Talk:Jesus/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Gospels or gospels?

I believe that the technical term is Gospels, capitalized, when one refers to the four biographies of Jesus in the NT. The word gospel, no capitalization, refers to the core Christian message that was proclaimed. I am not a member and don't really know what I am doing as far as editing, so maybe one of you could check that out and make the corrections if that is appropriate. giff@giffmex.org, 11 December 2005.

Yes I believe so too. One could be referring to the Gospel of Saddam Hussein even by using the capitalization "gospel." However, if you use "Gospels" we know that you are referring to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Gospel of X" get capitalized. Preaching "the Gospel" too. There is no reason to capitalize it in the plural, anymore than "epistles", unless one is being reverential --JimWae 02:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Uggh... here's another troublesome problem... it's capitalized because we are referring to the four New Testament Gospels. Anyone can write false gospels. (Note the lowercase). It's like God vs. god... the former refers to the Christian/ Jewish God, the other refers to any god. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• I have done a partial revert to cap it when that is the only way to tell that the reference is to the 4 canonical gospels - not based on whether or not they are true or false --JimWae 04:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• this again raises the issue of the initial exclusive focus on the 4 gospels, without even a mention that there are non-canonical gospels --JimWae 04:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Latter-day Saint minor edits

I just made one small change, and am announcing it here. I changed the idea that Mormons believe Jesus visited the Americas to that Jesus visited a lot of places, including the Americas. The Book of Mormon is pretty explicit that Jesus more than just Israel and the Americas, and I think it's a small change with a much bigger effect in tone. I then removed the line saying the primitive church apostatized for 1800 years until restored by Joseph Smith. While academically true, I think it's not within the scope of an encyclopaedic article on Jesus. Comments?--Mrcolj 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Archive

Again, since it was growing too long, the previous discussion has been archived. It can be found at Talk:Jesus/Archive 20. Brisvegas 03:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy

I added the article's Featured article candidate status. Please Support or Object and give your reasons. Thanks. Scifiintel 08:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Lord and God

re Gator1's edit summary ("how about this, not saying he was God or Lord, just keeping it vague and open. I think this is a good compromise and is certainly NPOV as some gospels clearly state or 'AT LEAST imply this")

There's no problem with the claim that Jesus is called "Lord". He is, of course, many times. However it is simply false to say that he is called "Lord and God" in the gospels. That phrase nowhere appears there, so the passage had to go because it is factually incorrect. As for the implication that he's divine, well the gospels - and other NT books - are very coy and strangely evasive. Some passages seem to suggest that he is some sort of pre-existant heavenly being, others that he clearly is not God, others that he had become at one with him in some way. We can't discuss all these ins and outs in the the intro, so I suggest we put 'have been interpreted' to imply divinity. Paul B 14:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

That's fine by me, I'm totally willing to compromise, despite my own biases, but I doubt it'll ever stay in. There is strong opposition to any mention of it using the cloak of NPOV. However its POV to not include it given the fact that the divinty of Jesus is kind of important to Christianity and to leave out any mention of its belief in the intro is like ignoring the elephant in the room. However, I am frequently outnumbered when it comes to this stuff, so I doubt my efforts at compromise will yield much fruit. I'm a "broken record" remember? Eh, I've been called worse. lol. Good luck.Gator (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but the texts have also "been interpreted" to suggest that the Gospels were written to appease various constituencies who had different views on the matter. If we address the divinity question, we need to address the underlying issues as well, and the opening of the article (in my view) simply isn't the place to do that. We don't talk about Q document in the intro, either. But that's another way the Gospels have "been interpreted."

We have an obligation to take into account other viewpoints than mainstream Christian orthodoxy if we address this issue in the opening. Better to leave it for a fuller discussion later in the piece. BYT 15:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I rest my case.Gator (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What does that mean? BYT 15:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

At risk of sounding like a broken record I stated "but I doubt it'll ever stay in. There is strong opposition to any mention of it using the cloak of NPOV." "However, I am frequently outnumbered when it comes to this stuff, so I doubt my efforts at compromise will yield much fruit." And before I could even post it it was already reverted and there was already strong oppposition. Self fulfilling prophecy? Maybe. There's clearly no room for compromise on this subject so I won't bother you anymore.Gator (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted back to the version I am opposed to. I want to make it clear that I do not support this version and storngly beleive my compromsie language is MORE than fair, but I will obey the consensus here. If that changes adn otehrs coem to agree with me I will not revert, but untuil then I'd like to move on.Gator (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC) OK, let me get this straight. Any mention that Jesus is believed to be divine or that the gospels (let alone the rest of the NT) just may be interpreted can't be in the intro. But that's OK, because it'll be mentioned in some way later. It's mentioned in ONE place but now that is removed, because it's not mentioned in the intro.....are we honeslty going to have an article on Jesus that doesn't mention that most Christians (or at least many, I'm not going to argue every little point) believe that he was divine? I've given up on trying to argue that the gospels at least arguably can be interpreted by some Christians but not all Christians to imply (doesn't get much more NPOV than that) that he was divine, but now we're not going to even mention that he is believed to be divine by many millions of people??? Featured status? I hope not.Gator (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I put a very neutral thing about Jesus being God in the religious perspectives section. I think everyone should be satisfied. Let's get this thing featured. Scifiintel 18:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Gator; this is a situation where the tail is wagging the dog. In Christianity, what percentage of the entire group believe Jesus was devine? 90%, 95%, 99%??? You guys go too far to achieve your own objectives and POV and cloak it in NPOV policy. I believe it is always best to state the majority opinion first and then follow later with minority or fringe beliefs. Storm Rider 18:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You're wasting your time. I should be grateful the article has the ONE sentence. It's not big deal afterall. The belief in Jesus' divinty is really just the only reason we're still talking about a guy who's been gone for over 2,000 years. No big deal. I'm sure that if most Christians didn't believe he was divine, that things would be just the same. Sarcasm: the last refuge of the desperate. lol.

• Re: "tail wagging dog" -- Hold it. Up to this point, we have been talking about whether the article should open with a passage presenting (as fact) that the Gospels "claim" Jesus' divinity.
• This is simply not factual, no more factual than if I were to say that the US Constitution "claims" that the President is "superior" to the legislative branch. The truth, as it turns out, is more nuanced than that: there are some things the President can do that Congress can't, but just quoting, say, his status as commander in chief doesn't, and can't, stand as evidence of this "claim." And nor can an unsourced claim stand as that evidence -- even if 99% of Americans happened to believe that this was the case.
• I have no problem with saying somewhere that the overwhelming majority of Christians believe Jesus to be divine. What I have a problem with is us stating that the Gospels state that unambiguously as an objective fact, because they don't.
• If we want to address this complex issue of exactly what the Gospels do have to say on this issue, we should do so responsibly. The opening graphs don't seem to me to be the best place to do that. BYT 18:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I would agree. In word that sounds very reasonable, but in practice, every attemt to present the idea that some people interpret the gospels as stating that Jesus was divine is being removed in substituted with "some believe he's divine.." I'm sorry, but that's jsut not good enough. MANY people, including some smart people have interpreted the gospels (and otehr parts) to state that Jesus was divine.....yet no mention of it and repeated removal of any mention of it no matter how NPOV you try to make it. It's clearly not just about the intor. That concept or any other concept that deasl with the potential divinity of Jesus just doesn't seem to have a place in the article. Wow....I can't think of any other figure who has been gone for so long still being SO controversial! That's really interesting.

The recent edit is a great example. The majority belief is now "extraordinary claims" and they should not be before the basic facts....so they are jsut removed....instead of beign palced somewghere else (like maybe AFTER the "basic facts." I realy hope I am jsut jumping the gun here and this user will be palcing what he removed somewhere else instead of really just blanking useful info.Gator (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I did not remove those extraordinary claims - they are still in the 3rd paragraph. You might try adding to that paragraph (& still stay on paragraph topic) a brief statement about belief in his divinity by Christians, but not one that states the gospels say it - when they are equivocal about it--JimWae 19:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Never was put back, so it was blanked. but a little better. This is one of the oldest deabtes on earth. Was Jesus God? But we're not here to debate. Just give equal status adn time to the view that makes the subject even notable. If it weren't for the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus, we wouldn't even be talking about the guy. Said that beofre, but it merits repeating...that's arrogant lol.Gator (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Before you blindly revert for breaking your rule, cosider that it may be a good NPOV compromise so that we can move on here. I'm probably dreaming I know...lol.Gator (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim, you have your own agenda. It seems like typical articles start with what is most known about the indidivual stated first. There is no logic, other than your POV, to remove the "extrodinary" (that would be your opinion about Jesus) about Jesus and start with trivia that is seldom mentioned in a conversation about the Christ. How are references backwards when it is stated simiply they come from the gospels?

That Jesus is central to Christianity, he plays a significant role in Islam. However, no one is using that logic to delay discussing Christ as Son of God. BTW, "Son of God" is mentioned 21 times in the four Gospels. One can discuss the definition of the Son of God and we find diagreement between denominations, but one can not say the four gospels to not declare Christ as God's son. Storm Rider 19:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody did say that, at least not as far as I can make out. BYT 19:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I'll be. Don't get my hopes up now. Is peace in the middle east next?Gator (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

InshaAllah. :) BYT 19:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I continue to maintain that the four Gospels, in the form we have them now, do include the claim that Jesus is God. I further maintain that no significant scholar denies this. Rather, scholars that think Christianity later added a belief that Jesus is God, suggest that those passages that say Jesus is God were added to the gospels later. Someone anonymous gave a citation on my talk page attempting to refute this, but the text of what he cited basically consisted of listing verses that Raymond E. Brown believes suggest that Jesus is not God, and Brown's belief that the idea that Jesus is God was added to the Gospels later. If we grant everything Brown says, it still remains that the gospels make this claim. Wesley 21:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• but not unequivocally - there are passages quite the opposite. Either both or neither positions need to be included - currently, both are, I think.--JimWae 21:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"There's no problem with the claim that Jesus is called "Lord". He is, of course, many times. However it is simply false to say that he is called "Lord and God" in the gospels."

Hmm.. what about John 20:28?

You are correct. Paul B 11:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

How is John qualified to discuss the differences between "El" and "Elohim"? Ronabop 11:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Islam and Anon Editor

For what it's worth I agree with anon's version. They are both mentioned in the article in other palces and are notable enough to deserve some greater detail. I will not fight this battle though, just wanted to give my OP.Gator (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree because this article needs to be focused, and the focus should be Jesus, not what people's views of Jesus' are, because the name of the article is Jesus. Views on Jesus are referenced towards the bottom with all the other stuff that is only indirectly about Jesus. Scifiintel 20:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Look the point is not to give a christian side of Jesus only. Being a Christian before I can see that much of the info is one sided. I don't think it is asking much to retain the information on the Islamic perspective especially since the rest of the info is based on the gospels. The second and third paragraphs are devoted to Christian belief. I think atleast a short Islamic one can follow. The entire article is about Christian beliefs on Jesus; just one sentence is not enough for Islam.

If anything much more info should be added to the life and teachings section about beliefs in Islam, but atleast let people know what main position Jesus holds in Islam. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I'm happy with the version in which the paragraph is kept. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Other Sources

Besides the gospels & rest of NT, there are other sources which should be presented & discussed - the other gospels, the Koran, Josephus, etc.. and this would lead to some more than passing return of parts of the historicity section (not all of it). The recent insertion from Gospel of Thomas seems to either be from out of nowhere or creative incompetence --JimWae 05:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The Thomas reference was bizarre, though an accurate qoutation. However, the same editor claimed that 'fragments of Mark' have been dated to AD50. I suspect that s/he was referring to the Magdalen papyrus, containing fragments of Matthew, dated by most scholars to c200, but claimed by one writer to date from c50. Paul B 09:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Correction, The Thomas passage was added by user:Scifiintel after comments on the Featured article page.[1] The date was added by User:Rossnixon. Paul B 10:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

AD 50 claims are often debunked. It's popular, though. Ronabop 10:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence for ealy dates includes the prophecies of the destruction of the Temple - putting these Gospels prior to 70AD. Also the book of Acts is thought to date from 60-62AD with Luke recording details from Peter before he was martyred in 64AD. The Gospel of Luke is assumed to be the "prior treatise" mentioned in Acts, putting it into the late 50's AD. There's a large list of scholars dates here http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating_the_NT.htm RossNixon 03:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"I prophecy that there will be a future massive attack on New York on September 11th, 2001. Therefore, I *must* have written this wikipedia comment prior to September 11th, 2001?" The destruction of the temple is actually an argument often used to *post-date* biblical texts, because until 70, they couldn't have known (without ascribing supernatural abilities to the authors) about the destruction of the temple.

Also, contrary to your statements, the page you reference puts Acts between 62 and 90, with only 7 (out of 24) scholars citing date ranges including as early as 63, and only two out of 24 scholars (Robinson and Mills) believing they were completed before 62 (most of the scholars have later dates). The link you provided also has the bulk of scholars sourcing the text known as Luke between 60 and 85, with Mills (again) being the sole dissenter, placing the date at 53. John_Wenham seems to have the earliest Gospel dates on that page, placing the text of Matthew at 40, and the text of Mark at 45 (Wenham is apparently not a fan of the Two-source_hypothesis). Also see Dating_the_Bible, Acts_of_the_Apostles#Date, New_Testament#Date_of_composition, (etc.) for keeping internal consistency.Ronabop 06:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ummm...re the Temple, the authors were quoting Jesus (thought by many to possess supernatural abilities). And re the Dates, I am biased towards the earlier ones from reading other websites. e.g. Acts does not allude to the deaths of James, Peter or Paul from abt 62-65AD, or the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. RossNixon 08:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously we have (at least) two points of view, that of the Christian and that of the critical scholar. Both must be represented, and clearly identified (and as best possible, attributable to a verifiable source). Slrubenstein | Talk 06:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The main two points of view should both be scholarly - the supernaturalist and the non-supernaturalist. That accounts for the major divergence in the dating. RossNixon 08:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the quotation is attributed to Jesus is not proof that it was actually spoken by him. However, even if it had been, it's not evidence the the text predates AD70. Such a prophesy would be more likely to be mentioned in a post-destruction text, since it would then be evidence of Jesus's predictive powers. Before 70, it would not be evidence of anything. As for Luke, the Acts is mostly concerned to demonstrate divine support for the ministry of the apostles, and the punishment of those who interfere with it. Dwelling on the deaths of apostles would interfere with that project. Anyway, the scholarly consensus is c.80. We can discuss detailed debates about dating in the Acts of the Apostles article. Only a summary is appropriate here. Paul B 18:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of 'beloved' on the islam sentence

I'd really like to see that word removed. Christianity doesn't even get that kind of exposure on here. It's propaganda of the worst kind. islam considers Jesus a 'mohammed' concept. He is not considered to be anything that the NT or historical sources consider him to be.

islamics are confused by their mohammed about what Jesus means. I am not Christian, however, even the Jewish concept of Yeshua is far, far more needed to be included than the arbitrary retelling of the mythos of mohammedian beliefs. Also, what is the islamic concept of Messiah that is listed? Can we at least have an article that links to such a concept of Jesus as islamic messiah? I'd prefer the entitre paragraph of islamic notions of Jesus to be shorted to him being mentioned as Isa, and that's it. Most importantly, how can anyone accept what someone 600 years later said as historic fact vs comporaries, which may or may not be accurate, but at least knew him in person? Monty2 11:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, hi... just passing through. Not a regular contributor at this article, but knowledgeable enough to know that your language is oddly chosen. Followers of Islam (the religion) are in modern English politely called Muslims, not "islamics" or "mohammedian". Also, perhaps you should read up regarding the Mehdi before asking "what is the... concept" above. That Islamic teaching is distinct from, though related to, Jesus' Second Coming, to which Islam also holds. Lastly, there is much dispute regarding whether (and to what degree) gospel writers were comtemporary with Jesus; also, for Muslims, the teachings of the Quran, though recorded 600 years after Jesus, are the teachings of God, and hence reliable. Before engaging in further questions here, I suggest you might want to talk with me. As a somewhat aware non-Christian, non-Muslim I can help with some of your questions in an impartial way. As an experienced Wikipedian, I will also gladly discuss WP:NPOV concerns with you. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for you offer. I for one am completely clueless about that stuff (although I knew that a follower of Islam is "muslim" I feel like crap for missing that lol) and I think your expertise would be of some good use here. Feel free to mkae edits as you deem appropriate. I see nothing wrong with what you have to say.Gator (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus' Relationship With a Young Man

Passages in the Gospel of Mark mention a mysterious young man:

Mark 14:51-52: These verses describe an unusual event associated with Jesus' arrest by the Temple guard in the Garden of Gethsemane. This passage describes an almost-naked young man who had been following Jesus. The passage has an almost cartoon-like theme. The guards grab at the man, but he runs away naked, leaving the men holding only the man's linen cloth. The text reads: "And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him. And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked." 3 Author Bart Ehrman writes: "Interpreters have propounded a host of possible solutions to these questions over the centuries, but there has never been any consensus."

Mark 10:46: This describes the arrival and departure of Jesus and his followers at Jericho. The text reads: And they came to Jericho; and as he went out of Jericho..." Scholars have recognized for centuries that there is obviously some text missing from the middle of this verse.

A letter of Clement of Alexandria (found by Morton Smith in 1958 at the Mar Saba monastary near the city of Jerusalem) quotes two passages from an older version of the Gospel of Mark that are missing in the current version:

Fragment 1: This was located in "secret Mark" immediately after Mark 10:34. It describes an event very similar to the raising of Lazarus in John 11. Secret Mark relates that a man in Bethany had died. His sister begged Jesus to have mercy on her. At this instant, a voice was heard inside the tomb. Jesus rolled away the stone blocking the tomb's entrance, went in and raised up the brother. Following this is an unusual passage: "The young man looked at Jesus, loved him, and began to beg him to be with him....Six days later. Jesus gave him an order; and when evening had come, the young man went to him, dressed only in a linen cloth. He spent the night with him, because Jesus taught him the mystery of God's domain." 4 (Others translate the last two words as "the kingdom of God"). The fragment continues, saying that Jesus later returned to the other side of the Jordan.

Fragment 2: Clement's letter also includes the words from Secret Mark which were inserted into the middle of Mark 10:46: "The sister of the young man whom Jesus loved was there, along with his mother and Salome, but Jesus refused to see them."

if it were central to Jesus' life or if you would have cited sources well or if you would sign your comments, maybe we'd consider keeping this. As it stands it's information that is too much detail and not focused. Scifiintel 17:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Many of these issues are discussed in the Secret Mark page. They are too tangental to be discussed here. BTW until very modern times nakedness was rather more 'normal' in public contexts. The first passage is simply an illustration of the general panic at the arrest.Paul B 17:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

BCE/CE

Note: The present dating system of this article is a compromised reached as a result of a lengthy debate, please see Talk:Jesus/Archive 16

---

I once removed the BCE/CE dates because when the debate over which systems to use for what was at it's peak many said that for "christian articles" they should use BC/AD dates. I believe this is right. What do you think? Chooserr

I believe that the consensus that was reached here was that in general the article would use BCE/CE, but would use BC/AD whenever describing a specifically Christian point of view or discussing Churh history (which, of course, is indeed a sizable portion of the article). A perfect example is this section:

In the 248th year of the Diocletian Era (based on Diocletian's ascension to the Roman throne), Dionysius Exiguus attempted to pinpoint the number of years since Jesus' birth, arriving at a figure of 753 years after the founding of Rome. Dionysius then set Jesus' birth as being December 25 1 ACN (for "Ante Christum Natum", or "before the birth of Christ"), and assigned AD 1 to the following year—thereby establishing the system of numbering years from the birth of Jesus: Anno Domini (which translates as "in the year of the Lord"). This system made the then current year 532, and almost two centuries later it won acceptance and became the established calendar in Western civilization due to its championing by the Venerable Bede.

The very nature of the contents requires the use of AD and is thus uncontroversial — I cannot imagine anyone objecting, certainly not I. But there are plenty of sections of the article that address either the context of Jesus's life, or views of Jesus, from a non-Christian perspective; in those sections, BCE and CE are appopriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, this is ridiculous. The article now contains "AD xxx CE" at some point. Wikipedia is about providing neutral information, not showcasing people's religious sensitivities by messing up important articles in the quest for a neutral era notation - every era notation is inherently non-neutral because of the epoch it is based on, anyway, and BC/AD seems especially relevant in this article. Moreover, the present state of this article will inspire people to edit up other articles in a similar fashion. squell 13:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Since BC and AD violate NPOV, if only one must be used then it obviously should be BCE/CE. Guettarda 14:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What makes the use of BC/AD POV? --Elliskev 14:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

BC - "before Christ" - asserts that Jesus is the Christ. AD - "anno Domini" - asserts that Jesus is God. Wikipedia can only describe POVs, we can't assert them. (I realise I am never going to win this argument, and there is no reason to bring it up once again). Guettarda 15:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you did bring it up once again. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Both forms are considered acceptable. The importance is placed of uniformity. It may be your opinion that BC/AD is a point-of-view, but BC/AD is common usage and widely accepted as a de facto norm. Likewise, it's my opinion that BCE/CE is a point-of-view, but I accept that it, too, is an alternate de facto norm and widely accepted as such. --Elliskev 15:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it still violates NPOV. De facto norms can be horribly biased. It isn't a valid argument to say "well everybody does it". Iirc, the NPOV policy actually deals with this argument. Guettarda 15:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Maybe an argument could be made for systemic bias, but not for NPOV. It's like spelling. Is it color or colour? Is it NPOV for me to spell it color? No. Is it the right way to spell it? It depends on a couple of factors. The nature of the article and the form used previously in an article. --Elliskev 15:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be in disagreement with your personal POV, but I don't think there was a communit consensus that it was POV. squell 20:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's just vote on i, because I don't think we will ever be able to convince each other, but we all should be willing to abide but what most of the voters ahve to say. I know I will even if I lose.Gator (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately for all involved, it's not that simple or obvious. Many people are just as offended by the BC/BCE replacing BC AD and consider it POV, especially in this article. Maybe we should hold a vote on this issue and have it stand as the decision maker when future people and they will) come adn try to change it back. We cna jsut say rvt: per vote on talk page. How's that? I think this is a good article that is the result of good open calm and rational debate and compromise. I just don't want to see what I've seen happen with many other articles happen here. How about my vote idea?Gator (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No one will ever be able to convicne the other,w hich is why I thinka simple vote on this is our only real option to overcome this obstacle I'll go first, I would welcome Guettarda to vote and argue his/her point as well:

Note that I think the current compromise is the worst possible choice, making a stylistic mess out of a good article, but apparently the consensus of significant contributors is that it should be exactly that. I will be bold and fix the horrible "AD xx CE", which was only introduced on 8 december by 69.239.63.136 (talk · contribs), apparently, so is not subject to the compromise. — squell 11:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

These whole "POV" arguments (in both directions) are really a red herring. The question is "for what audience do you want to write the article for?". BCE/CE notation is used primarily by academics (though there are many who do not), and is much more common in America than elsewhere - indeed, it is virtually unknown in public-facing museums, TV programmes and books in the UK or Malta, for example - and is not recognised by many older people. Attempts to introduce the notation to the general public outside the US have tended to meet with much resistance. BC/AD notation is familiar worldwide, used by the general public - but not used by many academics, less used by many (in particular American) universities, and not commonly used amongst English speakers in Israel.

So which audience do we wish to write the article for? The audience most familiar and happy with BCE/CE notation, or the audience most familiar and happy with BC/AD notation? Make that decision, and the decision as to which notation to use follows, jguk 20:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::I just got back from two discussions on Jewish related topics and its seems we have a double standard here. First, Wikipedia says that if there is no compelling reason to change a term or replace it with one of equal value, the original term stays. Second, it was the view that since Jews might be offended by seeing AD/BC in a Jewish article, why do Christian's get treated differently? It should be BC/AD. People prefer the term to BCE/CE something like 50 - 1 and this is a Christian article.JohnFlaherty 09:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a "Christian" article, it is an article about someone who is important to Christians but to non-Christians as well. And we already worked out a compromise; the article does use BC and AD as appropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As I note above, it really comes down to the question as for whom is this article being written. Incidentally, the answer to that question should determine not only the date notation, but also the whole tone and approach of the article. If the article's ever going to be coherent and read as a sensible whole, this point needs to be decided and enforced. Personally, I believe we should aim for the worldwide general public (who don't necessarily have any prior knowledge of Jesus) as being our audience, although I know others believe the audience should be academics alone, jguk 09:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it comes down to whether we pick up on a trend that is increasingly popular, although some are still ignorant of it, or use an anachronistic system that more and more people are abandoning. Of course, what I just wrote applies to non-Christians; I understand that for Christians BC/AD will always be meaningful, which is why it is used in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we not write for our reader? Assuming you agree with this, who do you think the readers are that we should be writing for? jguk 16:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

First, we should always find a balance between writing in an accessible way, and reflecting the state of the art of scholarship. These two aims may come into conflict when talking about string theory, but not in this case. I have absolute faith in our reader's ability to make sense of any article that uses BCE and CE in a minimum amount of time. I have no doubts about their intelligence. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Steven, you haven't addressed the question about who the intended audience of this article is. That's fundamental in assessing what the style and language of the article should be (generally, this is, not just on date notation). To illustrate an example of style and language, imagine an article on Jesus written to be read by Catholic priests, and one to be read by Hindus with very little, if any, familiarity with him. Those two articles will look somewhat different. You are right in saying that we should reflect the current state of scholarship - but that does not mean we adopt style and language suitable for an academic thesis. I draw a strong distinction between style and underlying content. The underlying content should be consistent with current scholarship, the style should be what is easiest for our readers. The best communicators adapt their language to that of their audience. Of course, that's not an easy task, hence the comparative dearth of good communicators, jguk 17:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

BCE and CE are not academic jargon. The National Geographic Channel (which is VERY pop) uses it. "discursive polysemy" is jargon (just an example). To answer your question directly: We are writing for an audience of English-speakers who want to learn things they do not yet know. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement as to who we want our audience to be - namely, any English-speaker, anywhere in the world, who may be searching for information on Jesus on the internet. However, I think this means we adopt a language style (generally - not just for date notation) that they are most likely to find easy to read, and that we, as editors, should look to modify our language so that it reaches as much of that audience as possible. To return to the precise point on date notation, as noted above, BC/AD notation is more commonly used than BCE/CE notation in the real world by a ratio of 50 to 1. If we intend to make ourselves easily intelligible to as many readers as possible, we would use BC/AD notation. Incidentally, I have nothing against someone who wants to know about BCE/CE notation finding out about it - but surely it's fair to expect that such a reader would search on BCE, CE or Common Era rather than Jesus? Let them learn about Jesus here - if they want to learn more about other matters, let them search for them! jguk 18:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, as I've said before elsewhere, this is an encyclopedia, not an Easy Reader. Your arguments might hold more weight if you were talking about simple:, but you're not. Here, they hold little weight. Tomer^talk 23:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

stricken section

VOTE: BC/AD vs BCE/CE 9/14/1

BC/AD

1. Just as POV as BC/BCE in my opinion, is more appropriate for this article, is still widely used and BCE/BC is the identical dates jsut with different names adn I have very little tolerance for political correctness especially when it is at least just as offensive as BC/AD is for non-Christians.
2. As I understand it whatever was in use at the time the article was fiorst written is the policy Wikipedia is going by. However, since BC and AD have been used by Western Civilization for over a thousand years and it is still the most common usage then this article and all articles as far as I am concerned should use the common usage. In fact, I believe most encyclopedias use A.D. and B.C. as well. Dwain 16:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Mostly care about consistency. Rabid non-christians can revel in the joy of an article which flat out states that christ was born before christ ;) — squell 20:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
4. I think both systems are POV (BC/AD in favour of Christians, BCE/CE for non-Christians) and both can be (hopefully mildly) offensive to the other group. And as this article is about Christ then I think this article should use BC/AD throughout.--Petros471 21:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
5. I detest all forms of political correctness. Of course use BC/AD; it has too long a precedent to now change midstream. Further, most are familiar with this system. Many of our holidays have pagan origins, but I certainly don't worship pagan gods. Let's just be practical. Storm Rider 22:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
6. BC/AD for sure. It would be absolutely ridiculous to have these secular replacements for the Christian dating system used on the Wikipedia article of Jesus Christ himself! Roy Al Blue 22:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Jesus H. Christ, enough with the BCE. This is not a "pro-Jesus" vote, just a vote to stuff political correctness. Oh, and don't vote on everything :p dab (ᛏ) 23:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
8. I'm not a Christian, don't believe the Bible, and still support BC/AD, strictly because it is the more common form. If you tell the average bear on the street that a date was CE, they would probably look at you like you're retarded. BCE, and they might think they just caught a typo. BC/AD are just the common way of expressing the 'positive' and 'negative' sign of years, not an endorsement of Jesus or anything else.Tommstein 01:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
9. It seems nonsensical to use BCE/CE in an entry like this. JG of Borg 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
10. BC is not biased in any manner... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

BCE/CE

1. While I will certainly use BC/AD in the Church in my capacity as a member of the Christian clergy, in an academic sense I'm happy to use whatever people find least offensive. Jesus' authority or identity does not rise or fall based on whether we use BC/AD or BCE/CE...but we might impress someone on his behalf by being nice. KHM03 16:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
2. I don't mind using either, but since other religious signs or dating systems are not allowed for regular use in wikipedia, I will vote for BCE/CE. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
3. This may sound silly, but if I were a reader, I would question the neutrality of the article if the "Christian version" of dates is used when there is an alternative. If BCE/CE is used, then a powerful statement of neutrality is made. Izehar (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Actually, a compromise was reached on this long ago. Please don't start this up again. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
5. We already did this and came up with a compromise. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
6. We already settled this. Neutrality^talk 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
7. As per Mperel --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
8. CDThieme 23:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
9. As others have pointed out, we've already discussed this, voted on it, and agreed to leave it alone. I don't think anyone was truly happy about the ceasefire, but we were happy to have had one at the time, so that we could get back to useful editing instead of pointless argumentation. As I said at the time, while you may not agree that BC/AD are POV, what is POV-pushing is to refuse to admit that the assertion that Jesus was born as early as 8 BC, is purely nonsensical. (Jesus was born 8 years before christ?!) Tomer^talk 23:47, 15 Kislev 5766 (UTC)

   Is it completely impossible that a monk working centuries after the fact was off by a few years when he calculated the date? Much stranger things have happened.

   No, it's not completely impossible at all, in fact that's the most sensible explanation. That doesn't make the sentence any less nonsensical. Tomer^talk 00:06, 15 Kislev 5766 (UTC)

10. Yes, for reasons expressed by KHM03, a.n.o.n.y.m and Izehar — if I have to make this choice. As I explained above, in response to Chooserr, and below, there is a third choice, a compromise alternative, that was debated for quite a long time by many who have made substantive contributions to this article. I see no reason to reject the compromise, and the only reason I can see for bringing this up again is to stir conflict.Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Ditto Kuratowski's Ghost 23:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
12. I agree with the above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Either stick to the old compromise, or use the version that does not violate NPOV (i.e., BCE/CE). Guettarda 02:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Per Slrubenstein, Izehar, et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
15. In this article especially, using BC/AD is as (or nearly as) POV as capitalizing pronouns that refer to Jesus would be. The case with pronouns being more apparent, while BC and AD are implicit. In most articles, using AD does not take a position on the actual subject of the article - but here it would. Claims that BCE/CE are POV are based on some people being offended because their religion is NOT given preference. Why are we voting again!?! I agree AD 29–36 CE looks especially strange & I move that since we have reached a non-standard compromise anyway, we need not write AD first, but should return to what it was not too long ago: 29–36 AD/CE. Either that or take the more NPOV path completely --JimWae 08:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Normally, I really don't care which form is used, as long as the article maintains that form throughout. However, in this case, I think that the form derived from the subject of the article is more appropriate. --Elliskev 15:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Change to Honor previous compromise (see my note further down) --Elliskev 02:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Well the vote is 4-1 right now in favor of AD/BC. Anyone else?Gator (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

How about we give it 48 hours? --Elliskev 20:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll keep a running tally.Gator (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are you rejecting a compromise that was reached, after a long discussion involving many oc the principle contributors to this page, not too long ago? You are presenting it as a choice between one and the other when we decided some time ago on a third, compromise, alternative. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

VERY GOOD QUESTION!!! Tomer^talk 23:47, 15 Kislev 5766 (UTC)

This was never mean to reject a compromise or stir up trouble, I was unaware of a previous compromise. an't expect meto sift through the archinves before discussing issues and I only did the voting in order to reach a solution to something that users were debating before it got ugly. Please enlighten me: what was the compromise solution? ThanksGator (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it what's in the article? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If it is and that's waht people still want then that's fine. I only wanted to help but if this is old news then nevermind.Gator (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The compromise is the subject of almost this entire section of the archives. Read away. :-) Tomer^talk 01:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No thanks, I believe you I just didn't know this occurred. People were arguing over this point for some time and I figured if it HAD been dealt with someone would have said so. I think if there has been compromise, we should leave it as it and end this vote.Gator (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that if a compromise had been worked out (and I checked and it was) then this discussion is pretty much moot. We should honor the compromise (like it or not). I would suggest creating a permanent notice at the top of the talk page alering people to it, though. If not, it'll come up again. Nobody can be expected to wade through archive after archive to see if somethings already been covered. However, no one should expect to be berated for not doing so. --Elliskev 02:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Image of Jesus with John ?

Does anyone actually want this thing up?, I think it's just wierd. Also, I thought the reason we had no image of Jesus in the intro is because a physical description of him exists in no historical or other documents. What do you think? Scifiintel 04:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Extant texts

I am wondering about the usage of the term extant text with regard to the NT. As I understand it, there may be a few fragments that are candidates for consideration as being from before the year 100 - or maybe not. I do not think the article says anywhere yet that (virtually) nothing written in the original language survives - an important consideration for the historicity section. I understand that extant could also mean "not entirely lost" (like one's uncopied letters one might have burned in the fireplace) but I wonder if the meaning is clear - and if saying there ARE extant documents is taking a position on the chain of authorship --JimWae 04:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have read several books on NT textual criticism, and none have ever suggested that we have any extant original manuscripts. The Christian argument is that we have enough copies to verify with a great degree of accuracy the original text of the lost original manuscripts. 05:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My point is that the article does use that term without clarification. My question is: Does anything even in the original language exist (which I realize presupposes we know the original language)? --JimWae 05:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In the original language, Koine Greek, are numerous manuscripts of portions of the NT. Bruce Metzger is the authority on this topic. There is an overabundance of manuscript evidence compared with other historical documents of that era. But the term 'extant text' should not be part of the article. No one that I am aware of is claiming that we have even a fragment of an original copy. At least not evangelical Christians, anyway, which is the group I know best. 15:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Mary a Virgin

I have changed the third paragraph to read "his mother Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Someone keeps reverting it back to what it was before. But the fact is that the Gospels don't claim that Mary was always a virgin. They give evidence that Jesus had other siblings. The point the Gospels make is simply that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. So I have made the change for clarity and accuracy. To say that the Gospels claim that Mary was a virgin makes no sense by itself. When was she a virgin? For how long? Why is this important. But my edit makes it clearer. If you revert it, please comment here. Thanks 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

favor?

I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. Perhaps among the contributors to this page there are some who could go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation they think necessary. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be grateful if someone checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

historicity alert

One user has been trying to blank out all the critical aspects in the Historicity of Jesus article - see this edit Clinkophonist 22:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Untrue; I am a supporter of higher criticism, such as the Jesus Seminar, etc. I am no fundamentalist ("not that there's anything wrong with that"). The edit cited removed a lengthy section which duplicated material mentioned earlier in the article (re: Pagels), dealt with textual criticism (of Mark 16) and not the historicity of Christ, quoted a source not regarded as a Biblical/Jesus scholar in any way, redirected to inaccurate articles ("Gospels" redirected to "Synoptic problem"...why?), lengthy discussions of sources which yielded no pertinent information and seemed to be in the article for no particluar reason, etc. The edits were made to correct inaccuracies, eliminate the obvious POV, and render the article more user-friendly and accessible. Legitimate Biblical scholarship & criticism is welcome in probably any article of this type; the editor was not offering that, but seemed to be offering an extreme POV bias unrelated to legitimate Biblical/Jesus scholarship. KHM03 23:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Untrue.

• The discussion of the Gospels is specifically in regard to their status as eye-witnesses, in which Synoptic problem is a far more relevant article than Gospels.
• Mark 16 is relevant exactly because under the Synoptic Problem and Markan Priority, it is the only original early biblical witness for the resurrection, and since the relevant part of Mark 16 has extremely variant texts in the most ancient manuscripts, this brings its own validity into question - i.e. Mark 16 is a very relevant issue in what the bible originally said for the historicity of the Resurrection.
• Unless it escaped your notice, Elaine Pagels is the professor of religion at Princeton. That's a pretty major post she has there. She is also a world reknowned scholar of gnosticism. She also happens to be (though the Elaine Pagels article doesn't mention it whatsoever) an ex-fundamentalist Christian whose position on Jesus changed precisely because of academic consideration in gnosticism. This is why her views hold extremely significant weight in the field, and dismissing her is like dismissing George Bush as only being George Galloway's upstart tea boy when it comes to international politics.
• The Authorship of Paul is a highly relevant question precisely because of the variation in the details given concerning Jesus between the Epistles. This fundamentally affects the historicity of Jesus since Paul is the earliest written witness. The genuineness is far more relevant to historicity questions than is an article about the epistles in general.
• The overall result of KMH03's edits was to remove all critical information, leaving only vague "some people disagree" notions.

Clinkophonist 23:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

1. The section is entitled "Gospels", and speaks of what they have to offer in terms of whether or not Jesus existed. Let the synpotic problem be dealt with there...that's certainly appropriate. But redirect "Gospels" to Gospels. Anything else is clearly POV.
2. Mark 16 does have bearing, but the accounts in Matthew and Luke (and even John) are independent of Mark, so Mark 16 is but one issue among many. Even the "shorter ending" implies that something happened (no body, for instance). But none of this is mentioned. Why? POV.
3. Pagels is already discussed earlier in the article...why mention her and her views twice? Mention it once...that Pagels believes there's a Gnostic factor, which the rest of mainstream scholarship refutes. Then move on. Why bring it up...almost verbatim...again? POV.
4. Again, mention Paul, that we can't really say a whole lot because of the authorship question (which is legitimate), and move on. Why bring in more radical, less accepted fringe ideas? POV.
5. I am a fan of legitimate Biblical scholarship. I believe in the four source theory of the Pentateuch; I don't believe in a literal 6-day creation or in Noah's Ark; I don't believe any of the Gospels to have been written by the men whose names they bear; I believe that the Pastorals and several other Pauline letters are pseudonymous. I am no conservative. What I don't like is POV pushing and fringe claims in the name of scholarship. It is disingenuous and inaccurate. We can do better on Wikipedia. KHM03 23:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is this discussion taking place here and not at Talk:Historicity of Jesus? I can see alerting editors here to concerns about that related article, but the detailed discussion should be over there, IMO. Wesley 06:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. KHM03 06:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This woodwork picture

What's the deal here? Do we want this or not? Keeps getting added and taken away and now it's vandalism....I'm confused. What are people's opinion in this regard. I for one have no problem with it and am, frankly, at a loss, as to why this seems to be an issue. Am I missing something?Gator (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's an issue because there are no records of what Jesus looked like, so it is best not to have a guess in the intro. If we want that picture, than put it somewhere other than the intro. I think the picture's wierd. So I don't want it at all. And it doesn't make any sense, because there's no evidence that Jesus' disciples were children during his ministry. Scifiintel 21:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah OK I can see that. I'm not sure that I buy the arguments that we can't have any picture in the intro, but I agree that this one is not the best. Anyone else?Gator (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder whether we could have a montage of a number of different representations? That could look rather good and get across the fact that we don't know what he looked like and that people see Jesus in many different ways. --G Rutter 21:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I kinda like this pic, from a BBC special. But I defer. KHM03 00:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok OK let's talk this through

There is some dispute and edit warring concerning whether the phrasie "(though there is no other record of such)" should be included in the following sentence:

Then, following what the Bible says was a Passover tradition (though there is no other record of such), Pilate offered the crowd a choice of which prisoner to free — Jesus of Nazareth, or an insurrectionist named Jesus Barabbas.

I have researched this, lightly, and it looks like most claim that there is no other record of this tradition apart from the Bible. So I can see where Jay is coming from. However, doesn't the phrase "what the Bible says" kind of cover that issue. Why say it twice in parantheses. That doesn't strike me as encyclopedic and seems to inject some POV into a statement that already, essentially, gets that point across. How about adding commas so it reads: "Then, following what, the Bible says, was a Passover tradition Pilate offered the crowd a choice of which prisoner to free — Jesus of Nazareth, or an insurrectionist named Jesus Barabbas. That emphasizes it a bit more.

Or how about parantheses so it reads: "Then, following (what the Bible says was) a Passover tradition (though there is no other record of such), Pilate offered the crowd a choice of which prisoner to free — Jesus of Nazareth, or an insurrectionist named Jesus Barabbas. How about this compromise? Thoughts?Gator (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that "the Bible says" covers the issue. The Bible, as with many other ancient writings, says things that have escaped mention by other writings. I do not think that this one is all that remarkable. Layman 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I rather like Kuratowski's Ghost's suggestion, reading "the gospel accounts..."; very accurate. KHM03 01:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I agree. Done.Gator (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, simply saying "Bible" is vague and misleading. But actually this whole argument is nonsense, because if one bothers to check what the gospels actually say, NONE OF THEM say that there was such a "Passover tradition" despite often heard claims that they do. The account does not exist in John. In the account in Luke there is no mention of a tradition or custom. In Mark, it is merely mentioned that the crowd requested of Pilate that he do for them what he had done in previous years, while in Matthew the claim is that it was a custom of the governor at the feast to allow them to choose a prisoner to be freed. I am changing the wording appropriately, please don't revert. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. That's much better. GREAT job!Gator (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It is in John where it is most clearly stated it is a custom at Passover.ALL text and footnootes from http://www.bible.org/netbible/ JimWae 03:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

JOHN 18:38 Pilate asked, “What is truth?” When he had said this he went back outside to the Jewish leaders109 and announced, “I find no basis for an accusation against him.

18:39 But it is your custom that I release one prisoner112 for you at the Passover.113 So do you want me to release for you the king of the Jews?”

18:40 Then they shouted back,114 “Not this man,115 but Barabbas!”116 (Now Barabbas was a revolutionary.117)118

Oops it is in John too, missed it cos of Johns different structure. Again the account in John confirms that this is a custom relating to Pilate not a "Passover custom". Kuratowski's Ghost 14:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

112tn The word “prisoner” is not in the Greek text but is implied.

113sn Pilate then offered to release Jesus, reminding the Jewish authorities that they had a custom that he release one prisoner for them at the Passover. There is no extra-biblical evidence alluding to the practice. It is, however, mentioned in Matthew and Mark, described either as a practice of Pilate (Mark 15:6) or of the Roman governor (Matt 27:15). These references may explain the lack of extra-biblical attestation: The custom to which Pilate refers here is not a permanent one acknowledged by all the Roman governors, but one peculiar to Pilate as a means of appeasement, meant to better relations with his subjects. Such a limited meaning is certainly possible and consistent with the statement here.

114tn Or “they shouted again,” or “they shouted in turn.” On the difficulty of translating pavlin (palin) see BDAG 753 s.v. 5. It is simplest in the context of John’s Gospel to understand the phrase to mean “they shouted back” as a reply to Pilate’s question

115tn Grk “this one.”

116sn The name Barabbas in Aramaic means “son of abba,” that is, “son of the father,” and presumably the man in question had another name (it may also have been Jesus, according to the textual variant in Matt 27:16, although this is uncertain). For the author this name held ironic significance: The crowd was asking for the release of a man called Barabbas, “son of the father,” while Jesus, who was truly the Son of the Father, was condemned to die instead.

117tn Or “robber.” It is possible that Barabbas was merely a robber or highwayman, but more likely, given the use of the term lhsthv" (lhsth") in Josephus and other early sources, that he was a guerrilla warrior or revolutionary leader. See both R. E. Brown (John [AB], 2:857) and K. H. Rengstorf (TDNT 4:258) for more information. The word lh/sthv" was used a number of times by Josephus (J. W. 2.13.2-3 [2.253-254]) to describe the revolutionaries or guerrilla fighters who, from mixed motives of nationalism and greed, kept the rural districts of Judea in constant turmoil.

118sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

also a footnote from Mark

The custom of Pilate to release one prisoner to them is unknown outside the gospels in Jewish writings, but it was a Roman custom at the time and thus probably used in Palestine as well (cf. Matt 27:15; John 18:39); see W. W. Wessel, “Mark,” EBC 8:773-74.

It is only in Luke that there is no mention of it being a custom - though the story in Luke makes little sense without it being something similar -- The verse is actually usually omitted from Luke - but HAS a number --JimWae 04:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

45tc Many of the best mss, as well as some others (Ì75 A B K L T 070 1241 pc sa), lack

LUKE 23:17 “(Now he was obligated to release one individual for them at the feast.)”

This verse appears to be a parenthetical note explaining the custom of releasing someone on amnesty at the feast. It appears in two different locations with variations in wording, which makes it look like a scribal addition. It is included in Í (D following v. 19) W Q Y Ë1,13 Ï lat. The verse appears to be an explanatory gloss based on Matt 27:15 and Mark 15:6, not original in Luke. The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.