 * Epistle to Titus → Epistle of Paul to Titus
 * Epistle to Philemon → Epistle of Paul to Philemon
 * Epistle to the Hebrews → Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews
 * Oppose The current titles are already using the WP:COMMONNAME. The newly suggested titles would be good for redirects though. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. The consistency argument doesn't hold weight because the other epistles are general epistles and aren't able to be distinguished by recipients. StAnselm (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. Agree that the consistency argument is invalid per StAnselm above. The argument that the proposed titles are more precise is also invalid, that guideline reads in part titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that (my emphasis). The Epistles of John need the of John for disambiguation but in the case of the Epistles attributed to Paul no further disambiguation is necessary. Andrewa (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

It probably should be pointed out that Andrewa's argument that WP:PRECISE doesn't apply is not technically accurate for Romans and Ephesians, as two of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch are otherwise known by the same names as Pauline epistles. Obviously they are far more obscure than the canonical epistles, so WP:COMMONNAME still trumps this. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Dunn
There's some citations in the article to "Dunn", but the bibliography section has two works by done, so it's not clear which of his works are being references. Could anybody with access to the two volumes by Dunn on Romans take a look and maybe sort this out? Alephb (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Romans 1.18-32
Summarizing the main points here:

The article summarizes Rom. 1.18-32 as depicting God's judgement as a future event ("for which there will be wrath..."), but all translations use present tense and preterite (see all editions of the RSV, all editions of the NRSV, all editions of the KJV, all editions of the NIV - these use simple present or present progressive, which is also a present tense, and simple past) exclusively in 1.18-32. This is also true of all printings of the Koine Greek. The scholarly, independently-peer reviewed secondary source commentaries on these Bibles also base their commentary on present tense and simple past usage. So, "for which there will be" is either a bit of exegetical footwork in violation of neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) rules, original research (WP:NOR), or more charitably a bit of inattentive summary inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines, and not verifiable (WP:V) in any event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs)

Romans 1.18-32 says that God's judgement has already occurred ("is revealed" and "gave them up"), but the article says that the judgement in 1.18-32 will occur in the future. This is an error. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs)
 * - please remember to sign you posts with four tildes ( ~ ) - there's a box at the bottom of the page labeled "Sign your posts on talk pages", if you click on the box it will add your signature to your post.
 * - as to your point, it is open to interpretation (and don't forget we are dealing with translations from Koine Greek and translations vary) - KJV says "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men"; which could be taken to mean that the wrath of God is revealed whenever men are unrighteous - if men are unrighteous now, it will be revealed now; if they are unrighteous in the future, it will be revealed in the future.
 * - NIV says, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people"; which could be taken to mean that the wrath of God is in the process of being revealed and those who are unrighteous will suffer the wrath.

Response: This is simple present tense. The conclusion you draw is not supported by it nor appropriate to a summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs)

 * - so the article statement "have taken up ungodliness and wickedness for which there will be wrath from God" is correct, in alignment with both translations.
 * - it is open to interpretation, but Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, so it is what the sources say that is important, and do the sources agree on one interpretation over another? - unless reliable scholarly sources can be found there is no need to change the wording of the article
 * - Important: please wait for other editors to comment and reach consensus before making further changes to the Epistle to the Romans article - see WP:CONSENSUS - Epinoia (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 No, I'm sorry. The Koine Greek here is also clear. God's wrath is presently revealed in 1.18. Then Paul frames is it as a future event in chapter 2. Check scholarly, peer-reviewed translations like the RSV, NRSV etc. The point these make, and which the sources cited in the first sentence make, is that Paul is quoting what Hellenistic Jews say about Gentiles in 1.18-32 before refuting the use of that kind of discourse starting in 2.1. The evidence for this in the Koine Greek is as strong as it gets: check the rising discourse in 1.18-32, alliteration, pronoun use, and most especially the switch to the vocative voice beginning in 2.1. I'm baffled that you would cite the NIV. It's not a scholarly translation but rather one that by its own admission requires its editors and translators to have come from a distinctly American evangelical background. Frankly, this speaks all the more strongly for making the change. The statement "for which there will be wrath from God" is untrue to the text. It should be "for which there is already," though I could live with "is."

 * - citations to reliable scholarly works are required or it is original research WP:NOR - Epinoia (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I will be working here from Bibles published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, both not-for-profit peer reviewed presses that are divisions of the world’s preeminent research universities and each of which have been publishing Bibles for something like 400 years. New Revised Standard Version, edited by Michael Coogan, Edited by Marc Brettler, Carol Newsom, and Pheme Perkins, OUP, 5th edition 2018. This uses simple present tense “is revealed” and simple past tense “God gave them up.” All four previous editions of this scholarly Bible do the same. The same is true in all editions published by Cambridge University Press. The same is true in the RSV, all editions, all three years of copyright 1946, 1952, and 1971. The same is also true in NKJV editions, all copyright years, published by these presses. I’ve just check the Tyndale translation online and it too has simple present and simple past in these verses. And I checked my facsimilie edition of Martin Luther’s translation – one of my prized posessions – and it too has only simple present and a past tense (though in this case Luther landed on present perfect “has…occurred.”). If the question before us is “At what time does 1.18-32 frame God’s judgment?”, the answer must be already present or having already occurred. I see nothing in 1.18-32 in any translation that would support future tense. You point to present progressive in the NIV, but this too is a present tense, rather than a future tense, and Koine Greek has no such thing as present progressive in any case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/[[User: Metanoia2019 (User: Metanoia2019) 19:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

"...for which there will be wrath from God" is not an accurate summary because it places the wrath of God in the future, while translation and the Koine Greek itself place it in the present and past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Metanoia2019 ] (User: Metanoia2019) 19:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * - this is still original research (WP:NOR) based on primary sources (see WP:PSTS) - Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not original research. This is 500 years of independently peer-reviewed scholarly publishing, the very definition of reliable, published sources. Even the NIV, which is not a scholarly source, uses present progressive, which is a present tense. If you wish to change it to future tense, please provide some scholarly translations that justify this. Otherwise it is your own original research (WP:NOR), or that of whoever wrote it in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Metanoia2019 (User: Metanoia2019) 15:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * - combining material from several sources to reach a conclusion is synthesis (see WP:SYNTH), which is still original research (see WP:NOR) - for the Wikipedia definitions of primary and secondary sources see WP:PSTS - Epinoia (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No. All scholarly sources indicate present and past tenses for this passage. You've done a bit of exegetical work to get it to say future tense (your words "could be taken to mean..."), but that is still original research (WP:NOR) based on seemingly no sources at all. Wikipedia is hardly the place for that. Again, if you have a scholarly source that uses a future tense verb in this passage, I'm willing to listen, but otherwise it's opinion and exegesis rather than neutral summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Metanoia2019 (User: Metanoia2019) 18:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * - I checked on this in the Wikipedia Help Desk and Bible translations are considered primary sources as religious scripture - so research based directly on bible translations is original research - you need references to reliable secondary sources to back up your claim - see WP:PSTS and WP:RS for Wikipedia definitions of sources - Epinoia (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No. I've cited a least a century's worth of Bible translations with commentary published by the world's oldest publishers of the Bible in English. If you would like I will list all the names of the editors and commentators of these Bibles as well as their university affiliations. I will do so also for the NIV you cite which also uses a present tense (present progressive in this case) and simple past. If you wish to change to a future tense, you will need references to reliable secondary sources to back up your claim. - see WP:PSTS and WP:RS Which are they, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Metanoia2019 (User: Metanoia2019) 20:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * - religious scriptures are primary sources per WP:PRIMARY note C: "Further examples of primary sources include...religious scripture" - this is Wikipedia's definition and this is what we must conform to for all biblical content on Wikipedia - also, as you are the one seeking the change to an established article, the burden is on you to provide references to reliable secondary sources WP:BURDEN - Epinoia (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * - Note: a review of WP:NOR will show that I did not engage in original research - this is a Talk page, not an article, and on Talk pages there is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge (see WP:TALK) - assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia (see WP:GOODFAITH) - mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable falls under Gaming the System (see WP:SANCTIONGAMING) - I wouldn't go so far as to accuse you of gaming the system, or WP:POINT or abuse of process in this instance, but I wanted to make you aware of the guidelines so that you did not inadvertantly fall into disruptive behavior in the future - a linked list of behavior guidelines can be found here: List of guidelines - Epinoia (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Each of the sources I cited are scholarly reference Bibles. Their commentary is secondary literature. Please do not keep moving the goal posts. You implied initially that you wanted primary sources, citing the NIV. I responded with a century's worth of primary sources published by scholarly, independently peer reviewed presses. (Note that such presses do not publish the NIV, but even so, there is the matter that the NIV uses a present tense and a simple past tense, which itself speaks the necessity of revising the article.) You then asked for secondary sources. Each of these Bibles contains extensive scholarly commentary in all of their editions. I will be happy to list them here again for you. You asked for reliable sources and I put it to you that independently, anonymous peer-review processes at these presses are the very definition of reliable sources. You then asked for some indication of how well-received these publications are. I don't have distribution figures for the NIV, KJV, RSV, NRSV etc but I don't see how it could be argued that these are not well-received.

This correction meets each of the goal posts you have set, fully consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. It is not my own research. Your argument here is not with me but with the hundreds of scholars, translators, commentators of all of the editions of the Bible listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/[[User: Metanoia2019 (User [[User: Metanoia2019 ]) 01:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I have not moved the goalposts at all - I have consistently asked you to provide reliable secondary sources in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines - the Wikipedia definitions of reliable secondary sources can be found at WP:RS, WP:SOURCES, WP:PSTS, and WP:SCHOLARSHIP - the bible, as religious scripture, counts as a primary source WP:PRIMARY and combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources is synthesis WP:SYNTH which counts as original research WP:NOR - this is Wikipedia and standards may be different than in the academic world, but on Wikipedia, it is the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that take precedence - Epinoia (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but you have moved the goalposts. You began with religious scripture yourself - the record clearly indicates this. You also speculated a bit "...which could be taken to mean that the wrath of God..." but Wikipedia articles may not speculate.

Again, the reliable secondary sources are the scholarly commentary on each of the many editions of the scholarly study Bibles published by scholarly publishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * - as already pointed out, this is a Talk page, not an article, and on Talk pages there is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge (see WP:TALK) - taking those commentaries and reaching a conclusion is synthesis WP:SYNTH and original research WP:NOR - what you need are books by a reputable biblical scholars that support your position - the guidelines for reliable secondary sources can be found at WP:RS, WP:SOURCES, WP:PSTS, and WP:SCHOLARSHIP - Epinoia (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I have already done so. To be clear: the commentary on the New Revised Standard Version, such commentary by Michael Coogan, Marc Brettler, Carol Newsom, and Pheme Perkins, OUP, 5th edition 2018, as well as the commentaries of all four previous editions of this scholarly Bible. You mustn't keep shifting your opinion on whether this is primary or secondary research. It's not mine. It's that of reputable scholars published by reputable presses.

As I have asked repeatedly, where did the future tense come from in the first place? Nothing supports it. You might as well be asking me for books by reputable scholars that say that the sky is blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC) </Del>

 * - commentaries printed with the translated text are part of the translation and count as part of the primary source - as no other editors have so far commented and there is no consensus (WP:CONS), to move forward there are four options: 1) leave the article in its original form; 2) post a request for comment (WP:RFC) and invite other editors to contribute to the discussion; 3) request a third opinion (WP:THIRD); 4) go through the Wikipedia dispute resolution process (WP:DR) - Epinoia (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

<Del>No. Commentaries are of course secondary sources. What is more, Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. I see nothing that supports future tense but if you do, I'm willing to listen. I ask now again: who put God's judgement in the future tense here? What support do you wish to offer for it? — Preceding Metanoia </Del>

 * - as we are not going to agree on this, we must seek other means of resolution as outlined above - I am quite happy to abide by consensus of other editors or the results of a dispute resolution request - Epinoia (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

<Del>Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and verifiable (WP:V). This necessarily applies to summaries of content as well. Summarizing in the future tense is original research (WP:NOR). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) </Del>

<Del>Entirely out of curiosity, have you any support for summarizing in the future tense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) </Del>

 * - Let's wait and see what other editors have to say - Epinoia (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Note: this discussion has been heavily edited and the discussion history disrupted with posts deleted, edited and reordered - for the last clean version of the discussion history see diff - consensus has not yet been reached - Epinoia (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Quote from interleaved comment:
 * In English, the simple present is also called the present indefinite. There are linguists who claim that English does not have a future tense at all. Old English did not have a future tense, only present and past. Vestiges of this can be found in modern English constructions such as, "I go to the dentist tomorrow," or "I have an exam Wednesday," a usage called a present tense with future meaning. The construction "I have an exam" is the same for present: "I have an exam" (now), and future: "I have an exam" (Wednesday). Futurity is determined by the context. English future tenses are constructed from present tense elements. This is illustrated by other future tense constructions, such as the present progressive, "I am going fishing" – the construction is the same for the present: "I am going fishing" (now), and the future: "I am going fishing" (tomorrow). The intent, whether present or future, is determined by the context, not by the verb tense, as all the elements in the construction are present tense. The future tense entered English through the translation of Latin texts into Old English, as Latin has a future tense. English future tenses rely on modal verbs, such as will and shall, to modify the present tense verbs; will is from 'willen' meaning wish or desire; shall is from 'sceal,' meaning obligated. "I will arise" is the simple present or infinitive 'arise' modified by the modal verb 'will' to indicate futurity. In English, because of its use of indefinite present and continuous present, future actions are implied through the use of the present tense, rather like Augustine’s "a present time of future things." Similarly with statements of fact. To say, "The path is steep," doesn’t mean that the path is steep only at this moment, it implies continuity into the future; so to say in English, "The path is steep" is entirely consistent with "The path will be steep." Because of the English present indefinite, it is quite natural to take "The wrath of God is revealed" as also meaning, "The wrath of God will be revealed," especially as Christian cosmology progresses from past Creation to future Judgement, which gives a context of futurity. In English, with the present tense with future meaning and present indefinite, will or shall are not always necessary to indicate futurity; it is the context that determines futurity. If the wrath of God was already revealed in the past, the proper English tense would be present perfect, "The wrath of God has been revealed," but as no translations use this, the present indefinite is indicated. The NIV uses the present continuous, "The wrath of God is being revealed," so clearly there is no consensus among translators on the rendering of this passage. Every translation is an interpretation, not a transliteration. While Greek verb tenses may differ, we are dealing with English translations here and an English-speaking audience who are probably not familiar with koine Greek, so subtle distinctions based on Greek verbs don’t have much impact on English grammar and English usage. (Also, I believe, that in Early Christianity the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth was believed to be imminent ( Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:15 ), whereas over time it came to be generally regarded as a future event (see Millennialism), so common usage and context puts the wrath of God in the future. And this futurity is found in Paul (in English translation), "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" ( Philippians 2:12 ), clearly meaning to work it out over time – another case of present tense with future meaning, as the English construction "work out your own salvation" is the same for present: "work out your own salvation" (now), and the future: "work out your own salvation" (before the Judgement). The context determines the futurity, not the verb tense.) I am not saying that I know more about how to render the passage than experienced translators, I just want to establish that, because of the contextual nature of English future verb tenses, taking the passage to mean, "The wrath of God will be revealed" is compatible with English grammar and English usage. - Epinoia (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

You're conflating simple present and present progressive. When English speakers use a present tense construction to express futurity, they generally do so with present progressive (thus, not "I go to the dentist tomorrow" but "I am going to the dentist tomorrow.") The translators of the NIV did indeed land on the present progressive, but the NIV is not a scholarly translation - note that scholarly publishers of the Bible do not publish it - and Wikipedia cannot be governed by it alone. And more to the point, Koine Greek in fact does have a future tense and it is not used in Romans 1:18-32. Context determines a great deal, I agree, and it is in this sense notable that future tense constructions are in fact found in Romans 2. It really stands out and it's part of what leads scholars, translators (save the mostly American Evangelicals who put together the NIV), and commentators (again, save for largely American Evangelicals) to believe that Paul is summarizing the view of Hellenistic Jewish legalists in Rom 1.18-32 (paraphrased: we know that God is already judging them, God has given them over - Paul is citing Anaxagoras almost verbatim here, but that's a different matter) before offering a refutation of that view in Romans 2 (paraphrased: no, dear listener, God will judge in the future). I recognize that there is an element of exegesis to our discussion and I regret the way I approached it initially. Still, to the question of neutral, impartial summary of 1.18-32 in an online encyclopedia, I see nothing in the Greek or in scholarly translations in English that supports future tense. I gather whoever wrote this summary initially was working from the NIV but even then, changing the NIV's present progressive to future is (doubtless unintentional) exegesis rather than summary.

There's also the matter that at least 29 words in 1.18-32 occur nowhere else in Paul's writings and 49 words in 1.18-2:29, but I see reference to this in a footnote already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 * – I don’t see how I could conflate them as they are quite different. "He walks home" is simple present. Present progressive/continuous incorporates the verb "be" with a present participle, as in, "He is walking home." Different constructions. – I didn’t say it was the most common usage, but present tense with future meaning is a valid construction in English. I mentioned it to give a bit of historical understanding of English future tenses and how and why they differ from Latin (and Greek). Phrases such as, "I go to church on Sunday," using the present tense with future meaning, are completely acceptable in English.  – I don’t know why would say that as over 100 scholars participated in the translation. But even if it is not "scholarly" in an academic sense, it qualifies as a reliable source on Wikipedia (see WP:RS), and it is the Wikipedia guidelines we are working with. Despite your evident disdain for American Evangelicals, the NIV translation was assisted by Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Christian Reformed, Lutheran and Presbyterian scholars, so certainly a Protestant bible, but ecumenical. (I personally don’t have a preference for the NIV, I simply used it as an example of a variant translation).  – there is a great difference between what the bible actually says and what it is taken to mean. Look at the brothers of Jesus mentioned in Mark and Matthew. Jesus couldn’t have brothers because his father was God and his mother a perpetual virgin, so even though a literal translation of the Greek says brothers, it must mean cousins. And if we are going to stick to a literal translation of what the original text actually says, we have to throw out some Christian doctrine, such as the Trinity, which is not explicitly developed in the New Testament. And if, as you say, in the passage in question Paul is summarizing Jewish legalists whom he later refutes, that is a major re-interpretation of the text, which is debatable, and is taking the text to mean something it does not actually say. So on the one hand you are interpreting the text and on the other insisting on a literal translation. To revise the article to reflect this interpretation would give undue weight (see WP:UNDUE) to a minor theory over the traditional mainstream interpretation. In the passage, Paul may have used the simple present in Greek, but English verb tenses are different. Using future tense to describe the passage is compatible with the sense of the passage, compatible with the context of Christian history, and compatible with English verb tenses and English usage. - Epinoia (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No, you mustn't change Paul's tenses as doing so would be inconsistent with neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) rules, original research (WP:NOR), or more charitably a bit of inattentive summary inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines, and not verifiable (WP:V). No, the NIV is not a scholarly translation. It is a religious text rather than a scholarly one and you musn't cite per the Wikipedia guidelines; you are expected to understand and abide by these. Yes, this section is strictly for summary of the text and yes, changing present tense to future is going beyond what is in the text. Doing so would be theology rather than summary.

The judgment of God (1:18–32)
Summarizing the main points here:

Notable scholarly research and popular opinion are generally at odds here, notable scholars finding 1.18-32 representing not Paul's own view but his summary of rhetoric inimical to his mission, and popular opinion believing 1.18-32 to be his summary of his own view. (See for example: "Romans 1.18-32: Its Role in Developing the Argument" (Calvin Porter, New Testament Studies, Cambridge University Press, 1994) "Why Unnatural? The Tradition behind Romans 1:26-27 (Roy Bowen Ward, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 90, No. 3 (Jul., 1997), pp. 263-284), and most famously J. C. O'Neill's commentary on Romans (Penguin, 1975 - a scholarly work that found a wide popular readership). It cannot be conclusively argued therefore that 1.18-32 is in Paul's voice, and so we need wording that reflects a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). "His summary" and "This summary" are proposed to accomodate both scholarly and popular opinion (though, it must be noted, even popular opinion is coming around on the topic - see works by Colby Martin, David Gushee etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs)

<Del>User: Metanoia2019 - you say that "He" is very likely inaccurate" - do you have any reliable sources to back that up? - I don't have access to Romans 1.18-32: Its Role in Developing the Argument by Calvin Porter - (I couldn't find any evidence that Porter is an acknowledged biblical scholar)</Del>

- as you are the one adding the content, the burden is on you to provide sources that clearly support the material as presented in the article (WP:BURDEN), otherwise it is original research (WP:NOR) - Epinoia (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

<Del>Calvin Porter is Nettie Sweeney and Hugh Th. Miller Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Christian Theological Seminary. His 1994 article appears in the scholarly journal New Testament Studies, issue 40, pages 210-228. New Testament Studies is an international peer-reviewed periodical whose contributors include the leading New Testament scholars writing in the world today. It is published by Cambridge University Press, a not-for-profit press which unlike Zondervan etc. puts its journal publications through double-blind peer review before acceptance. Worth noting is that Cambridge University Press is one of the world's oldest publishers of the Bible in any language. I recommend the article to you strongly. I don't know of any scholar who has found a hole Porter's his argument - or that of those scholars who have made the same arguments cited in his references, all scholarly, peer-reviewed sources - but if you do, I'm all ears. Until then, we must agree on neutral wording that accommodates both the popular opinion that 1.18-32 represents Paul's own position and the scholarly read that identifies 1.18-32 as Paul's summary of discourse inimical his mission to the gentiles. "His summary" works well for this. Preceding comment added by (User: Metanoia2019) 19:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)</Del>

 * - one article by a very minor scholar does not establish general acceptance by the scholarly community - Calvin L. Porter seems to be a very minor professor from a minor theological seminary quoted in a few places for his work on Codex Vaticanus and P75 - Cambridge Press notes that "Romans 1.18–32: Its Role in the Developing Arguement" has only been cited twice; harldy grounds for notability - WorldCat turned up a few books, but nothing significant; Google Scholar turned up a few minor articles - based on the information available, Porter's position does not seem to be widely accepted or supported by the scholary community - unless there is scholary consensus on this issue it will remain a minority view and not part of accepted scholarship - Epinoia (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

<Del>You're (1) moving the goal posts; (2) overlooking that New Testament Studies is *the* preeminent journal in the field, overseen by a Board of the finest scholars in the area; (3) overlooking all of the scholarly sources that Porter cites - the ideas are not his own that is but his article is a synthesis of research carried out by theologians in several countries over several decades, and (4) overlooking the sources cited in the first sentence as well as all the sources they cite. I point you also to "Why Unnatural? The Tradition behind Romans 1:26-27 (Roy Bowen Ward, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 90, No. 3 (Jul., 1997), pp. 263-284), also a journal that uses a independent double-blind peer review process run by a not-for-profit university press, one of the finest in the world. This article too lists sources upon sources in its references, most famously J. C. O'Neill's 1975 commentary on Romans. You may not like that scholars acknowledge Romans 1.18-32 as epideictic speech but this does not change the truth. Wikipedia must be neutral and we need neutral wording that accommodates both scholarly research and popular opinion. "His summary" will suffice. I'd also welcome hearing why you think that Cambridge University Press and Harvard University Presses are "hardly grounds for notability," but that's a different matter.  — Preceding comment added by User: Metanoia2019) 15:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC) </Del>

 * - see WP:ACADEMIC for Wikipedia criteria for a notable academic - I didn't say that Cambridge University Press and Harvard University Presses were not notable, I said that having a work cited twice was not grounds for considering the work notable - but, on Wikipedia, notability cannot be inherited; being published by notable presses is immaterial to whether or not the work itself is notable - (you may wish to review Arguments to avoid on discussion pages) - Epinoia (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Question: your knowledge of Calvin L. Porter seems very in-depth - do you have a relationship with Calvin L. Porter? If so, please review the conflict of interest guidelines WP:COI - if there is no relationship, then I apologise for making the suggestion - Epinoia (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

<Del>I do not have a relationship with Calvin Porter, nor with Roy Ward, nor with any of the many folks they cite. You requested reliable sources and I put it to you that the finest scholarly journals published by the world's oldest university presses all of which use a double-blind peer review system are the very definition of reliable sources. — Preceding comment added by User: Metanoia2019 11:46, 22 September 2019 UTC</Del> <Del>::- thank you for responding so clearly and for not taking offense - I apologize again for making the suggestion - Epinoia (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)</Del>

 * Note: please remember to sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ) - at the bottom of page is a notice, "Sign your posts on talk pages", if you click on the four tildes in the box it will automatically add your signature - I also advise you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines before making more edits - also, if you wish to continue to edit Wikipedia it would be a good idea to create an account (see Why create an account?) - right now you are a single purpose account (see WP:SPA) and you might be interested in reading WP:POVPUSH and WP:EXPERTISE, as well as WP:HERE and WP:NOTHERE to help you to make edits that conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines - Epinoia (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * - I see that two other editors have reverted your changes and you have reinstated them before consensus was reached on the Talk page - this is against WP:BRDD, which says "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version" - as no other editors have so far commented and there is no consensus (WP:CONS), to move forward there are four options: 1) leave the article in its original form; 2) post a request for comment (WP:RFC) and invite other editors to contribute to the discussion; 3) request a third opinion (WP:THIRD); 4) go through the Wikipedia dispute resolution process (WP:DR) - Epinoia (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

<Del>No, I'm sorry. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV).</Del>

 * - as we are not going to agree on this, we must seek other means of resolution as outlined above - I am quite happy to abide by consensus of other editors or the results of a dispute resolution request - Epinoia (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Interpretation
I think the nuance of this is misleading. It would be more correct to say justification by faith is only valid so long as it is combined with subsequent obedient cooperation with The Holy Spirit, given that the issue of sequence is the theme of the next paragraph, which gives the Protestant interpretation for comparison. Reference to the pages on prevenient_grace and synergism would be appropriate.

As an example, Catholics (and Lutherans) believe that by baptized infants are saved by grace, yet they have neither obedient cooperation nor faith of their own.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Epistle to the Romans


text:
Naveta

A naveta is a form of megalithic chamber tomb unique to the Balearic island of Menorca. They date to the early Bronze Age. They have two vertical and two corbelled walls giving them the form of an upturned boat, from which the navetas take their name.

The largest example is the Naveta d'Es Tudons which is around 4m high, 14m long and 6.4m wide.

The first author who wrote about these structures was Juan Ramis in his book Celtic antiquities on the island of Menorca, which was edited in 1818, it being the first book in the Spanish language entirely devoted to prehistory.

title: Naveta


text:
Namazu

In Japanese mythology, the Namazu (鯰) or Ōnamazu (大鯰) is a giant underground catfish who causes earthquakes.

The creature lives under the islands of Japan and is guarded by the god Takemikazuchi enshrined at Kashima, who restrains the catfish with a stone. When the Kashima-god lets his guard fall, Namazu thrashes about, causing violent earthquakes.

Myth
The legend or myth in Japan is that a gigantic namazu (catfish) lives inside or beneath the earth (or in the mud ) which causes earthquakes.

The association of the namazu with earthquake seems to have first occurred in the area around Lake Biwa, around the 16th century. The namazu had been depicted in the Ōtsu-e ("pictures from the city of Otsu") which were manufactured in that area.

This earthquake-causing creature became associated with the deity and "foundation stone" in Kashima, Ibaraki. According to myth, the god Takemikazuchi enshrined at Kashima restrains the catfish underneath a stone (, kaname-ishi, perhaps "foundation stone" but maybe more aptly "cap stone"). When the Kashima-god lets his guard fall, Namazu thrashes about, causing violent earthquakes.

Explanation
Widespread connections between catfish and earthquakes in Japan were not present until the late 17th century, and only rose to popularity as symbolically causing or predicting earthquakes during the 19th century. Prior to the 1855 Edo earthquake, an eel fisherman reportedly spotted unusually active catfish in a river, which he took as a predictor of an earthquake. Later that night, the earthquake struck. The anecdote, recorded in an 1856 chronicle of journalistic reporting on the earthquake, is the earliest known claim that catfish can naturally predict earthquakes. In the 1930s, Japanese seismologists Shinkishi Hatai and Noboru Abe demonstrated that catfish in aquaria showed increased agitation several hours before earthquakes occurred, and were able to predict quakes with 80% accuracy.

Namazu-e
Namazu-e (鯰絵) were a known item in the 19th century, and these broadsides were printed in great quantity following the 1855 earthquake near Edo (modern day Tokyo), one of the Ansei great earthquakes.

These namazu-e woodblock-prints encompass a large variety of scenes, typically depicting the god subduing the earthquake-causing catfish under a sword or the kanameishi stone. The creature is sometimes referred to as just the "earthquake fish" (jishin-no-uo), and despite the text calling it a catfish, the illustration may be that of a dragon-serpent.

Even though the Namazu was held responsible for the disaster, it was also ironically hailed as a yonaoshi daimyōjin (god of "world rectification"), that is to say, a sort of an "avenger of social injustice" which expressed the public's political sentiment at the time. The rich had hoarded their wealth but these were largely disgorged due to the earthquake, and redistributed to the world at large: such is the symbolism of the large gold coins (koban, etc.) scattered by the earthquake depicted in the pictures. A large amount of money went into the rebuilding effort, and the job opportunities resulted in a redistribution of wealth.

One picture is printed with a jingle with the refrain "yo-naoshi, yo-naoshi, tate-naoshi" (literally "world-fixing, world-fixing, re-building", which explicitly makes this connection.

Modern use

 * Catfish are depicted on pictures of emergency earthquake preparedness activities in Japan. For example, the Earthquake Early Warning (EEW) logo by the Japan Meteorological Agency utilizes pictures of the catfish on devices capable of issuing an early warning. The popular earthquake early warning mobile application Yurekuru Call also has a catfish as their icon.
 * Namazu is also the name of a song on Danish singer Oh Land's first studio album Fauna, which features a large catfish on the album cover.
 * In the Japanese version of Secret of Mana, the Earth Slide (Earthquake in the Japanese version) spell is a catfish icon in the ring menu.
 * In The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, a catfish gives Link the Quake Medallion.
 * A giant catfish mimicking Namazu's habits appears as a boss figure in the video game Lufia II.
 * The Pokémon Whiscash, named "Namazun" in Japan, resembles a catfish and has "earthquake" as its signature move. An episode of the Pokémon anime featuring Whiscash was scheduled to air on November 4, 2004, but was skipped over after the 2004 Chūetsu earthquake.
 * The Namazu was featured in the episode of River Monsters, "Cold-Blooded Horror".
 * Namazu appears in a crossover comic book featuring Stan Sakai's Usagi Yojimbo and IDW's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
 * The Namazu are a Tribal race that resembles bipedal catfish in Final Fantasy XIV: Stormblood.
 * In S1:E7 of Dragon Ball GT, the character Zoonama appears as a giant catfish that wiggles his whiskers when detecting earthquakes, and repeats the word "Namazu" in his speech.
 * The myth of Namazu is briefly mentioned by the character Kenjaku in Chapter 133 of the manga Jujutsu Kaisen.
 * The myth of Namazu and a scroll of namazu-e is referenced throughout the 2022 Japanese animated fantasy film of Makoto Shinkai, Suzume.

title: Namazu