Talk:Jesus/Archive 53

Paragraph on Pharisees, Sadducees, and Samaritans in Jesus
This paragraph has been caught in a minor edit war in the last few days.

Someone keeps hiding the paragraph in comment tags, saying it doesn't fit. I find this ridiculous. Any summary of the Life and Teachings of Jesus simply must mention the Pharisees, Sadducees and Samaritans he encountered during his ministry. Several of us worked hard to ensure that this paragraph is an accurate and balanced summary of what the Gospels say.

On the other hand, somebody at AOL (most recently ) seems intent on reverting any and all good faith edits to the paragraph. We're trying to be concise. We don't need to summarize the parable of the Good Samaritan when we link to both the Wikipedia article and the passage from BibleGateway. We also don't need to quote the demon-possessed Samaritan passage out of context (although this is notable in context, since this is one of the times that the crowd intends to stone Jesus, and he escapes).

I for one am getting tired of editing in circles. Let's talk about this. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 21:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I commented the section once, but left it after you reverted. I for one see little relevance in this paragraph. What does the fact that one of Jesus' disciples was a Zealot have to do with his ministry? If anything this paragraph has only indirect relevance, simply showing us who Jesus associated with, but not giving any insight into the content of his message. If we are sacrificing the length of other, highly more pertinent sections, why should this be here? — Aiden 22:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Secondly, the addition of "The Gospels record that Jesus interacted with other groups during his ministry." was a sad attempt to draw a relevent connection between the two subjects. The rest of the paragraphs in the section actually discuss ministry--i.e. Jesus' messages, parables, works, etc. This section talks about the power dynamics between Jesus and these other groups, and to a lay person would probably seem very irrelevent, possible even uninteresting. It belongs in a breakout article. If we can't even talk about the Passion, the Last Supper, or other more important events in Jesus' life, why are those same people fighting so hard to keep a seemingly irrelevant section here? — Aiden 22:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We can certainly remove the reference to Simon the Zealot. Since the next paragraph mentions how Jesus "reached out to society's outcasts" (such as the tax collectors) we might move the reference to the Samaritans there. A good portion of Jesus' ministry was spent debating with the Pharisees and Sadducees, and I fail to see how this could possibly be irrelevant or uninteresting or unimportant. It wouldn't be much of a biography or a Gospel summary without mentioning the Pharisees and Sadducees. Remember, it's supposed to be about Jesus' life and teachings based on the Gospels (and there are plenty of Gospel references there ;)) I see nothing wrong with mentioning the Last Supper or the Passion so I'm sure what you mean by "if we can't even talk about."
 * I've been wanting to make some edits to the section, but they keep getting reverted by the anonymous IP. I'll try some edits tommorow, but I'd like to hear from this IP. --Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 23:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: It would also be an odd biography without what you call "power dynamics": it would look like Jesus was just suddenly crucified for no reason. Not everyone was Jesus' disciple --Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 23:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Power dynamics" sounds like a course in Christian money-management or evangelism or effective prayer offered by the local meganacle (the "Historic Apostolic Tenth Church of Christ With Signs Following, Incorporated")! And on a serious note, I do think that we should give some kind of summary of Jesus' relationship with the existing religious authorities. I also think we should mention the last supper and passion. » MonkeeSage « 00:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Besides the debate as to whether or not the Zealot movement was too late to exist during Jesus' time and that Simon's identification as a Zealot may be due to interpreting the underlying shared sources between the Synoptic Gospels ([Simon the Zealot]), I feel that they might not be worth the mention. :-) The Pharisees, I beleive, are a must to discuss as many of Jesus' teachings appear to be influenced by them (there are a lot of parallels with Hillel, for example), and the fact that they were the Jewish sect of the day that was gaining the most political power and popularity (later forming into early Rabbinic Judaism). The Saducees are also important along with James' proported links with them, but that is not something I'm as well versed in as I would like to be. (I'll have to get my colleague Dan Gaztambide to write a bit about that.) --Steve Caruso 02:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of the above that they should be mentioned, but it just seems they are not relavent to this particular section. Perhaps a small section dedicated to this should be created? — Aiden 02:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * MonkeeSage, I think Aiden was using "power dynamics" in a political sense, ie power politics. If not, at least that's how I meant it. Steve, as I've said, I see no need to include the Zealots since they're barely mentioned in the Gospels. Also, there is a summary of scholarly opinions about Jesus' relationship with other Jewish sects in the Jesus section. The consensus in the "life and teachings" section is to stick to the gospels. Aiden, if you want to create a "reactions to Jesus' ministry" section to follow the "ministry" section, I see no problem with that. Just watch out for that anon AOL IP who has reverted all edits to the section at least three times with edit summaries like "Restoring some of the deleted content":, , , and possibly a fourth time:.
 * I did add a sentence awhile ago about The Last Supper and Passion to Jesus: "Later that week, he enjoyed a meal, possibly the Passover Seder, with his disciples before going to pray in the Garden of Gethsemane." I had to check because people made it sound like it was missing, although we could certainly say more. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 10:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The Zealots are worth a mention because they are one of the four sects of Judaism mentioned by Josephus: "But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord."JA18.32 Judas of Galilee or Judas of Gamala led a violent resistance to a census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in Iudaea Province around 6 CE. In addition, if you read the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Zealots you will see their origins are even earlier. But, no doubt this factual and referenced information will be suppressed from wikipedia because of groups with agendas other than the truth or npov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.18.127 (talk • contribs)


 * It's a matter of classification. I see no reason not to mention the Zealots in the historicity section; we've been needing more about the cultural and historical background there anyway. Some editors explained above why they felt it was inappropriate for the Gospel summary section. Reasonable people can disagree.
 * "No doubt this factual and referenced information will be suppressed from wikipedia because of groups with agendas other than the truth or npov." Another conspiracy theory? Please review WP:TINC. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 21:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The AOL anon is at it again:. That's five regressive edits by my count. I wish this person would come and discuss this on the talk page. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 03:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "The Zealots are worth a mention because they are one of the four sects of Judaism mentioned by Josephus..." So?  Should everything mentioned by Josephus be in the Jesus article?  :"No doubt this factual and referenced information will be suppressed from wikipedia because of groups with agendas other than the truth or npov." So?  Should we put this information in the physics article?  In the punk rock article?  Must it be in every wikipedia article to avoid the charge of suppression?  This simply is not a reason for putting the information in this article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Only as they relate to Jesus...otherwise it's as silly as physics Zealots and punk rock Zealots. The Zealots are mentioned in one verse in the entire New Testament, and Steve Caruso gave a reason to doubt the translation of even that one verse.
 * As for Judas of Galilee, he is also mentioned in one verse in the NT: : "After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered." Looking at, Gamaliel is comparing early Christianity to the movements of Judas of Galilee and Theudas. Assuming that Jesus was born in 6 BC/E, he would have been twelve at the time of Judas' revolt. I wonder what scholars have to say about that? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 12:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and most certainly the Zealots are relevant to Jesus. Galilee was the center of the Zealots and Sicarii. The word is clearly used twice in the NT: Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13. It is in Didache 3:2 "Be neither jealous, nor quarrelsome, nor of hot temper, for out of all these murders are engendered." Bauer's Lexicon, 2nd ed., lists several references: WRFarmer, Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus '56; MHengel, Die Zeloten (Herod I to 70 AD), '61; MSmith, HTR 64, '71. 1-19; SGFBrandon, Jesus and the Zealots, '67; s. Brandon's answer to criticism NTS 17, '70/'71, 453 and cf. JGGriffiths, ibid. 19, '73, 483-89; HPKingdon, ibid. 19, '72, 74-81. Moulton-Milligan.

One more point, Jesus is said to teach non-violence and pacificism, however, there is one apparently factual incident that can not be denied: Jesus and the Money Changers. Cf. , ,

Also, the NIV uses "Simon the Zealot" at Mark 3:18 and Matthew 10:4, in addition to the two verses cited above. The KJV used "Simon the Canaanite" in Mark and Matthew. As the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Zealots points out: ""the Canaanite," obviously a corruption of הקנאי ("ha-Ḳanna'i" = "the Zealot")."

VERITAS VOS LIBERABIT


 * ζηλωτην is technically an adjective ("zealous"), not a proper noun ("Zealot"), though most scholars and commentators take it as a metonym for "Zealot" in Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13. However, Titus 2:14 and Didache 3:2 use it in the strictly adjectival sense and have nothing to do with the Zealots. Mark 3:18 and Matthew 10:4 may be using a transliteration of Kanna/Kanan, but may also be indicating that he was an native of Cana (Barnes). Aside from a passing mention in regard to a disciple, we have no mention of the Zealots or Jesus' relationship with them (if any). The Amish (and possibly others) may believe that Jesus taught absolute non-violence and pacifism, but most Christians have understood his teaching with some qualification, and in the context of the Torah (which Jesus' claimed he came to establish, not destroy, Matt. 5:17); allowing, for example, for personal and national self-defense, state enforced retributive punishments, and so on. » MonkeeSage « 21:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

1. You're arguing against practically all translations if you're gonna claim zealot in Luke 6:15 is an adjective. (You're also technically wrong, σιμωνα τον καλουμενον ζηλωτην is just proper declension of nouns). 2. The NIV translation, which appears to be the most common one cited in the article, has "Simon the Zealot" at Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:4, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13. That's a Reliable sources, it should not be deleted from the article for that reason alone. 3. The adjective form, zealous, has everything to do with Zealots, because Zealots are zealous, that's why Josephus calls them Zealots. Zealots is not a technical name like Sadducees. 4. "Simon the Zealot" was more than a disciple, he was one of the twelve apostles. 5. Acts 5:33-39 is more than a passing reference. 6. The disturbance at the Temple (Jesus and the Money Changers) is easily understood as a Zealot act, for example John 2:17: εμνησθησαν οι μαθηται αυτου οτι γεγραμμενον εστιν ο ζηλος του οικου σου καταφαγεται με (see any familiar words in there?)

But it's so easy to dismiss all this as "passing", isn't it?


 * 1. Actually, Ζηλωτὴν is an adjectival noun, if you want to be precise (feminine nouns of the first declinsion in the accusative case are declined the same way as adjectives, which is why I thought it was a strait adjective; but it is actually a masculine noun with an adjectival quality). That is why it is translated by the English adjective "zealous" or "jealous" in Titus 2:13 and Didache 3:2. Not to mention that the syntax of the LXX uses of the word virtually demand an adjectival sense (e.g., Nahum 1:2, Θεὸς ζηλωτὴς, "God is zealous" not "God is a zealot"). But as I indicated, most scholars and commentators see it as a metonym for Zealot here.
 * 2. Even if Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:4, Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:3 mean "Simon the Zealot", that doesn't mean that the Zealots are relevant to this article. Since there is no mention of them outside of these passages (if in fact these passages do mention them), we have no way of knowing their relationship to Jesus (if any); your personal speculation and OR notwithstanding.
 * 3. Just because all Zealots are zealous, and some who are zealous are Zealots, doesn't mean that all who are zealous are Zealots. That smacks of mixed modality and undistributed middle. Other disciples had "nicknames" &mdash; "the doubter", "the beloved" &mdash; "the zealous" fits the same pattern, and need not imply any group affiliation. "The designation Zealot means that Simon was a political nationalist before coming to follow Jesus. He may not have been technically a member of the particular Jewish nationalistic party known as 'Zealots' (since according to some scholars this party had not been organized at that time), but simply someone who was zealous for Jewish independence from Rome, in which case the descriptive term applied to Simon means something like 'Simon the patriot' (see L[ouw]&N[ida] 25.77 and especially 11.88)."
 * 4. He still wasn't Jesus, he was a disciple, which was the point. Should we also talk about the beliefs and practices of tax-collectors and fisherman, since some of the apostles were those things?
 * 5. I'm not sure what Acts 5:33-39 has to do with this, aside from mentioning some notable (alleged) Zealots who had failed.
 * 6. It could. And John 6:15 could be easily understood as an anti-Zealot act. The word ζηλος ("zeal", which is a pure noun) doesn't carry any special meaning beyond the regular meaning it obtains in the passage which is being quoted there (viz., Psa. 69:9 [68:10], LXX).
 * » MonkeeSage « 08:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, so let's summarize:

According to Josephus, there was a fourth sect of first century Judaism, founded in the tax revolt of 6ce, by Judas of Galilee, also cited in Acts 5:37. Most scholars consider this group the so-called "Zealots". Some scholars believe the "Zealots" weren't founded till the first Roman-Jewish War in 70ce, on the other hand, some scholars, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia, believe their origins go back to at least Herod the Great and perhaps earlier.

What is the relationship, if any, between Jesus and the Zealots?

1. One of his designated "Twelve Apostles" was called "Simon the Zealot" (Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:4, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:3, NIV) 2. Jesus' "cleansing of the temple" (Jesus and the Money Changers) was certainly a zealous or revolutionary act, John 2:17 uses the word zeal. 3. Acts 5:33-39 compares the followers of Jesus to Judas of Galilee.

Reference: S.G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots (A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity), ISBN: 0684310104, 1967 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.78.19.63 (talk • contribs).


 * Outside of the current "Zealots" discussion as I haven't read through all this section really, in response to some of the above points:
 * 1. The phrasing is ambiguous, being called a zealot as in "zealous one", a member of the group known as the Zealots, etc. Arguable.
 * 2. Zeal is used more than that time in the Bible than just there, and doesn't imply a connection with any other supposed group. Romans 10:2,3 uses zeal to describe those who 'had a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge.' Also see Zephaniah 1:14-18. John 2:17 is a quote of Psalms 69:9 written long before any group took up the name - No relation there. Having zeal for God certainly doesn't imply one's membership in this group in itself.
 * 3. Acts 5:33-39 does not compare the followers of Jesus to that of Judas of Galilee in any way where there is an implication of equality, and there is also mentioned there the group of Theu´das who were 'dispersed and came to nothing'. Are you suggesting there is an implication that all three groups are the same? Certainly doesn't fit with the context where Ga·ma´li·el is attempting to state that these other two groups fell away because they did not have God's backing, but to be cautious with how they deal with Jesus' followers. That's not a comparison or implication of relationship at all. --Oscillate 20:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that the concensus is to include the Pharisees, Sadducees and Samaritans in the "Life and Teachings section," but not the Zealots. I agree. The Zealots are barely mentioned in the NT, and where they are, the translation is disputed. We can discuss the Zealots elsewhere in the article.
 * Why not discuss Brandon's views in the historicity section? I also think the quote from Acts shows the ongoing tension between Judeans and Galilleans, something we can also explore in the historicity section. Actually I left a rather long response towards the bottom of the page: "Come together, right now, over Jesus." Grigory DeepdelverTalk 21:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate article
It would appear that this section is no summary of the "main" article it points to, namely New Testament view on Jesus' life but is a duplicate attempt to cover the same ground. Drogo Underburrow 03:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Aiden and I disagree. I thought it would be better for him to work on the NT view article and summarize it here, while he felt it would be better to expand the section here first. We are going to have to deal with this eventually&mdash;the "Life and Teachings" section was longer than the NT view article the last time I looked. Odd that a summary would be longer than what it is supposed to summarize. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  03:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I plan on doing a complete revamp of the NT article in the next few weeks, incorporating most of the Jesus-related articles into a well-rounded NT biography, etc. Until then, I recommend leaving this section as is, but working on making sure the summary here covers all bases. After that we'll do a major article update on the NT views. — Aiden 05:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. There are also people working on Historical Jesus to make it less of a Q-and-A FAQ and more of a discussion of the various scholarly models, and the history of the quest for the historical Jesus. We should probably clean up the religious views and Christian views articles as well. Overall, this article isn't perfect, but is still better than the main subarticles. It may be time to look at those subarticles. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  13:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit war over Matthew 5
We are still having a minor edit war over Matthew 5. At one point, I had a short summary of each of the points, but removed it to be concise. I feel we can discuss the details at New Testament view on Jesus' life, not to mention that the linked article already gives full details.

Somebody (most recently, an AOL IP) keeps adding selective details to the summary of Matthew 5. Aiden calls these "cherry-picked examples," and I agree. 205.188.116.66, however, says "revise the list of examples as you think necessary; but some examples are needed, otherwise the sentence is very misleading."

We should talk about this. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  15:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I request that the article be semi-protected (per the previous request of multiple editors above.) This user is taking the whole of the sermon and picking only 2 examples which are not at all representative of the sermon and using them only. Previously we had a general summary of the sermon with a link to the whole of Matthew 5. This person wants to selectively link to only a few verses in order to portray the sermon as dealing with these issue only. — Aiden 16:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wish to request this, I will support. It's hard to deal with anonymous IPs even when they make edits in good faith, because IPs are shared and often change with each session. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  16:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC) PS:Three of us (Jim62sch, Steve Caruso and myself) requested semi-protection, but we were denied. I could not find the archives for the protection request page, but here is the diff. Arch O. La  Grigory  Deepdelver  02:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is valid to point out somewhere in the article that "spirit of the law" is not a simple platitude and can lead to some (perhaps surprisingly extreme) unexpected conclusions - ones which the gospels themselves put in Jesus' mouth. Where & how to do this is another matter --JimWae 19:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But that's why we provide a link to the whole chapter as a reference. — Aiden 20:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * An external link with no commentary at all, though --JimWae 20:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim, there is, of course, a myriad of interpretations of Matthew 5&mdash;specifically, the Expounding of the Law, as that article explains&mdash; from antinomianism to legalism, to Law and Gospel, to the Catholic doctrine of Law as Gospel, to whatever interpretation Eastern Christianity has. It seems every Christian denomination or movement has a different interpretation. It might be appropriate to discuss these interpretations in the Christian views section of this article. However, given the length of both that section and this article, it might be better to explain these interpretations in Christian views of Jesus or, perhaps, Christian theology. We do not have room to explain everything in this article; that is why we have subarticles. The Expounding of the Law article most directly explains the varying interpretations.Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  20:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem of POV: Arrest, trial, and execution
Hello

Eastern has passed, and there has already be started a discussion on about questions concerning the trial of Jesus. So may this is the right moment for re-thinking the part about the current section about the trial and crucifixion. That part not only contains some errors, ney unfortunately in its given form it violates the basic principles of wikipedia, namely NPOV. Even worse it is partially anti-Judaism, which I think is not tolerable. So let me present my arguments before making some proposals.


 * As for the errors: citation
 * He was subsequently arrested on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas for blasphemy, because he claimed to be the messiah (Mark 14: 62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be God (John 10: 33). 

That is plainly wrong. When Jesus was arrested he was not charged formally of anything, not even at the beginning of the trial before the Sanhedrin. He was arrested, stop, brought before the Sanhedrin stop, asked whether is the messiah, which he either confirmed or did not answer clearly stop. So he can't have been arrested for something, which he did after the arrest! John 10:33 is also irrelevant here, since again it is not refereed to, when the arrest takes place. Moreover


 *  He was identified to the guards by one of his apostles, ...

Apostles is not the right word to be used here, the Greek word is mathetes, which is translated as disciples. Apostel is a word which was formed after the death of Jesus.
 * now to NPOV versus POV. It is the following. As I said before the narration of the Gospels is by no means unique. So one is either forced to make a particular selection or trying to mention the differences. The present section chooses the first alternative. In order to see why this is problematic, consider the following table.

Left you see the current version, to which I have added the relevant references from the Gospels (if say Mark and Matthew are listed, but not John and Luke well then there are no such references!). On the right you will find a different version, which is based on a different selection of the material; as much a fact as the current version.

I think it is quite obvious what is going on. The left version is a selection of the given material which enhances the Jewish gilt, while the right version does not. So a selection of given material is clearly a violation of one of the basic principles of wikipedia, namely NPOV.

The main difference in the narrative of the Gospels concerns John versus the Synoptics: According to the Synoptics the chief priests tried to make a plot against Jesus, arrested him, condemned him and sent him to Pilate, while according to John it was the Romans who arrested Jesus. On the other hand, in John, it is the Jewish mob who is mostly responsible that Pilate condemned Jesus, even against his own conviction.

Now the current version follows the Synoptics, when it comes to the arrest but mostly to John when it comes to the trial before Pilate, while my version does it the other way around.

The point is that both version can claim with equal right that they are faithful to the facts as presented in the Gospels.

That the Passion material is selected in a specific way is not new, for example the movie of M. Gibson does this in a far more extreme way than the current article and I am not sure whether this selection of the given material in the current version would qualify for using the term anti Judaism but it is close, too close in my opinion.

So the question arises what to do? Since my version can claim with equal right that it is faithful to the facts we could just substitute one for the other. However both versions might be problematic (because they might be POV) and hence I think we need a truly balanced presentation of the material. I made a proposal some time ago which got rejected (at least that was my impression), so could anybody else make a proposal? I think what we can't do is to keep the current version as it is.

Anti-Judaism has been mentioned and discussed already in wikipedia article so I only wish to add that I think nowadays we cannot have a presentation which is so tendentious as the current one, whose tendency is even enhanced in a subtle way by having included the picture showing a Jesus, flogged before the crucifixion.

I shall also emphasise that I am not talking about a (critical) discussion of the material as presented in the Gospels as some historian have done it, I am just talking about the selection of the material as presented in the Gospels. Oub 14:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC):


 * Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Right now the page is locked, so we can't make any changes. I agree that we need to be balanced, but lately on this page it's been like trying to balance a pencil on its sharpened point. Jesus wept. Archola AKA Grigory is now withdrawing to let people work things out. I am sensitive to allegations of systemic bias, but in POV wars the first casualty is often NPOV itself. See you around. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 14:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring I think I would agree with you, that I see a lot of (even heated) discussions but sometimes about well minor points. So I hope that soon enough we can start to discuss what I brought up. Oub 15:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC):


 * Blutac. You can balance a pencil on its sharp end using blutac. Anything can be balanced using the right material. Some people might say that it's less balanced than others, but eventually most people will agree that it really is balanced enough for the satisfaction of a lot of people. It'll never be totally balanced, but balanced enough. Wait... was I talking about the Jesus article or the pencil here? Hint hint... --Darth Deskana (talk page) 14:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Oub, I think you're right. The use of John's narrative of the flogging, with no mention of the synoptic version (where Jesus is flogged as part of the preparations for crucifixion after he has been condemned) is especially problematic. We ought to explain the variant versions, not try to harmonize them, which constitutes original research. john k 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: john k Hi John. In my opinion, the following differences should be mentioned:
 * Who arrested Jesus, Synoptic versus John.
 * Was there a trial or a mere interrogation Synoptics versus John again
 * Did he claim that he was the Messiah (Mark versus Luke and Matthew, and was he condemned because of Blasphemy: Mark, Matthew versus Luke)
 * was he flogged before or after he was condemned.
 * how did the crowd react, especially John versus Luke
 * apart from that one could mention, that according to the synoptic he was arrested the day of Passover, Nisan 15th, while according to John, the day before Nisan 14th.
 * To harmonise or not harmonise, well the German article tries to reflect the current state of what most scholars have elaborated and agreed upon. However that is also sort of problematic, since this is a really complicated issue. Given the fact that he have seen a lot of discussions about not so complex points, I think right now, we should not try it, but may be one day.... Oub 17:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC):

Re: Oub: I've asked for a translation of the German article; here is a partial translation: User:Jim62sch/German-English Jesus. However, in the last month the German article has lost its FA star. Since I can't read German, I don't know why. I was considering asking someone else to complete the translation, but after what happened this weekend, I think you're right, we should wait. Grigory DeepdelverTalk 17:45,
 * Re: Grigory Deepdelver Aeh, well I just checked. It still has its star! As for the translation: it is a long article, I might contribute to the translation say translate a section, say about the trial, however my translation should then be checked, since I am not a native. But from what I see in the section below, I really think things should calm down a little. Oub 18:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC): 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, what do you know: the star is back! After this message I will be withdrawing from editing this page, although I'll still come by to maintain the archives. If things do settle down, I might return. We'll have to see how things go. Grigory DeepdelverTalk 18:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with johnk. As I mentioned above with the baptism account, we shouldn't make a single harmonized narrative of events from 4 different versions. My solution there was to present Mk and explain where Lk and Mt differed. The trial/crucifixion is a little different because we also have Jn to deal with. I support efforts to change this section, and hopefully we can work something out once the page is unprotected.--Andrew c 21:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, if you relied on a true concordance, there'd not be much of a story to write. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  but what do you suggest? Keep it as it is? I think that is not the right attitude. Right it will not be easy to agree upon a version, but we should try at least. Oub 11:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC):


 * No, no, I was saying that if you try to write from a perspective of "harmonizing" the four gospels in the places they all agree (all 17 places), you'd have a very slim text indeed. Even if you went with at least three out for (which gives you about 40-some instances) you're still going to have a resonably short story.
 * Besides, is one going to comment of what Jesus said on the cross? Those items in no way agree, nor would it make sense for all to be true.  Somehow, I just don't see "El(o)i, El(o)i, lema sabachtani", and "Into they hands I commend my spirit" coming from the same person.  Yes some alleged scholars who are really apologists have given aruments showing that it was possible, but...   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems like with the passion narrative you have three basically separate versions - Matthew/Mark (with Matthew having a few notable differences and changes in emphasis from Mark, notably the fate of Judas, Pilate's wife's dreams, Pilate washing his hands, the blood curse on the Jews); Luke (seemingly based in part on Mark, but also considerably different in a lot of ways); and John (a wholly different account). I'm not sure what the best way to go about this would be. john k 17:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: john kI would suggest the following possibilities
 * We change the current version, for the version I proposed (or one similar to that). At least one user is supporting that idea.
 * We right a version, which points out some of the differences: 14 vs 15 Nisan, John vs Synoptic, Mark/Matt vs Luke. To write up such a version might be a question of days or maybe 2 weeks
 * We try to write up a critical version, taking into account historical information independent of the NT. Well that version would take weeks if not months.
 * I am inclined towards 2 and would leave 3 as a long time goal. Because if we start with 3 we might never finish or find a version to agree upon. Oub 11:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC):


 * Depends on if you want a critical article, or a Sunday School lesson. If you want a critical argument, then Pilate's wife's dreams would have to go (really, did someone interview her?), even the trial itself, which is rather dubious -- was anyone there to record it.  What language was it in?  And so forth.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; Right. As I said earlier, what is the working hypothesis of this article (given that are at least one article more called the historical Jesus??? If we allow a historical (critical) approach then we would really need a major rewrite about the trial (which would be fine with me). I agree that most likely the dream of Pilate's wife should go. However I would not simply delete the trial, instead describe its problems, the violation against the rules etc etc. Oub 10:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC):


 * My understanding was that this part of the article was about New Testament accounts of the passion. Whether or not these accounts are historically true (evidence suggests, imo, that many of the details aren't), one can still discuss them in a scholarly fashion without excluding information we don't think is likely to have actually happened.  The added details in Matthew's account, for instance, including Pilate's wife's dream, all serve the Evangelist's purposes in writing the Gospel.  There is stuff to be said about them, even if they didn't actually happen. john k 17:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well they were all apparently attempting to summarize the events of this time, they just put it in their own words and often knew things the other guys didn't. Why not keep it simple, and just note which gospels seemed to concentrate more on the efforts of the romans, and which one's concentrated on the Jews? Homestarmy 22:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to understand what the discussion is here. Are editors trying to harmonise the Gospels? Why? That's never going to work, and all you end up with is the consensus POV of editors. You need to stop trying to state what is, and start stating what scholarly sources say. Drogo Underburrow 22:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its something about one paragraph using the information from 2 gospels to apparently present one supposed slant, whereas using the other 2 gospels or something which don't have the exact same information don't seem to have a slant. Honestly, the gospels never seemed to be directly attacking the Jews to me, I mean, it sure can be read like it was attacking them, but all they did was say what happened :/. the new suggested paragraph sounds fine anyway, and we can always mention how both sets of gospels might sound based on the facts they present. No biggie. Homestarmy 01:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Homestarmy I find it very problematic to state
 * but all they did was say what happened 


 * That is precisely the problem we are talking about. There are so many contradictions that just taking the Gospels you don't now what happened!! Was there a trial or not, was he condemned for blasphemy (Matt/Mark) or not (Luke) etc etc. This is does not necessarily mean that the Gospels want to betray us, no for me it looks more that it was a very confused night and nobody really knew what was going on. That is why there are so many contradictions.
 * At least some parts of the Gospels seems directly attack the Jews, to a larger or small extend
 * Let his blood be on us and our children! [Matthew]
 * If you free him, governor, you are no friend of Caesar. John
 * The trial itself, because that might have been an interrogation and not a forma trial. It is a difference whether a group of  Sadducees Priests interrogated him or whether he was sentenced by a formal trial. Oub 11:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC):


 * well their only contradictions if one gospel negates the possibility of the other, none of them ever say "This is all that happened, nothing else ever happened, I know everything, no other gospel writers know anything more than I do, BWAHAHAHAHAH!" That'd be kinda weird, I mean, did people from that time period even know what BWAHAHAHAAH even is? Now, i'll give you, with the difference in information presented, some gospels may seem to many people more like their showing a very critical slant against the Jewish people condemning Jesus. But like I said, it's really not a big deal, just say which ones seem to concentrate more against the actions of the Jews and which one's don't seem to mention it as much. Homestarmy 12:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: HomestarmyWell I have a simple question: given the material of the Gospels, what do you think happened? That is
 * was he arrested the 14 or the 15 nisan.
 * were Roman soldiers present or not
 * was there a trial or an interrogation?
 * was he condemned?
 * for what?
 * did Pilate condemn him against his own conviction?
 * did the Jewish mob cry for his death or mourn about it?
 * and finally what shall we do now. Change one version for the other try to mention the main difference? Oub 15:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC):


 * I'd need to see the verses about the 14 or 15 nisan thing, but other than that, all that stuff should of happened. The Roman soliders were present, even though some gospels didn't say so. there was both a trial and interrogation. He was clearly condemned, but legally speaking, only because Pilate didn't want to deal with it so handed him over to the Jews to do whatever. The Jews seemed to want him dead for blasphemy, and tried to convince the romans that it was treason if I remember correctly, but it didn't work very well I think. Pilate clearly didn't want to condemn him very much, even though some gospels don't recount his indecision. The crowd both cried for his death and mourned, not everyone there was on the same side. I don't see anything really wrong with your new version anyway, it doesn't seem like its a very major change, and it doesn't look like its wrong or anything. Homestarmy 15:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Homestarmy First to the: 14 or 15 Nisan:
 * here are the verses in favour of Nisan 14, the day before Passover. Joh 18:28, Mk14.2, Mk 15:42, Mk 15:21 a man return from this field, which seem unlikely during Passover.
 * 15 Nisan: Mk14.12 Lk 22.1, Mat 26.17
 * Everything together: the problem with this is as follows: You are forced to assume, that Jesus, was arrested late in the evening after the Passover Seder by Roman soldiers and Jewish temple guards, then not only questioned by Annas, and Caiaphas, but tried by the Sanhedrin, twice in the night and in the morning (while the Romans were waiting outside!) Then brought to Pilate, then brought to Herodes then back to Pilate, then flogged, then put together with Jesus Barrabbas (which BTW means son of the father, strange name), then condemned, then sent to Golgatha but still it was only 9 o clock in the morning. That frankly seems to be impossible.
 * so I think it would be best at the moment to find a version which states, that the events as described in the Gospels look like events of a confused night (where nobody knew what was going on) and to mention the mayor differences. What I really think should be done, is to change the current version.Oub 16:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC):
 * Not really sure myself what all this has to do with your revision, (I mean it just looks like your recounting the events and quoting verses, just like the last one), but in Mark 14:2, it looks pretty clear to me that the preists were saying they should not arrest him on the feast day, and Mark 14:12 is just talking about how the disciples wanted to know what Jesus wanted to do on the first passover day, (Which turned out to be the passover supper), I don't see what they have to do with his arrest or why they each would support different days? Luke 22:1 simply says the day drew near and the preists were just plotting, how does that support Jesus being arrested on the 15th? Matthew 26:17 seems to be agreeing that Jesus had the passover meal on the first passover day, once again, I don't see what this has to do with Nisan 14 or 15. John 18:28 is the only verse you listed which seems to mention parts of the actual arrest, but only talks about Caiaphas, are you sure you've quoted the right verses? Mark 15:21 also seems to say that a man was merely coming out the country, the country wasn't one big field, and I don't see how it has anything to do with dates. I don't understand at all how these verses can be supporting different days for the arrest. Homestarmy 21:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)