Talk:Alexamenos graffito

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Really lame edit war[edit]

Sorry to be "picky" again, but User:Bbltype asserts that "Several sources also give 'Alexamenos worshipping God' as a translation". However, only one source giving this translation is actually cited.

In addition, the sentence

“

In standard Greek, the word ϲεβετε is the imperative of the verb "worship", leading to a translation of the entire sentence as "Alexamenos, worship God" which suggest this to be a grammatical error

”

is both incorrect ("Alexamenos, worship God" is perfectly grammatical in both English and Greek) and itself contains a grammatical error.

We are probably on course for a mention in WP:LAME at this rate... Anyway, thought I'd say hi and give us a chance to cool off.

Cheers,

Grover cleveland (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to please do a little research to discover how many sources cite "Alexamenos worshipping God". As for ϲεβετε being grammatically incorrect for the context of the statement, that is also cited by many scholars which could be discovered very easily. As for being picky, we all can do it from time to time. It probably isn't necessary for this article and would be good to be fair in the process of making sure that accurate information is conveyed to researchers. Bbltype (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't my job to 'do a little research to discover how many sources cite "Alexamenos worshipping God"'. It's the job of the editor who adds that statement. If the references currently supplied in the article do not show that there are multiple sources giving that translation, then that claim should not be in the article. You might want to reread WP:V. Grover cleveland (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:NPOV, I suggest a non-Christian source that does not add the capital letter. Wakari07 (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2014 (Greek verb inflection)[edit]

Greek σεβετε interpreted as an imperative would have an active plural ending, while the deponent nature of the Greek verb σεβομαι requires a mediopassive ending, and the meaning of the sentence (however interpreted) would appear to require a singular ending. So the imperative interpretation is does not recommend itself... AnonMoos (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

onolatry[edit]

Dear friends,

...as easily visible in the Greek etymology, Onolatry means worship of donkey. Isn't ass a word with other bad meanings, or not? I changed it because Onolatry has also a good meaning, for many other old peoples. :)bye, --Egonon (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.s.. if you are sure that donkey or ass are absolutely the same thing (and there isn't a bad meaning in ass), re-insert ass. Bye--Egonon (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date[edit]

I reverted this as not supported by the refs at all. Further refs for a consensus that the 3rd century is the most likely date can easily be found - [1], [2], [3] and books by specialists in art or epigraphy should be given preference over those on wider topics. Looking at these references, the article's claim that "The inscription is accepted by the vast majority of scholars to be a mocking depiction of a Christian" seems rather overstated in fact. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False contradiction with "however"[edit]

"However, several other sources suggest a declarative statement "Alexamenos worshipping God", or similar variants, as the intended translation."

The opposition implied by "however" is false and unnecessary. The previous sentence "Alexamenos worships (his) God" is declarative as well. The use of the present active participle in English picture titles corresponds to the use of the present in picture titles in many other languages. Thus, there is no disagreement about the meaning of the Greek text between sources with "worships" and with "worshiping", just a stylistic choice in English. The Greek form in question is absolutely not a present active participle.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Alexamenos" means...[edit]

Do scholars talk about what "Alexamenos" (Αλεξαμενος) means?

It seems to me to be two Greek words and/or names, with a typical Greek -os ending: alech/alex and amen.

So maybe, "Smart Alec who (stupidly*) says Amen"?? LOL.

-- * Or, easily, quickly.

Amen/Ammon/Etc. was also the name of a "god". I didn't check a Greek lexicon to see if I could find Αλεξ or Αλεξα, but it's interesting that the graphic splits this supposedly-one-word onto two lines. If read correctly:

Ale (Αλε)

Xamenos (ξαμενος)

Alexa is a woman's name in several languages. And of course, Alex is a man's name.

Just some thoughts in Talk! Thanks!

Misty MH (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misty_MH -- "-Menos" is a mediopassive participle suffix (also seen in words such as "Phenomenon" etc). The basic meaning is something like "He who is recompensed" (though with various other possible shades of meaning). A connection with Hebrew Amen is unlikely in the extreme... AnonMoos (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly acceptance of the idea that the drawing mocks a Christian in the act of worship[edit]

The text as I found it claimed that "the vast majority of scholars" accept this idea. It quite properly was marked with a "citation needed" flag. Since nobody ever actually goes around and does a statistically valid poll of scholars on anything, that way of phrasing it is pretty much unsustainable. However, there are sources, regarded as highly authoritative, that do accept the idea. One of those is the Catholic Encyclopedia. I've changed the text to point to the CE's article on the Incarnation as support. I hope that solves the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poihths (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

its wikipedia, we're not that big of a deal lol 72.186.123.13 (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alexamenos graffito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Subtle Extra 'Insult" ?[edit]

I went back to the line-art to see where its artist inserted the arm spikes?: (through the victim's hands, or the wrists?) I didn't find adequate detail to settle THAT ancient debate--but I noticed that both beams of the cross were depicted as over-laying the body, head and arms of Jesus...the artist has us viewing this crucifixion From BEHIND. THAT was the moment that another detail (two, actually) jumped-out at me; the bowl-like features at the tops of both legs & opposite sides of the upright beam (which made No sense if we were Facing the wretch) became his exposed Buttocks Cheeks. Thoughts? 172.250.69.244 (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]