Talk:Rich man and Lazarus/Archive 1

Anne Catherine Emmerich relates that the rich man and Lazarus (the beggar) were real people
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, a German Catholic nun who's constant visions concerning Judeo-Christian history (at least one of which, the location of the home of Mary the Mother of Jesus in Ephesus, has since been validated) were recorded by the German poet Clemens Brentano, states that the rich man and Lazarus were real people. The rich man was a Pharisee (though not living in Jerusalem), and his history, annoyance with the beggar Lazarus, and later terrible death were common knowledge to the Pharisees who were confronting Jesus, as well as to most Jewish people around Jerusalem at the time. The Pharisees were enraged because Jesus, in relating the rich man's eternal destination, was suggesting their own similar attitudes would lead to a similar fate. I think this is worthy of mention in the article, but since others may or may not, I'm mentioning it here. Here is a link with the pertinent text as written by Clemens Brentano. http://tandfspi.org/ACE_vol_03/ACE_3_0271_out.html#ACE_3_0000192

Incidentally I'm very impressed with the article gatekeepers' determination to resist giving undue weight to the Jesus Seminar. It's probably clear I'm a convert, but had a prior degree in history while an atheist and am in full agreement that their historical methods and any conclusions derived from them more than deserve the rejection they've received from the educated historical community. 172.10.237.153 (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The "soul sleep" thing
There is evidence in the Bible for both a general judgment (the judgment of nations and of Judgment Day) and for particular judgment (judging the souls of the dead individually upon their mortal deaths). This debate has many branches. Only one of these is the subject of what happens to the soul awaiting general judgment. That breaks down into a limbo and a "sleep" argument, as well as some who even argue for a universalist reconciliation. Most Christian churches are a bit torn on the subject, as there is plenty of evidence for both the judgment of nations and cities and the whole world and for an individual reward or punishment, so it's not quite right to say that all churches but two are against the idea of the sleep or that this parable should be viewed primarily in that context. After all, when Jesus tells the good thief (Dismas) that he will dine in heaven with Christ that very day, that would be much more compelling argumentatively, as there is no allegory involved. That's why I reverted the over-linking to soul sleep. The parable is part of the general argument about particular and general judgment, indeed, but that's just one use, and a very specialized one. Geogre 14:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jesus did not tell the Good Thief (Dismas) he would dine in heaven, but in Paradise. That is two different locations, though they are often misunderstood to be the same. 172.10.237.153 (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's just me, but 2 Corinthians 5:1-8 seems pretty clear that there is no limbo:


 * 1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
 * 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
 * 3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
 * 4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
 * 5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
 * 6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
 * 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
 * 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.


 * Any thoughts? El Cubano 15:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to me, that's Paul in his Stoic mode, trying to offer a proof, so I have some trouble with it altogether, as Paul frequently writes ex cathedra, as the Roman Catholic church would say, and frequently in personis, as just a guy trying to explain things, so I always have trouble with Paul in his proving mode, because that's where he most often mixes. (I'm not saying that I think it's a good proof or disproof of limbo, only that it requires more careful reading than the usual words.) The arguments for limbo are weak, I think, but they're not non-existent. I don't find them compelling, but, on the other hand, C. S. Lewis made a sort of interesting argument about purgatory that would apply to limbo, too. If the soul after death is alive, just as it is before, then it is living, moving, improving and remaining static. If God's presence is infinite, then there is such a thing as being farther and nearer to God's essence in heaven, and those far from the essence of God would be, inasmuch as they were in the divine presence and therefore unable to sin, constantly improving, constantly purifying, constantly moving toward God, and there is little functional difference between this movement and "purgatory." Similarly, would it not be possible to be pending judgment, be in the divine presence, and yet be not dispensed? If so, isn't that the same as limbo? Again, I'm an Anglican, so I don't embrace the concept of limbo at all, but it is a valid topic in scholasticism, and some neo-scholastics keep it alive, so I felt like saying, as I did above, that some churches still enunciate it. Geogre 15:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I read the article first, and then came here to say that I wasn't quite comfortable with the sentence: The story has the redeemed Lazarus in heaven immediately after death and aware of the souls in Hell. With my Catholic upbringing, I have always believed that Lazarus would have been in Limbo, also called "the Bosom of Abraham" &mdash; a place where all the good people went who died before Christ opened Heaven for us. My belief is that Heaven was not opened until Easter Sunday. This abode of the dead is called Limbo (Limbo of the Fathers, to be distinguished from Limbo of Infants, which Catholics don't have to believe in), Hell (distinguished from the place of everlasting torment for the wicked) in the Apostles' Creed (He descended into Hell &mdash; now translated as He descended to the dead), and (believe it or not) Paradise ("Today you will be with Me in Paradise"). I recall that my Bible had a footnote for Paradise, explaining that it was Limbo, "which Christ made into Paradise by His presence" (in the Harrowing of Hell).


 * In Catholic theology, it's perfectly accurate, though extremely unhelpful, to say that Saint Joseph "went to hell when he died". I'd only say that if I wanted to shock someone (which I wouldn't want!), like saying that Catholics "worship" Mary, which again is accurate if you use "worship" in the old sense, which doesn't mean adore ("Yes, your worship", or "with this ring, I thee wed; with this body I thee worship"), but which is extremely misleading.


 * Oh, I digress. What I'm really saying is that I think that sentence should be reworded so as not to state as a fact that that parable teaches that Lazarus was in heaven. And by the way, I thought Anglicans did believe in the Limbo of the Fathers. Don't they say the Apostles' Creed? I just had a look at the Limbo article, and it said that no Protestant denomination accepts the concept of Limbo. I don't want to ruffle any feathers by pontificating on whether Anglicans are Catholic or Protestant. Regardless, I can't imagine that all Protestant denominations believe either that the dead sleep until the last judgment or that the good dead people have always gone straight to heaven, even before Christ came (with no possibility of believing that the good people who died before Christ waited in a place of peace for Him to come and lead them to Heaven).


 * Of course, there's no reason to assume that the story was a true one. I do believe that Jesus really told it, but not necessarily that He was intending His listeners to believe that there really was such a person as Lazarus. So the question as to where Lazarus went when he died may seem pointless. Nevertheless, it's worth trying to word it carefully, in case it implies that the parable teaches that a good poor man who died at between the Incarnation and the Crucifixion would have gone to Heaven or to Limbo. AnnH ♫ 16:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, of course. It was sloppy writing on my part. Whether limbo is heaven or hell is.... Well, heaven is only for the redeemed, so it's hell, but it's hell in a way that isn't hellish. Yes, Anglicans do believe in the limbo of the fathers. All of the just who died before Christ were in limbo, by doctrine. Again, very bad wording on my part. (On an original research note, I have trouble with limbo being hell, as I understand hell to be "the absence of the presence of God." As God is the source of life, happiness, and love, to be cut off from God would mean to die, but, with an eternal soul, to be "perishing" eternally, and that's all the hell anyone would need.  So, are the pious Jews cut off from the presence of God?  Well, I can't see that, if we reject general judgment and the idea that all such were simply asleep.  Then again, at least one Psalm suggests that God is with us even in the depths of Hell...which could be "with" in the sense of "aware and in control" or "with" in the sense of "I am there," but, if the latter....  You see where this is going, I'm sure.  Where is Duns when you need him?)  I appreciate the change in wording. Geogre 16:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding your "sloppy writing" &mdash; "Your humility, Mr Bingley," said Elizabeth, "must disarm reproof."
 * Regarding limbo, I've just edited the article to show that limbo was not a place of suffering. I'm not sure if I've overdone it, as I've never seen anything authoritative saying that Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, St. Joseph, etc. were happy. Certainly, they must have been aware that something was lacking, as they were waiting for the redemption, and for Jesus to free them. But I think it's generally accepted that they were free of any punitive pain, and since they loved God (unlike the damned), they couldn't have been fully separated from Him. As far as I know, theologians haven't really debated what it was actually like in the Limbo of the Fathers. They have debated the Limbo of Infants a lot, though. Revert if you think "happiness" is original research. AnnH ♫ 00:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not me. I'm confused enough by the debate by itself to be far too timid to state, much less revert, unless out of slapdash writing. I can't even make up my mind on universalism (the reconciliation of the damned at the end), much less general vs. particular judgment, and that has got to be a factor of ten easier than figuring out where stands on the issue of limbo(s). I won't even do the limbo dance. Geogre 03:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Separate matter
AnnH and Dr. Zak might like to notice what I just saw: General judgment redirects to Last judgment. This makes me at least slightly uneasy. Further, the target article is somewhat Christian in its outlook, although it has stuff from the Koran in it. I.e. it states that the "evidence" (that's the word used) comes from the apocalyptic books of the NT. All I ever find are OT references to it, with a few NT references. What I'm getting at is this, though: the "last judgment" as eschatology (the rapture and then armageddon/last judgment) is quite different from "all the dead await judgment to the end of the world and then are judged with the tribes of Israel," and it's especially different when we realize that in Christian thought, in particular, there are sort of two judgments -- a particular judgment for each soul and then a last judgment for those unlucky persons alive at the end. I only have one fair reference for the doctrine -- the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church -- but this may be a big Need. Geogre 03:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

new version of story
The KJV is not the best translation to use for WP quotes. Is there a good reason for me not to switch to the NIV, which seems to be in common use on WP? Jonathan Tweet 15:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I did have a reason for using the KJV. Inasmuch as I originally wrote up the thing to help explain the songs, I used the language found in the songs, which is KJV.  In other words, this, like Handel's Messiah, should employ the KJV to help our readers recognize the text used in the music, as well as to help them understand the story.  It's not a very big deal, but there was a reason for KJV over my own preference, NEB.  Geogre 22:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, that explains the presence of the medival material. The issue for me is that this is a key point of contention in Christian schisms. It has a prominent role in religious history, and I want to give as modern ("accurate") a version as I can. Is it OK if I use a better translation? If they don't match the lyrics, maybe we can quote the KJV in the medieval section (seems appropriate). Jonathan Tweet 05:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * NIV? I don't have a real argument with New International Version, although I would have expected Revised Standard Version. RSV and its variants seem to be the least contested translations.  New English isn't contested for accuracy, that I'm aware of, although everyone hates it for being as prosaic and graceless as an army boot.  Geogre 11:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm no great fan of the NIV myself. They translate hades as hell, which is misleading. But it's the version that gets the most play on WP, and that's why I use it. I've changes the text to NIV. Is there something from the KJV that we should quote in the medieval section?

For that matter, the title of the page would be better as "Lazarus and the Rich Man." The use of "Dives" is secondary. Do you mind if I change it? Jonathan Tweet 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes! Do not change the title (i.e. move the article), as we already have the redirects set up. Vaughn Williams's piece is probably the most famous iteration of the story in culture at present.  Outside of doctrinal wrestling, folks will have heard his adaptation of the English folk tune, and it's "Dives."  To do the move, we'd have to nuke a redirect to move and set up new redirects, and it's not worth the bother.  Additionally, there isn't a single English formulation that's settled.  It's sometimes "the rich man" and sometimes "rich man Dives and" and sometimes "Lazarus and the rich man" and sometimes "Lazarus and rich man Dives."  We're already here, and the status quo is as good as any change, provided our redirects work.  Geogre 23:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Vaughn Williams's piece is probably the most famous iteration of the story in culture at present." OK, let's agree that the title of the page should be its most recognized formulation. I'm not sure what the most recognized formulation is, but before we find out, let's agree that what we're looking for is the most common formulation. Agreed? Or do you have stipulations? Jonathan Tweet 23:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I wouldn't want to Google test it. All that will do is get the numbers of links, not the actual usage.  A lot of people busily chatting about a debate underway is not the same thing as the majority of the people who are quiet, because they see no need to chat about the Vaughn Williams music at present.  Geogre 02:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So do you agree at least that the issue is popularity? If so, could you suggest a test? Jonathan Tweet 04:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no move. Recommend creating redirects as discussed below. JPG-GR (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been a year now since the above converation, but no-one else joined in. I don't know how many people know Vaughan Williams, but a lot of people would know this story only fromt he Bible, and would never have heard of "Dives". Hence, the title needs to be changed. I'm happy to follow Jonathan's suggestion of Lazarus and the Rich Man. StAnselm (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with changing the name. It's not necessary.  As we used to say "redirects are cheap."  All we need is a redirect at Lazarus and the Rich Man.  Let's not make more work for ourselves than is necessary.  We should redirect plentifully, but move sparingly -- all the broken links can be a pain.  Geogre (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, but I'm happy to do the work. :) Have you looked at WP:UCN? It asks, What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? That can be difficult to answer, but I don't think the average user of Wikipedia knows about Dives. By the way, I think that WP:THE implies we should have Rich man and Lazarus. StAnselm (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I notice Jonathan Tweet hasn't contributed to Wikipedia since last October, so maybe it's just us. StAnselm (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You see, though? You just had two alternatives that seemed equally likely.  Then there's the Vaughn-Williams piece.  If there is no compelling reason to believe that one is more likely than another, then there is no incentive for a change from the status quo.  Redirects.  Really: we should have redirects at every likely permutation, because it's impossible to determine which of three or four or more permutations will be sought.  The present title has the advantage of a piece of music.  The first alternative has the advantage of an American Folklife-imposed title of a spiritual.  That's a tie.  Americans would search one, Brits the other.  Geogre (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? American Folklife-imposed title??? StAnselm (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that you don't know it proves my point, to some degree. American Folklife or Folk Life, by the Smithsonian, made field recordings of the spiritual.  You can hear it as track one of the gold-record selling soundtrack of O Brother, Where Are You?  I think they call it "Rich Man Lazarus."  If you do hear it, you will hear a lyric that is wildly at variance with the parable, but intentionally so.  They got their title by asking their informants what they called the song, and then that sticks as if it were the "proper" name.  Folk songs aren't like that.  In other words, we have many versions of the name, and none are much more famous. Geogre (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say that the fact that there has been no consensus, the fact that there is absolutely no reason for preferring any one title above this, should have ended the discussion, and I resent the attempt to lawyer one's way to a move. If a page move takes place in light of that, I will move back.  It's very, very, very, very simple: for a year, there has been no consensus.  That is all.  Geogre (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it was only the two of us. Your opinion was that there was no reason for preferring one above the other, and I disagreed. Unfortunately, no one else joined the discussion? How on earth is this "lawyering" one's was to a move? StAnselm (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm a practicing Roman Catholic with a bit of a theology background who actually knows some Latin (not a lot, but enough to read a little), and I've never heard the phrase "Lazarus and Dives" before. The way I have always heard it referred to was some variation of "Lazarus and the rich man", and I think that's true of most practicing Christians. On that basis, I think WP:NAME would indicate that "Lazarus and the rich man" would be the preferably title, and maybe "Lazarus and Dives" a redirect to that. John Carter (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with Lazarus and the rich man. StAnselm (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What about The Rich Man and Lazarus, Lazarus and rich man, Parable of the rich man and Lazarus, The Rich Man and the Beggar Lazarus, Rich man and Lazarus the beggar etc., etc.? Since the "most likely search" is supposed to be a randomly selected variation on The rich man and Lazarus, The beggar Lazarus and the rich man etc. and each is as likely/unlikely as the next I see no reason to move the existing perfectly adequate title to another equally valid, but just as unlikely to-be-searched-for title. I expect most people would arrive here from Lazarus anyway rather than trying to guess at the title. It looks like moving for moving's sake to me. All these titles should just be redirects to this page. Yomangani talk 11:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No compelling reason to chagne the name. It's not one of the better know parables, and I certanly no it better via the Vaughan Williams route rather than the biblical one.  The evidence of the English folk song could be taken to suggest that back toat least  1557 Dives and Lazarus was a common name in English for the parable, so I don't see WP:UCN as being a tie-breaker on this.  There are plenty of redirects and place, and no obvious means of determining what the most common usage really is.  Why move it?  David Underdown (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, my stance: It's simple: the parable gets folk references with loads of permutations.  Set cultural artifacts that could lead a reader to search would include Vaughn Williams and the spiritual.  The former is in the present formulation, and the latter varies.  Such as we have it set down, it's from Alan Lomax and his crew (exemplified by the soundtrack to O Brother).  Therefore, we have one set cultural artifact one way, one the other.  Beyond that, I just read today of the "Dives" usage by E. M. Forster in "My Wood," from Three Cheers for Democracy, 1954.  That would make it 2:1, but that's not my position.  My position is that there is no one way to make the reference, and therefore we should leave things as they are.  I.e. we would need a compelling case to move but no case at all to not move.  If a person is searching for references to "Dives," one would look in the Anglican tradition, not the Catholic, although the term in the Vulgate is "Dives" ("riches") -- with Forster added to the pile, there is probably an unfound source common to him and Vaughn Williams that would have made it the common term.  Geogre (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. But you started the article. Leaving things the way they are therefore means the title that you selected. I'm surprised you haven't taken into account John Carter's comment. StAnselm (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

But why on earth is it "Lazarus and Dives" here when it is normally always "Dives and Lazarus"? This is a very common subject in medieval art, and always referred to as "D & L" - Geogre is certainly wrong above. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar
I know that the Jesus Seminar really makes people angry, but it represents a significant, current outlook in an understanding of things that Jesus might or might not have done and said. It's a minority view, but WP covers minority views all the time. Sure, it's a minority view, but it's a significant, current, well-documented, academic minority view. According to WP:Revert, you should try to work with a good faith edit, even if you disagree with it, and not just revert it. Jonathan Tweet 05:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You will find that WP:NPOV offers guidance in this matter. --Joopercoopers 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. A minority view like the JS only deserves a sentence or two. I also like Abundance_and_redundancy. Jonathan Tweet 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But one is policy and the other an essay. --Joopercoopers 10:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also the policy says "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." - I'd argue it's in that category and should be removed. --Joopercoopers 10:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Extremely small (or vastly limited)"? You'd argue that applies to the Jesus Seminar. Do you have some evidence to back up your argument? In fact, prominent individual scholars get quoted on WP all the time (Spong, Harris, Funk, Crossan, etc.), and the JS incorporates all these scholars and more. If individual scholars can be quoted, then a group of scholars can be quoted. Jonathan Tweet 05:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I would argue that applies to the Jesus Seminar; and even if it were not, there is no reason to include the positions of all groups in every article - For example, we don't need to include the position of UKIP on all articles discussing the governance of the European Union. The Jesus Seminar article deals adequately with what their position is, there is no need to see it proliferate indescriminately across all wikipedia articles within the scope of their research - that would be undue weight. --Joopercoopers 12:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are so keen to see the JS position on this included on wikipedia, then why not write up the JS disagreement about the parable in the Jesus Seminar - I notice its absent? --Joopercoopers 13:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, please! Heavy hitting scholars like the auteur being Showgirls!  Dominic Crossan....  He wrote a good book, once.  Since then, he has been a provocateur looking for someone to provoke.  Spong is much the same.  No, these do not represent much in the way of mainstream scholarship, and trying to argue that they're secular as compared to others is absurd, given that many of those people are ordained (so hardly secular) and most of the research done on the New Testament is being done by non-believers and "post-Christian" theologians.  And then there is their hilarious methodology.  We have had centuries of Higher Criticism, where scholars focused on things like language and textual variants to determine what is and is not interpolated and when.  That hasn't come up with the same conclusions at all, and so Jesus Seminar comes along and casts lots to figure out which are the legitimate statements.  The conclusions come first, the methodology second, and the research after the press release.  It is a noisy project, but it is not a scholarly project.  It is absolutely not a majority point of view for the "secular."  Geogre 11:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Everybody hates the JS, and I don't blame you. Instead of labeling the section secular, we could label it historical. But "secular" means "worldly" and "temporal" (as opposed to eternal), and all these scholars, even the believers, analyze the gospels as being products of their world and their times. Look, if the JS is a load of bunk, please do us all a favor and go right now to thwe JS page and demonstrate that it's a load of bunk. If you think the JS is not worthy of inclusion in WP, then go to the JS page, click on "what links here," and see how many pages link to it. If there are very few, then apparently it's not notable. If there are lots, then apparently other editors think it's worth mentioning. In your list of scholars, you forgot Harris, the guy who wrote the best-selling nonsectarian guide to the Bible, used in colleges and universities across the States, in print for over 20 years. That's not an extremely limited minority view. It's the view that's accepted as the standard for nonsectarian education. Jonathan Tweet 14:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, they are a very noisy group, and there are people (let's not guess who) who are making sure that even things not remotely associated with anything it has done bear a link to it. Upping the links is a mug's game and demonstrates nothing.  After all, take a look at Placebo (band) and "what links here."  By that methodology, Placebo is the greatest band in the history of the world and bigger than the Beatles -- all because fans or band members or publicity flaks have been at work at Wikipedia inserting links everydamwhere.  I do not think that JS = Harris, unless it also = Verhoeven.  Let's see how well regarded Starship Troopers (film) is in its theology -- it's right up there with Battlefield Earth in its theology and sophistication.  I do not go to the Jesus Seminar page (look! another page link!) to fight it out because I'll let them live and let live, but there is neither a reason nor an excuse for inserting their balderdash here.  Geogre 20:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, if you don't like the Jesus Seminar, then please find some other historical source that tells us whether Jesus told this story or not. If there's an equally valid source for that information, I wouldn't mind using it. Until we find some other way to answer, "From a historian's perspective, did Jesus tell this story?" the JS is the only source for that information and it should stay. As to the JS being balderdash, that's no reason not to cite them. See WP:NPOV. It's not being baldersdash (in some editors' minds) that keeps a reference off a page, it's not being related or significant. You say the JS is insignificant. The guy who's Bible textbook has been teaching college kids about the Bible for 20+ years says it's significant. WP's answer is to let the information speak for itself. Jonathan Tweet 14:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted your edits - can we discuss this rather than get into an edit war? You have either missed my comments above, or chosen to ignore them - here they are again for ease of use:-
 * Yes I would argue that applies to the Jesus Seminar; and even if it were not, there is no reason to include the positions of all groups in every article - For example, we don't need to include the position of UKIP on all articles discussing the governance of the European Union. The Jesus Seminar article deals adequately with what their position is, there is no need to see it proliferate indescriminately across all wikipedia articles within the scope of their research - that would be undue weight.
 * If you are so keen to see the JS position on this included on wikipedia, then why not write up the JS disagreement about the parable in the Jesus Seminar - I notice its absent? --Joopercoopers 18:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Two editors disagree with you, but we can call up all the other editors of this article -- there are only a few -- and I doubt they'll be as charitable about JS. It's not an edit war when one person wants to insert fringe POV and everyone else does not.  Instead, that's called disruption.  JS is not historical, much less the only historical, because its methods and conclusions are wholly anti-historical (see history).  It's speculative, controversialist, and unsound.  If you want a historical source that says that Jesus did say this, we have the Evangelists, then the Council of Nicea, then the Council of Trent, etc.  All of them were closer to the historical event than Dominic Crossan.  Now, what do people with actual linguistic analysis say?  They say it's legitimate.  Again, see Higher Criticism.  I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist.  Geogre 22:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss this point with the two of you. If I may summarize your points, they are these: 1. the JS is balderdash, not historical, not academic, etc. 2. the JS is viewpoint "is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" and thus referencing it violates Undue Weight.

My responses are these: 1. It doesn't matter how many people think it's balderdash, it's WP policy not to evaluate viewpoints but to describe them. There are all sorts of viewpoints that people think are balderdash. 2. It's routine to cite individual scholars, and that's not undue weight. If I can cite an individual scholar, then I can cite a group of scholars, and it's not undue weight. They might be Satan's dupes, but that's got nothing to do with undue weight. That's the balderdash argument, which is not germane.

You don't like the JS's conclusions so you want to keep reference to them off the page, that's POV and it's against policy.

If you actually want to discuss the issue, then let's first agree on the basics: 1. You have no authority to revert another editor's addition unless it violates policy. 2. The only policy violation you've cited is undue weight. 3. The issue before us is simply this: is the JS viewpoint "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority." Everything about them being stupid is beside the point.

If we can't agree with what's at issue, then there's no point in discussing it and I might as well take it to the next level. In the mean time, I'll replace my addition with something that doesn't mention the JS. Jonathan Tweet 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not that I don't like the conclusions - I'm an atheist what do I care - it's the methodology that's the problem - you need to cite reliable sources - I disagree that the JS represent the 'historical' viewpoint because the 'scholarship' and methodology is so questionable. You have chosen not to respond to the point I made concerning whether you think it's appropriate for wikipedia to carry the JS viewpoint in every article we have on every subject which they consider? Clearly and obviously it isn't. Your veiled threats regarding dispute resolution are quite laughable because I'm sure Geogre and myself would be more than keen to see the issue resolved - by all means file your RFC lets have this settledd. --Joopercoopers 15:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, the issue is no longer undue weight but reliable sources. Your point is that this article shouldn't reference the JS because it's an unreliable source. And you'd like me to go ahead with the RfC. "You have chosen not to respond to the point I made concerning whether you think it's appropriate for wikipedia to carry the JS viewpoint in every article we have on every subject which they consider?" That's right, I've chosen not to respond to that, as it's beside the point. Our issue is whether my addition to this page violates WP policy. If it does, it should be deleted. If it doesn't, it should go back on. If there's going to be a global discussion on how many articles should link to JS, I'd like to see that conversation, but one page's talk page isn't the place for that conversation.Jonathan Tweet 19:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're looking for a fight over your favorite issue. That's nice.  I'm not interested.  I do not believe that we need to put in the Raelian perspective, the atheist position, the physics perspective, or the JS perspective.  Show that their discussion of this parable is integral to any consideration of the parable.  Show that it is important to JS, and then you can add the parable to their article.  Otherwise, you would advocate that we include every individual's view equally and unendingly.  In fact, this is not a reliable source, and your own behavior here is actually suspicious.  Geogre 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Jesus Seminar
This sentenced was added to the article but deleted for potential policy violation: "The Jesus Seminar was divided over whether the main part of this story could be traced back to Jesus, though they overwhelmingly rejected its conclusion (referring to one rising from the dead) as a later elaboration." Does this sentence violate WP policy? Jonathan Tweet 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One Opinion
It seems like a hard case to make for someone to say that the JS's position on this merits no mention at all. Regardles of what people think of it methodology or conclusions, JS is highly notable group. It seems fine to mention their opinion on the subject. As to the concerns about giving JS too strong a voice-- the solution is not to delete mention of JS's opinion, but instead to include a more comprehensive discussion on whether the parable is actually a saying of Jesus. --Alecmconroy 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is right to "delete" their opinion, because the group is not so much notable as infamous, and its opinions on this parable are not substantial, not famous, not infamous, not widely discussed, not anything at all. I.e. it has no place in this article.  That's what we're talking about:  this article.  In this article, they belong no more than Isaac Assimov's opinions, or any other single point of view.  Geogre 20:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If Isaac Asimov has a worthwhile comment on L&D, I'd at least consider including it. Ditto about a thousand other people. Jonathan Tweet 01:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And if Jesus Seminar doesn't have a "worthwhile" comment? Your POV is showing.  In fact, Asimov produced a commentary on the Bible.  Why not get Easton's Commentary in as well?  Why not Paul Tillich?  Why not Venerable Bede?  Why not anything from the Glossiae?  There are thousands of commentaries on the parables.  Why not William Law?  Why not John Wesley?  Why not some of the homily cycles?  Why this particular one except that it's the group you want to push forward?  As an editor of an encyclopedia article adhering to NPOV, I made the decision not to go into every interpretation, every doubt, every assurance, every parallel, as those things would inevitably violate WP:Battleground.  They would also invariably introduce questions of whether one point of view were presented with too much space, or in the wrong order.  They would, in short, tie a 50 mile tail onto a Manx cat.  All this so that you can increase the page rank of Jesus Seminar?  Nah.  Geogre 02:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Has anyone notable in the field of biblical scholarship suggested that this parable, either in whole or in part, is a later addition?  The answer, it seems, is yes-- so it merits a mention.   Has anyone disputed that suggestion that it's a later addition?  You bet-- so that too merits a mention.   What are the major pieces of evidence and arguments used by each side?  That too is worth conveying.   So spend a paragraph mentioning the existence and status of that debate.  The "later addition" viewpoint obviously merits a mention-- if JS isn't the most notable adherent of that viewpoint, what individuals or groups would you pick to better represent that point of view?


 * I guess what I'm saying is-- I don't know that we necessarily need to fixate just on JS's survey on this question, but it seems like it could be useful as "one piece in a larger puzzle". How prominent is JS in the debate about this parable? I dunno.  But if the debate exists, it merits a few sentences.  Whether those sentences mention JS by name, or just summarize the position of one faction of scholars-- that's a grayer area. --Alecmconroy 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So should we caveat every wikipedia article? Do we say on Muhammad that some people doubt he was the prophet? That's just fatuous and this isn't the place for it - put it in resurrection of Christ or Jesus Seminar - we really don't need it here as well. --Joopercoopers 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if there's no debate specific to this particular parable, then it's fine not to mention it here. If, for example, the argument for this parable not originating with the historical jesus is some argument that says nothing in the NT is historically accurate-- then it'd be fine not to mention it here.  I get the feeling, however, that this particular parable has some debate specific to it-- that it's not just a blanket objection, but is a little more like the Pericope Adulterae in that there's a specific debate with arguments on both sides about this particular parable.
 * If there is a debate about this parable in particular, then immediately I (as a reader) would want to ask questions like: "what's this debate? who's on each side? why do people think what they do?". If there is such a discussion, then let's make mention of it.  Not as a tedious and perfunctory caveat, but an actual short, interesting summary of a scholarly debate.  --Alecmconroy 23:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alecmconroy, if there is a debate, then it should be clearly explained on this page, along with arguments for and against (and sources, naturally), much like it is done for Pericope Adulterae. However, the short paragraph that is being debated (I assume it is this one?) does not do this at all. It merely says that "a majority of the scholars in the Jesus Seminar don't think it's authentic". Why don't they think it's authentic? Why are some of them disagreeing? What do other scholars say about it? What have biblical scholars said about it over the centuries? People have been studying the Bible for centuries, surely someone said something about this before today! Like I said, I fully support the idea of presenting a debate about the story on this page. But this paragraph absolutely does not do that. As it is written, it really is nothing more than advertisement for the Jesus Seminar. I say remove it. -- Ritchy 00:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ritchy, would you support an expanded reference that explains how the people on opposite sides argued their cases? I could have written more, but even a few lines gets labelled undue weight, so I try to keep it short. Jonathan Tweet 01:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To tell the truth, I doubt the above statement that someone in the mainstream scholarship does think this is a later addition. Jesus Seminar, I trust even its most ardent supporters would agree, is not mainstream at all.  It wasn't designed to be.  Other than them, I know of no debate on this parable's authenticity.  The Seventh Day Adventists have problems with it, but that's a whole church, and it's a theological argument, and it's presented in the article, along with why they have that problem.  The critical and exegetical issues surrounding the parable are presented.  I know of no textual or historical controversy at all, except this new group of gaudy people.  If this debate is to go from "this minority point of view being demanded" to "all debates over authenticity should be included," then someone ought to come up with a list of these debates.  I'm unaware of any except this one group, and its proponent has been itching for more discussion of them.  I just see more particolor, myself.  Geogre 02:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Jesus Seminar, I trust even its most ardent supporters would agree, is not mainstream at all." JS is basically mainstream historical (not doctrinal) Jesus research. The one way in which it has a characteristic slant is its rejection of apocalypse in Jesus' historical ministry. In its analysis of the gospels from a historical perspective, it's noncontroversial. To question whether Jesus told this story doesn't distinguish them from anyone else doing historical investigation on the topic. In attributing the apocalyptic message to John the Baptist but not Jesus, they represent one side of a debate. The other side of the debate is even harsher on Jesus, that he thought the world was coming to an end and he was wrong (see Schweitzer). Jonathan Tweet 05:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight to minority points of view
"My guru likes cheese" is not of any import to the cheese. Similarly, "Jesus Seminar doesn't think this goes to Jesus" is not a propos to a particular parable. Given the fact that Jesus Seminar doesn't think anything in the Gospels is reliably from Jesus Christ, and that such is well explained in the article there, it's not exactly remarkable that they don't think that the parable of Lazarus goes to the historical Christ. If this is going to be inserted everywhere that the confederation of non-scholars in that "Seminar" has an opinion, then it amounts of priviledging that group's point of view far above all other points of view. Before we get to the level of particular contemporary (and web-noisy) group, shouldn't we delineate every single mainstream church? Then shouldn't we get every major theologian before we get to a collection of persons without credentials? Inserting this here is undue weight to a very, very, very unreliable source and amounts to an ongoing effort at cross-promotion of that group. Wikipedia is not a battlefield: it is not to be used to "win" ongoing philosophical debates. Wikipedia is also not a venue for negotiating religious truth. A nice little historical article is not intended to increase the page rankings of the Jesus Seminar on Google. Geogre 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. A.J.A. 21:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Amen Andycjp 01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Given the fact that Jesus Seminar doesn't think anything in the Gospels is reliably from Jesus Christ." The JS traces a lot of key aphorisms and parables back to the historical Jesus, such as "love your enemies" and the "good samaritan." In this particular example, they were divided. That's an unusual result, not a common one.
 * And therefore the article on the JS should mention its remarkable lack of unanimity on this parable, but the parables are not covered in Wikipedia to explain the Jesus Seminar's opinions. Geogre 11:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove No, the issues of policy are 1. undue weight 2. reliable sources 3. The undue weight of the Jesus Seminars being spammed across the breadth of wikipedia. 4. In any event, the first clause of the sentence tells us practically nothing - someone didn't decide something??? the second clause simply asserts a widely known position that would be better dealt with in other articles. These are not mutually exclusive. I will contact the editors of the article and relevant wikiprojects to notify them of this RFC and I'd be happy to expand the scope from the rather narrow and myopic phrasing you have used to include the substantive issue of the proliferation of JS across wikipedia. --Joopercoopers 22:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "the second clause simply asserts a widely known position that would be better dealt with in other articles." In other words, there's a widely known position that is not welcome on this page. Jonathan Tweet 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Geogre, The Jesus Seminar does assign at least 20% of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels to a historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar is a notable group of NT scholars from major US university's theological departments. JPotter 22:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly some find the Jesus Seminar important and interesting, but that does not mean the position of the Jesus Seminar should be included in every article that is by any stretch tangentially related. I see it has not yet found its way into Seminar, but it seems to be turning up in a number of our articles. No doubt it belongs in some of them. Tom Harrison Talk 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with your sentiments above, Tom Harrison. The rhetoric above by 1 or 2 users is what I take exception to. Surely including a brief sentence that a large group of NT scholars have determined that the parable is inauthentic should be included. Verifiability, not truth. I think that the argument that the JS is not a reliable source on the matter is without merit. JPotter 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "have determined that the parable is inauthentic should be included" Please bear in mind that they were divided. They did not determine it to be inauthentic. Jonathan Tweet 04:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but just to be clear, I do not think the opinion of the Jesus Seminar belongs in this article. Tom Harrison Talk 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood that. What I appreciate is your tone and logical argument vs. the others above. JPotter 23:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To respond, I admit that some of the people in the Jesus Seminar are theologians, although calling even the more prestigious "New Testament Scholars" wouldn't sit well with me, as they tend to be critical readers and not textual readers. The Seminar credits 20% of the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels to Jesus, and that means that it rejects 80%.  As I said, they reject virtually everything, and therefore their rejection of a particular parable is de rigeur.  The Seminar also includes an exceptional group of people who are not only not trained in ancient near eastern languages, but not even theology.  A group that has the master of Showgirls in it loses a good bit of its academic lustre.  I have suggested before that higher criticism would be fine, but that's not what Jesus Seminar does.  They don't examine language.  They don't examine textual variants.  Instead, they apply critical observations and beliefs.  That's not going to make anyone take them seriously.  Geogre 02:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "As I said, they reject virtually everything, and therefore their rejection of a particular parable is de rigeur." They seem to credit most parables, so when there's a parable that they're unsure of, it stands out. Jonathan Tweet 04:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Geogre, you setup of strawman everytime you bring up "Showgirls". One member of the Seminar had questionable academic training. The vast majority are New Testament Scholars, theologians and linguists. Reactionary criticism is a form of textual criticism, is it not? And you did say that the Seminar rejected *Everything* Jesus said, not virtually everything as you have, well, redacted. Also, does Koine Greek qualify as an "ancient near eastern language"? How about Aramaic? JPotter 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One was "questionable?" No.  About half were non-qualified in every regard.  Some few worked in the field of New Testament commentary.  Commentary is not textual criticism.  As for languages, even I know koine (and Attic), but I'm not a New Testament scholar.  The point is that these people are not proceeding on the basis of textual criticism, linguistic analysis, or any other recognizable scholarly method.  Instead, they have already come to a conclusion about what the historical Jesus must have been and then figured out what fit with their preconceptions.  That's reactionary, and it's criticism, but it's criticism the way that post-structuralism is criticism: it is designed to say more about the speaker than the object of the speech.  Indeed, for people coming from the "God is dead" movement of the 1960's, it makes perfect sense to worry not at all about scholarly method, as God is a social construct in need of updating.  It's not a strawman to bring up Showgirls (or Robocop and its glorious Christology), as the whole spiel of the Jesus Seminar was not to ask for credentials at the door.  That's fine, except that then passing them off as scholarly is a hoot.  A room might contain Albert Einstein and Howie Mandel: that doesn't make it a scientific gathering.  Geogre 02:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Case of undue weight to include it, I think. Goldfritha 01:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly analysis
I believe this article will benefit from a section of that covers scholarly analysis, and Jesus Seminar falls within such a subtopic. My opinion is to leave it in for now and start building an analysis section. As the section expands, perhaps the Jesus Seminar material will become less significant, but for now, I feel strongly that it should remain in the article. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They're not scholarly, though. They may include some schoalrs on their rolls, but they include some notable anti-intellectuals, and it's not for us to be so sure that the conclusions came from the "scholars" and not the provocateurs that we allow them to occupy an analysis section called "scholarly."  Furthermore, this is a single parable, and what you want is better covered in parable, not in every single article on every single story from the New Testament.  Geogre 02:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I hear what you are saying and am not completely unsympathetic to it. If JS has something non-trivial to say about each parable, then, yes, I am in favor of inclusion. This article (and I assume the other parables) are weak on analysis. I say, let the JS material seed such a section and have their findings picked apart by including the views of noted authorities. Once such a section develops, we may find the JS material totally eclipsed by superior content. Maybe I need to amend my above statement to say I feel strongly that the article needs more critical (in terms of analysis) content. Keep in mind that you needn't weigh my views too heavily since I haven't contributed much to this article — it's on my watchlist because I was following a spam trail — and I'm unlikely to contribute significantly in the future. Editors here can consider this a somewhat detached view, but with some interest in the topic. ✤ JonHarder talk 03:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * John, " If JS has something non-trivial to say about each parable, then, yes, I am in favor of inclusion." In fact, one of their books analyzes each parable and explains the process by which the fellows rated it. In addition to a simple rating, each parable gets attention in the commentary, and if the rating doesn't tell the whole story, then the text describes how the votes were distributed. Most of the parables seem to be genuine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathan Tweet (talk • contribs) 04:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Hype
Thankyou for inviting me to contribute. My feeling is the JS gets more attention than it deserves, but it is ok to mention their views briefly with a link to their page, but other wiser scholars deserve mention too.Andycjp 01:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "My feeling is the JS gets more attention than it deserves." To some degree, I have to agree. Part of the mission of the Jesus Seminar is to popularize Jesus research. I'm pretty sure that the colored-bead thing should be considered a publicity stunt. That said, they also did real work in an important field and made that work easy for the educated layperson to understand. That's why they're so valuable. Jonathan Tweet 04:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Andycjp suggestion to have a brief mention is wise, and that Geogre's comments are completely worthless to this discussion. JPotter 06:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's nice. I think you're on record already, and I'm only one of the article's authors.  Geogre 11:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To JPotter: Personal attacks are not arguments. Don't use them here. - Ritchy 16:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling his comments worthless isn't a personal attack. Its an attack on his argument not his person. Thanks. JPotter 17:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No matter how it is justified, calling someone's comments "completely worthless" is not appropriate. We can do better. ✤ JonHarder talk 18:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) In the context of the situation, his comments were actually of no value to this discussion. Namely, his tone and getting the facts 180degrees opposite from reality. JPotter 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * JPotter, when you're pointing out the flaws in another editor's tone, you have to be especially careful with your own. You don't want to give others an excuse to dismiss your argument as hot-headed, especially when your argument has merit that you'll be jeopardizing. Jonathan Tweet 02:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Authorship
"Did Jesus really say it?" Hard to think of a more basic historical fact about this story. If we don't ask the JS for the historical opinion, whom do we ask? Maybe there's some work out there that I don't know about that offers current, historical opinions on each parable. If there is, we could use that, instead. Or we could use them both. Jonathan Tweet 01:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Golly, we could ask Saint Jerome. Or we could ask the First Council of Nicea.  Or we could ask all the hundreds and hundreds of scholars who have worked on translations and on higher criticism and not had a word to say about this parable not coming from Jesus.  Or, of course, we could be wholly ignorant and only put in information from the Jesus Seminar.  Or we could ignore 1500 years of tradition to make a headline.  It ain't "both."  It's "everyone" vs. "these provocateurs who make their decisions based on assumptions and projections rather than language, texts, or tradition."  Geogre 02:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I seem to have used the term "historical" in a special rather than in a common way and made myself unclear. Please bear with me as I try again

"Did Jesus really say it?" Hard to think of a more basic fact about this story as portrayed by historians understanding the story as a historical artifact rather than as a holy or inerrant one. If we don't ask the JS for the opinion of educated people who analyze the gospels historically, whom do we ask? Maybe there's some historical work out there that I don't know about that offers current, historical-analysis opinions on each parable. If there is, we could use that, instead. Or we could use them both. Jonathan Tweet 02:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My point was simple and a basic bit of logic. Before we reject the status quo, we need to find some inadequacies to it.  Therefore, before we reject every translator and editor going all the way back to Nicea, we need to find some errors in the historicity of all of them.  The point being that we can easily say that Jerome, for example, nodded.  It's easy to say that a medieval commentator would have accepted without question.  It's much easier to say that contemporary fundamentalist theologians are almost hysterically going to assert inerrancy in the received text, just as its just as easy to say that contemporary reactionaries are going to assert errors.  We need to have a preponderence of evidence before we reject 1500 years to insert something 5 years old.  Geogre 13:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the Jesus Seminar criticisms has some validity. My biggest concern is that despite having the appearance of doing a widespread "census" of NT Scholars, when in fact, they're using a very non-representative sample.  The participants were drawn from a certain philosophy of dealing with the NT, and they share a certain common outlook.  So, the danger I see in using JS in Wikipedia is that it might imply a widespread consensus exists when in fact their is no such consensus.  When you seen lots of people all voting a certain way, the reader might jump  to the conclusion that everyone must think that way.  So, there's a definite danger there-- I think the best way to deal with it is to try to avoid citing JS in ways that make it look like it's a scientific poll.


 * In contrast, however, whenever JS did reach a consensus, I suspect it's going to be a forgone conclusion that the point of view is probably a notable one. Now, I don't say that as a hard and fast rule, but I'm hard pressed to imagine the there'd be an exception.  I find it easy to believe that JS included many folks whose credentials were a little, shall we say, questionable.  But conversely, I find it hard to believe that out of the 200 people, every single one of them is unreliable and non-notable.  So, if a major chunk of JS has a viewpoint, it doesn't tell me their viewpoint is right, or even that it's a majority viewport-- but it does make me suspect the viewpoint is probably notable.


 * So, take this article as an example: any time you have a gospel event that's not multiply attested, I think you're automatically going to have questions raised about its historicity--  people are bound to ask:  "If it really happened, how come Mark, Q, Matt and John don't know about it?"  Again, there are lots of potential good answers to that question-- but I think the question IS a natural (and notable) one.    Then you add in the fact that in this case, the conclusion of the parable seems to suggest Jesus is foreshadowing his own death, his resurrection, and the subsequent rejection of Christianity by much of Judaism-- again, if Jesus really said that, it would probably contsitute an example of miraculous precognition-- and there's always going to be a notable viewpoint that says a miracle didn't happen-- that's why it's a miracle after all.


 * Obviously, that just my own english language summary-- i'll write up an encyclopedia non-OR summary of the major viewpoints when I get a second.  JS certainly shouldn't be treated as a final authority on anything-- but at the same time, I don't think you're going to find many cases where JS reached a conclusion that was disputed but where the debate isn't even notable.  (I daresay, given the JS's level of fame (or infamy), if they DID reach a highly controversial conclusion which absolutely no one outside of JS has even suggested-- that alone would probably justify mention the debate.)--Alecmconroy 15:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Those who read them say that JS did not come to a conclusion about this parable, that they were divided over the issue, so that ought to render the insertion moot by your logic.
 * However, the lack of inclusion of a parable in all of the synoptics is always interesting, but it's interesting in a different way and in a way that is better treated at Gospel than reiterated at every single parable. Obviously, the Johanine Gospel stories are the most widely questioned, so, would we want to put in a survey of all Gospel historians when the subject is the wedding at Canaan?  Should we then say it again with its version of the Sermon on the Mount?  Should we say it again at logos?  Should we keep on saying it and saying it and saying it, just because a Gnostic shows up and wants all John all the time or because a fan of the JS shows up and wants to increase the "what links here" (or the links) to it?  It makes absolutely no sense to do so.
 * I also reject your charitable reading of the JS itself. It reflected, much more, the personality of a few leaders of that movement.  It's a movement that should be covered, but not here, not now, and not every time we have an article on something from the Bible.  Geogre 16:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I wouldn't necessarily say my reading of JS is wholly charitable-- I think supporters and detractors alike would all agree that whatever JS's skills in scholarship were, their skills at garnering publicity are certainly greater.  Among both peopel who love and hate it, I rarely hear anyone claim JS made a novel contribution to answering the questions-- the very best claim they could make is to performing a survey of scholarly opinion, and even that has some serious problems with it.
 * You raise some interesting questions-- this would be easier if I'd made up a concrete example already, but let me try to explain how I'd go about solving issues like the one we're dealing with here. JS, it seems to me, is a group of like-minded individuals who addressed the question "Is ____ an authentic saying or deed of the historical Jesus?".   We should distinguish between the JS itself and the question the JS addressed.  JS itself may or may not be a notable part of the dialog about the subject of any given article, and might or might not merit a "by name" mention in the article text.  In contrast, when we are looking at any given act or saying of Jesus, I think we're always going to want to know: "What are people say about the historicity of this saying/deed?"
 * For some people at the extreme ends of the spectrum, that may not be a question they would ask: those who believe in biblical inerrancy say it's all accurate, those who say there was no historical Jesus say none of it is.  But for everybody else, the NT, like any historical document, is part authentic ,part inaccurate.  This gives us a huge, rich topic we can cover in extensive depth:  "Which parts are which?  Who thinks what? And why?"      In every single instance, there's going to be either a strong consensus about whether something was historical, or there will be an active dispute about it--  and it's hard for me to imagine a case where we wouldn't want to talk about the status of that question and the reasons for it.
 * Now, where should we address the question: by source, or by topic?  In Gospel of Luke (or one of it's subarticles) or in Lazarus and Dives.  The resounding answer to me is "Both!".  The source articles summarize the views of the source in general, with the topical articles providing detail about the scholarly opinions about the particular passage.  There's really no alternative--  Sure-- we could just as easily talk about Lazarus and Dives here or in an article on Luke 16.  But when we'd have to talk about the Parable of the Mustard Seed in the topical article-- it's found in Mark, Matthew, Luke and Thomas.   --Alecmconroy 17:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the answer is clearly "where it makes sense" as far as where to discuss textual history, arguments over sourcing, variants, etc. Now, I see all of that as best done in Gospel of Luke or "Sources and texts of the Gospel of Luke" or a similar article dedicated to the text itself, instead of, as here, the use of the text in history.  My focus was strictly on the effects of the parable, which was unquestioned by the laity of West and East for at least 1700 years.  These laity included it in art, found it inspirational for folk tales and folk songs, and the resonance of the tale did not cease even into the era of greater agnosticism.  In fact, it's a story that the Revolutionary Jesus people love, as it's one of the stories that shows Jesus condemning social inequality.  There is, therefore, much to say about the parable as a parable without once introducing the extranneous matter of textual history to Luke.
 * I find textual criticism interesting, but textual criticism of the Gospels less interesting and textual criticism of the Septuagent dull as dish water. The more we go into an era where we can know nothing definitely, the more impatient I grow with it, because we go inevitably into an area where opinion takes on the weight of knowledge.  The same fact can generate multiple views, and listening to a thousand people squabble is not helpful to me (even though I edit Wikipedia), and I am firmly convinced that it is unhelpful for our readers.  We can say, "See also: Gospel of Luke#Sources and historicity," and I won't bat an eye, but I really think we're going to be turning on a fire hose to wash the windows if we try to be fair, much less comprehensive, in the debate over texts with every Biblical story and trope.  Geogre 18:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

songs
The medieval folk tune cited is a child ballad published in the 19th century. Do we have evidence that it's really medieval? If so, the Dives and Lazarus (ballad) page needs that information. The spiritual cited was arranged by a 20th century man. I'm guessing it goes back to the 19th century, maybe 18th? If so, it doesn't belong under "medieval tradition." Do we have evidence as to the spiritual's origin? Jonathan Tweet 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The medieval folk ballad is fine. We know that a ballad along those lines (slight wording changes are normal in folk art -- cf. Twa Corbies, Two Corbies, Knight and the Ravens, etc.), and they were collected and published in the 19th c.  There are still medieval texts getting published for the first time.  Don't know nothing about no spiritual, but I would expect that it has its own origin in the Bible.  Geogre 02:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "We know that a ballad along those lines" Would you please add information to that effect on the Dives and Lazarus (ballad) page? Right now, "child ballad" article doesn't point out the tune's medieval origin. The Child ballad page says "The majority of the ballads, however, date to the 17th and 18th century; although some probably have very ancient influences, only a handful can be definitively traced to before 1600." If this is one of the handful of medieval tunes, the D&L page should say that in the lead. Jonathan Tweet 03:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, look at ballad or Thomas Percy. Most of the ballad collections were 17th/18th century.  The reason for the collection was not primarily antiquarian.  They weren't interested in preserving the past.  However, they were interested in what we'd now call primitive or outsider art.  They were also nationalistic and regionalistic.  So, they went forward with sloppy methods at first.  The print copies/editions date from them, and sometimes (only sometimes) we have folios that the collectors used.  When we do, we can isolate and date the transcription, and those are the only cases where we can prove the provenance of an old ballad.  We will also, though, find analogous ballads in medieval literature, which makes the antiquity of another ballad likely.  Another way that we get a feel for the antiquity of a ballad (particularly things like Child Ballads) is by finding analogs in other languages (usually French).  Finally, if the ballad is found in the United States in an area settled by immigrants from one part of England far from where the ballad was published, then, because of the geographical isolation of immigrants in the US and the lack of clear transmission lines, we can suggest that the ballad is a good deal older than the publication.  So, it's difficult to be sure.  Geogre 13:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you have no reference for your claim that the song dates back to the 15th century or earlier (that is, the Middle Ages), but that you think it does? And are you so unsure of yourself that you're unwilling to go on the Dives_and_Lazarus_%28ballad%29 page to state that it's one of the few child ballads to date back to the middle ages? Jonathan Tweet 18:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What? You're conflating several things here.  1. Is there a medieval ballad?  Yes.  Do we know it's medieval?  Yes.  2. Is the child ballad that old?  No idea.  It's not my balliwick.  Above, I described to you how we know the antiquity of ballads, not that I was "unsure" or sure of a particular version of a particular one.  I did not add the section on the medieval ballad, myself, but the literature on the melody and verses of Lazarus and Dives is in unison on the matter that it's medieval.  I have no reason to doubt it.  I can check the Grove, but I thought there already were citations there.  Geogre 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. The text says that the song's medieval, but the source given is a 19th century version. Most such child ballads only go back to the 16th or 17th centuries. What you're saying is that there was a medieval song, but the song cited in the footnote originated later for all you know. Jonathan Tweet 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not entering the discussion with an opinion on how you formulate it; but I'll quote what Francis James Child actually wrote, for what use you may have of it.
 * Child gives two variants, now labelled Child 56 A and Child 56 B. He introduces the A variant thus: "a. Sylvester, A Garland of Christmas Carols, p. 50, from an old Birmingham broadside. b. Husk, Songs of the Nativity, p. 94, from a Worcestershire broadside of the last century." (Since this was written in the 19'th century, "the last century" places this variant in the 18'th century.)
 * In the comments, Child gives evidence for older versions to have existed, as follows:
 * 'A ballet "of the Ryche man and poor Lazarus" was licensed to Master John Wallye and Mistress Toye, 19 July, 1557 — 9 July, 1558. W. Pekerynge pays his license for printing "of a ballett, Dyves and Lazarus," 22 July 1570 — 22 July, 1571.  Arber, Registers of the Company of Stationers, I, 76, 436.  A fiddler in Fletcher's Monsieur Thomas, printed 1639, says he can sing The merry ballad of Diverus and Lazarus: Act 3, Scene 3, Dyce, VII, 364.'
 * He continues with more recent time references, and with references from other languages. If you consider these kinds of notes in The English and Scottish Popular Ballads as 'reliable source' (and I think you should), then you have evidence for the ballad (in English) from the 16'th century and later; which is not the same as 'medieval times'. The Child ballads are sometimes called 'medieval' in a rather unprecise manner. The whole genre  with good reason may be assumed to be rather old; the individual Child ballads seldom may be acertained to be so.
 * The on line version of The Oxford book on ballads does not add information to Child's; rather it subtracts.
 * Thus, if you can find no other source than Child, then you could not reliably claim that an English version was sung in medieval times; only that it is ancient, and known to have existed at least from the 16'th century. JoergenB 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please. You're defining "medieval" how?  Is "Renaissance" an agreed-upon epoch with precise dating?  Do we attribute it to eModE and Shakespeare's birth?  Great Vowel Shift?  To say that something licensed for printing in 1570 is definitively not medieval is to insist that there is some meaning of medieval with clear borders.  However, the real argument for its medieval origin is that there are two attempts to publish 1550-1570, and that argues that the song exists already in some pre-literate form.  You know as well as I do that ballads show up in print long, long after they are composed (with some documentable exceptions).  It is likely to the point of near certainty that a ballad of Lazarus goes into the fifteenth century, if it is first sought for performance (not publication) in 1550.  I would rather see proof that it is not medieval than proof that it is, because publication lags substantially behind folk literature of all sorts.  As for child ballads, they have to come out of the child/knight tradition, so I do not doubt that it is a refined, second-order ballad type.  The various lai and romans forms would need to be en vogue before the child tale would show up in the ballad, and that marks it as 13th - 14th century.  A particular iteration of that form is always going to be darned difficult to nail down, as the literate avoided such folk entertainments.  Geogre 01:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Views of historicity section
Okay, I've done up a little summary of the major points of view. There's definitely room for improvment-- I'm always amazed at how little of the scholarly debates on this stuff is available online. Ideally, I'd like to be able to link people directly to articles for every major viewpoints that directly try to "make the case" for each viewpoint.

As far as the RFC that started the whole thing-- I myself didn't see any reason why it was particularly important to drag the JS into it-- so long as we summarize all major viewpoints on the subject, I think we've covered it. --Alecmconroy 15:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * FTR, the JS discussion was along the lines presented here, demonstrating that in this case they represent a mainstream view on the story. Jonathan Tweet 16:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alec, thanks for the link to the Jesus database. It's dynamite. Jonathan Tweet 18:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with it (other than the wording stuff that is always perfectable and never perfect when anyone writes anything), as it avoids the pitfalls that annoy me. It doesn't act as a booster for any one camp. (check) It presents the debates with a very broad brush. (check)  It remains concentrated on the particular parable and why it presents particular concerns. (check)  No problem, therefore, although I think the sooner we avoid "some think" and get more precise (not with boosterism, but with who they are), the better.  I don't think that it should, however, mistakenly make anyone think that any of these is "mainstream."  The vast majority regard it as a parable.  All of the others are a minority, and some are an extreme minority (wholly interpolated and wholly literal).  Geogre 20:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority do regard it as a parable, but the question is whose parable. You cannot portray "its a parable" and "made up by Luke" as entirely different opinions.

I do think it should at least reference the Jesus Seminar - we are supposed to attribute content, after all. Clinkophonist (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Chaucer
Neat, Tom. I am fascinated by the "divers gerdon hadden they therby." ge- is a participle marker, and so it's sort of "did through" or "differently did they thereby" but that "hadden" makes it something like "differently had doings they thereby." "Rewards" is wholly adequate, but Chaucer's "gerdon hadden" is quite rich. Geogre 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your (middle?) English is better than mine. Another translation I saw had "guerdon", I think. I don't know which is more reliable, or if it makes a difference. Tom Harrison Talk 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, probably ge-werdon. Guerdon would be quite different. All night (well, not really), I've been trying to remember who it was who did the study of the ge- particle as a participle marker. I remember why I learned of it, but I can't remember who it was -- Lindemann? Greenlaw? Anyway, it's just one of the toys in the attic. Geogre 10:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not being an expert of middle (or any other kind of) English), I associate to some Scandinavian words, corresponding to a participe for the Anglosaxon gearwian, to complete or prepare ("make-finish"). Of course, then the -n should be a plural ending of a noun formed from that participe.
 * But I'm really rather ignorant as regards older English forms. (In fact, the old form was found by means of a Swedish etymological dictionary.) JoergenB 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ON and OE were near enough that, famously, the "Viking" invaders at the Battle of Maldon could speak to the levee of troops on the shore in Old Norse and be understood by them, and the Anglo-Saxon leader could answer them in Old English and be understood. I'm not sure how it went with the transitional forms, though, as ON transformed into the modern languages, as I'm ignorant of them entirely.  My Middle English is mainly lapsed, I'm afraid, and a serious ME scholar will come along and laugh.  Geogre 10:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe useful sometime
Tom Harrison Talk 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Rich Man and Lazarus, a sermon by John Wesley

It's a Metaphor
There seems to be a bias against the idea that this a metaphor and not a parable. Phrases like "minority viewpoint" and "Most Christians consider that this is a parable" which aren't neutral are used. I did change parable to metaphor in a few places initially, however this was changed back so I was careful to make sure my language neutral but apparently that's not good enough. Personally, I've only heard of anyone trying to claim this was parable by those who don't believe in the doctrine of hell (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) and I question that this viewpoint is the majority. I've certainly never heard of anyone trying to justify the doctrine of Limbo with this or any scripture. Suffice it to say that using the word "some" in both cases making it clear in the beginning of the article both sides of the issue would be a fair resolution.--75.6.179.40 (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know what a metaphor is? To say that a story that goes on for verse after verse is a "metaphor" is nothing but an attempt to play on connotation to try to escape the story.  By no definition, even Ricoeur's most liberal or Dominic Crossan's most imaginative, can a story be a metaphor.  Any whole narrative cannot be merely a component of a speech act.  It's fine with me if you want to discount the story -- I have no stake in it -- but don't try to play games.  The story can be all sorts of things, but it can't be a "metaphor."  Geogre (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, the "most," etc., is well attested in reference works. Furthermore, the concept of Limbo's relation is ancient, so I'm not surprised you "haven't heard" anyone say it.  "Limbo" is now deprecated in RCC theology, but it is an important concept historically, and this was one of the stories used.  You didn't just change "most": you inserted the lexically nonsensical "metaphor."  I know that there are some zealots who want to get rid of the story and don't want to resort to Higher Criticism or cultural studies, but that is a minority.  The passion they feel for their position does nothing to increase the currency of the position.  Geogre (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently, you are unacquainted with the concept of the extended metaphor. The majority of Jesus' parables are metaphorical. That doesn't necessarily mean that this particular one didn't literally occur. (In my view, a parable is a teaching story, whether it's true or not.)
 * -- trlkly 20:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you understand the difference between a metaphor and an allegory. A metaphor is describing the whole world as a stage, an extended metaphor is saying that the men and women in it are merely actors, but the tale of the Emporer's new clothes is an allegory. Items in the parables may be metaphorical, but the parables themselves can only be allegories. Clinkophonist (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

O. Sellers (who?) replaced with Luther, Lightfoot, Bullinger
After finding no trace of any "O. Sellers" or the text cited, placed a citation needed in January: "''O. Sellers holds this account as a satirical parable which represents a masterful expose of the Pharisees. Through satire, Jesus effectively strips the Pharisees of any pretense of righteousness and thoroughly discredits their justification for ignoring the poor in Israel. The thought here is that when examining Luke 16:19-31 in the light of history, we note a rather suspicious resemblance between Jesus’ story of The Rich Man and Lazarus, and the traditional teachings of the Pharisees. Sellers' concludes that Jesus was not setting out to confirm Pharisaic beliefs about Bosom of Abraham. True, he told their story; the same story they had told a thousand times before, but with one important difference; a rather ironic twist you might say, that sees the Rich Man waking up in torment in Hades and being denied the slightest assistance by application of the same logic whereby he had regularly denied the poor and destitute while on earth. It would not take much imagination to visualize the headlines in the Jerusalem Gazette the morning after Jesus told His version of their story, humorously conveying how the Lord had turned the tables on the Pharisees in the afterlife."'' This section now deleted and replaced with sourced material and quotes by Luther, Lightfoot, Bullinger. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename and redirects
Despite the conclusion of the earlier proposal, since bots make renames and broken links fairly straightforward, it would make sense per Googlebooks hits to move this page to the most common reference, as follows: In ictu oculi (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1,340 on "rich man and Lazarus" = main entry
 * 1,277 on "Dives and Lazarus" = redirect
 * 742 on "Lazarus and Dives" = redirect
 * 733 on "Lazarus and the rich man" = redirect

Googlebooks is not the ultimate oracle, of course. The real test is what the MOST reliable books call it, e.g. please pick 7 books on Parables, then see what the majority say. I am not sure what the answer is. It may be the same anyway. History2007 (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On a cursory look seems much the same between the two English options, and the two latinized options Dives&Lazarus Lazarus&Dives drop out entirely of course In ictu oculi (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Coming back to this, I looked for (a) formal section headings in (b) books on parables (c) for adults (d) after 1950: was surprised not to find even one t p o L a t r m as a section heading. So on that basis, am going to move the page to rich man and Lazarus and check redirects.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeremias 1966 t p o t r m a L
 * Snodgrass 2008 t p o t r m a L
 * Hultgren 2002 t p o t r m a L
 * Herzog 1994 t p o t r m a L
 * Arnot 2008 t p o t r m a L
 * Covert 2007 t p o t r m a L
 * Kistemaker 2002 t p o t r m a L

Time to clean up?
So much irrelevant and poorly sourced and chaotic text has been dropped in here (even today) that a serious trim would be a good idea. This article needs a 50% rewrite probably. History2007 (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Help with citations
Most of the previous lack of citation problems have been cleared, but I added some more CN tags where it is beyond my knowledge where to find a reference, especially concerning Christadelphian views. Anyone? Thanks. 172.163.76.28 (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC) ...
 * Hello User talk:172.163.76.28. This edit has again been reverted. In line Bible verses are not references: (Note that the rich man is in a "flame", singular. ref ref. Bible verse only statements are typically viewed as WP:OR. Your citations need to be print sources. Please don't add this a fourth time without a source. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Bible Reference Template Change
I am proposing switching the template used on this page to be instead of

I am proposing this for three primary reasons


 * 1) This template has the ability to include various variables that produce a broader range of options.  It allows you to remove the book name, use an abbreviation, superscript the reference, add an option display, or display it in a variety of translations.
 * 2) The template utilizes the standard Chapter:Verse syntax rather than Chapter|OpenVerse|CloseVerse which is alien to how most Christians think of the text (easier to use)
 * 3) This template is more commonly used among articles on Wikipedia, and as we all know... redundancy and inconsistency is something that all editors are trying to reduce

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 April 2012‎


 * Reason 1 doesn't apply, as those other variables aren't required in this case. Reason 2 doesn't apply because the text displays as Chapter:Verse, which is the important thing. Reason 3 doesn't apply because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. Angr (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Popular cultural references removed
Re this edit I have a fairly low tolerance for trivia in (primarily) Bible subject articles myself, so in principle I agree with this edit. But it would benefit from some note on talk page. This article isn't a topic than will accrue the level of video game/anime nonsense as something like Leviathan which has to have a WP:FORK to Leviathan in popular culture, and many similar articles, so how does the "lowbrow" end of reference to this topic get captured cleanly? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We require it to include reliable secondary sources to indicate significance. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rich man and Lazarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120701192902/http://www.st-lazarus.net/international/index.html to http://www.st-lazarus.net/international/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)