Talk:Jesus/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Neutral evidence?

Where's the neutral evidence of historical Jesus and why does this article depict biblical data of Jesus as more or less historically accurate? Why isn't there a seperate Jesus (Bible) or Jesus (mythology) article and let this main article concentrate on historical facts of his life and deeds...if any? - G3, 16:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The first article you mention is New Testament view on Jesus' life. The second article is at Jesus-Myth. The "historical facts and deeds" are at Historical Jesus. This, the main Jesus article, is meant to summarize all significant POVs. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely change the first line from

Jesus (8-2 BC/BCE– 29-36 AD/CE),[1] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity and Christian mythology.

to

Jesus (8-2 BC/BCE– 29-36 AD/CE),[1] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity and the Christian worldview.

Why? Because to use the word "mythology" comes from the word "myth" which means passed down by oral tradition. This is simply untrue in reference to Jesus, for his teachings were passed down via manuscripts. Mythology is one sided, and completely opposed to the neutrality that has made Wiki so great. The article itself is not the place to discuss whether or not Jesus lived. If we leave the word mythology, we do a drastic and unfortunate disservice to our readers. If we need to link something, link to [[Christian worldview]

Myth can be written as well. Please read up on your definitions and your anthropology. If you even read the christian mythology article you will see that there is both biblical myth and folk myth. Please stop misrepresenting words and positions. from the christian mythology article:

Christian mythology is a body of stories that explains or symbolizes Christian beliefs. A Christian myth is a religious story that Christians consider to have deep explanatory or symbolic significance. Christian mythology can also be taken to refer to the entire mythos surrounding the Christian religious system, including the various narratives of both the Old and New Testaments.

I linked it directly to the Christian mythology article, precluding it from one sidedness, this does not at all imply jesus was a mythological figure and didn't live, it merely points to the fact that jesus is central to the christian mythology, not that he was a myth himself, please read the sentence before copy pasting and being critical. Solidusspriggan 02:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

it is a compound entry "christian mythology", you cannot simply remove one part of it and mix things up as you see fit. If you think Jesus isn't an integral part of christian mythology I suggest you read either the article on christian mythology, or the new testament (what I think many would consider one of the most appropriate sources of information on jesus. If you feel it is necessary then link to Christian worldview as well!

FURTHERMORE, DO NOT DELETE MY COMMENTS!!!Solidusspriggan 04:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I waited 24 hours before making these proposed changes, but the community made them for me in support of removing the word "mythology".

==Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology"?==

I can't spot the diff, but it looks like somebody changed the intro to put in "Christian Mythology" what ever that means. Wouldn't being the central figure of Christianity sort of make saying the "Center of Christian Mythology" redundant? And when did that neutrality tag appear, who wants to debate whether the article is neutral or not? Homestarmy 03:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Rossnoxin encountered our editor friend there, who hasn't showed up here yet.... Homestarmy 05:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no direct link to Christian mythology in the article, it is only in the "see also" section which i think is insufficient, I came here to find out about the centrality of jesus in christian myth and lore and found it exceedingly difficult to locate the information. Beyond that I think it is not redundant but only natural because other articles about various gods and prophets mention their relation to the mythology very early in the intro to that article.

The one who added the neutrality tag wrote:

"Because to use the word "mythology" comes from the word "myth" which means passed down by oral tradition. This is simply untrue in reference to Jesus, for his teachings were passed down via manuscripts. Mythology is one sided, and completely opposed to the neutrality that has made Wiki so great. The article itself is not the place to discuss whether or not Jesus lived. If we leave the word mythology, we do a drastic and unfortunate disservice to our readers. If we need to link something, link to [[Christian worldview]"

I wrote: Myth can be written as well. Please read up on your definitions and your anthropology. If you even read the Christian mythology article you will see that there is both biblical myth and folk myth. Please stop misrepresenting words and positions. from the christian mythology article:

Christian mythology is a body of stories that explains or symbolizes Christian beliefs. A Christian myth is a religious story that Christians consider to have deep explanatory or symbolic significance. Christian mythology can also be taken to refer to the entire mythos surrounding the Christian religious system, including the various narratives of both the Old and New Testaments.

I linked it directly to the Christian mythology article, precluding it from one sidedness, this does not at all imply jesus was a mythological figure and didn't live, it merely points to the fact that jesus is central to the christian mythology, not that he was a myth himself, please read the sentence before copy pasting and being critical.

it is a compound entry "christian mythology", you cannot simply remove one part of it and mix things up as you see fit. If you think Jesus isn't an integral part of christian mythology your are sorely mistaken, I suggest you read either the article on christian mythology, or the new testament (what I think many would consider one of the most appropriate sources of information on jesus. If you feel it is necessary then link to Christian worldview as well! Solidusspriggan 21:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

An idea I thought of would be to make a new section in this article, detailing how Jesus has been rendered in several different works in Mythology, principally from middle age works which, of course, most Christian do not take seriously, (Or anyone else for that matter) such as the Infancy Gospel and other things like that, I mean, some of those things are somewhat notable and might be interesting to report on. Im a bit concerned that the article is bloated enough already, but it could be important. Besides, I was being critical because the introduction was settled on after like 4 months of debate and just got changed randomly, these sort of things look suspicious. And what exactly is not neutral about the introduction/article that warrents the tag? Homestarmy 22:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The Christian Mythology article is full of weasel words, and refers mainly to stories about the "saints". Jesus, therefore, is not the central character of these stories. That is why comments on Christian Mythology do not belong in this article. ^rossnixon 01:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see the debate already going on here; I would suggest commentary be moved here from the pink "to-do list" section at the top. Jesus is clearly the "central figure" in Christian mythology (which includes the vast body of folktales and traditions that have grown up around Christian belief and practice over the last two millennia, but which have no solid scriptural basis). Attempts to deny this seem to be based in the mistaken notion that "admitting" Christianity has a mythology somehow weakens its claim to Truth. — JEREMY 01:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Christian mythology" falls under the category of "Christianity" itself. Mentioning both "Christianity" and "Christian mythology" is, firstly, redundant. Also, it seems as though it may be an intentional attempt to include the term "mythology" to anger people and assume that Christianity is "mythological" and false. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 01:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It still seems to me that it would be much easier (And certainly would alleviate the "Myth" part) to simply create a sub-section in this article on the many, many times in which Jesus is refereed to in mythology, after all, the Medieval times were pretty weird, there's the infancy gospel which in my opinion is worth the most noting, I think a couple other things, there might even be some Catholic visitation-type deals, hey, even Islam might have a say on this, though I suspect they'd probably think it blasphemy to make up stories about Jesus that aren't true, ah well. Then, with this section, we can fully enunciate on how these myths are most certainly not accepted by Christianity at all (or most other people I figure for that matter), which would, in my opinion, not only justify putting an otherwise loaded "Christian Mythology" term at the beginning, but getting a chance to take pot shots against fake stuff, (With NPOV language of course) in addition to making the term "myth" be far more easily understood to the reader as not in any way implying that Christianity today is somehow based on fake junk, and of course, adding some content which I think might be interesting. If we have 2 footnotes, maybe one from the Mythology article and another pointing towared a future section, I think this can totally work. Homestarmy 01:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What about changing the phrase to "Christianity and Christian folk culture" and linking to a section rather than to Christian mythology? Still, you're probably right about the undue weight of mentioning the mythology in the opening, although the fact that there's no mythology section in this article looks suspiciously POV to me. At bare minimum one would expect a subarticle linked from the rather crowded "Cultural impact of Jesus" section, although I think the subject deserved its own section, given how much of what many people "know" about Jesus is in fact non-scriptural. — JEREMY 02:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing of it is, I don't know what "Christian folk culture" means, is that like the wild west and family feuds and stuff? Homestarmy 02:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO this article should make clear that its contents are (necessarily?) Point of View-based instead of being historically accurate. - G3, 17:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

But that would ruin the editors' fun. We like discussing what is, and hate discussing what sources say. Drogo Underburrow 17:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Silly. All articles are "poin of view based," wnich is why all articles mst comply with NPOV. Anonymous user, IMO you need to learnabout what an encyclopedia is in gneral, and what Wikipedia ia in particular. I urge you to read the five pillars,epecially our NPOV and NOR policies. Then, you can come back and express your "O," and perhaps someone will pay attntion. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Trusting on one unveriafable source to tell the truth is not a NPOV - Thus one should make clear that an article like this based on other source than observation, by for example creating {{BIBLE}} with a text denoting that this article of a character/item/building is based on a biblical source rather than a verifiable scientific source. Consider someone who believes in Biblical Jesus reading this article and someone who denies Bible reading this article - Which reader does this article serve better and why? -G3, 17:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see where this article "depicts biblical data of Jesus as more or less historically accurate". There is a large section (too large in my opinion) that deals with a summary of the plot of the NT. That section starts off by saying it is summerizing the Gospels, and all through out there are phrases like "according to Mark, acorrding to John etc". I do not see where it says any of those accounts are historically accurate. Perhaps the opening paragraph could be a little clearer on that point, but I don't think we need anything like a disclaimer that says "warning, the following account may not be historically accurate, depending on your POV".--Andrew c 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Silly. "Trusting on one unveriafable source to tell the truth is not a NPOV" is a non-sequitor. First, this article does not tell the truth, it does not claim to tell the truth, Wikipedia is not concerned with telling the truth I told you to read our NPOV policy. Until you do, you comments are just ignorant. Second, this aticle does not tust one unveifiable source. First, all sources used here are verifiable Read our verifiability policy, until you do your commentsae ignorant. Second, this article uses many, many souces, just look at the bibliogaphy. Your comment is simply gibberish. I suggest we ignore these non-seqtor, off-point, unconstructive comments until it is clea that the anonymous commenter knows what s/he is talking about. For starts, read our policies so you understand what we ae doing, what we ae trying to do, here. PS. DO not claim that I am insulting you. Until you bother to read our NPOV and NOR and Verifiability policies, you are just wilfully wasting ou time and insulting us. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Woah! You are being uncivil here, Slr. There is no need to call anyone "ignorant" in bold face, all that does is offend the other person and violate Wikipedia policy on appropriate use of talk pages. I am claiming you are being insulting, and I am not the injured party. Likewise, nothing is accomplished by saying that someone's comments are "gibberish". Calling them that does not in any way refute them. Your anger and frustration is evident by the typographical errors in your post, a good indication that you should have hit "cancel" instead of "save". An apology is appropriate here. Drogo Underburrow 19:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, with all due respect to you, I am not apologizing. The anonynmous user expressed clear ignorance of our NPOV as well as other policies. To point out that s/he is ignorant is not an insult just a statement of fact. Please note that this was the second time I made this same point. The anyonymous user could easily have looked oat our NPOV policy after my first comment, and then could have made a constructive comment. That s/he chose not to is an insult to our project. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I'd seriously suggest that you calm down and take a deep breath. Like it or not, anonymous editors are entitled to their opinions and to the same guarantee of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as a registered editor. •Jim62sch• 01:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So is "G3" suggesting that we replace the alleged POV of the article with his own POV (which of course is the only factual, accurate and verifiable one)? Not very consistant. In fact, as Slrubenstein indicated, WP:NPOV means representing all relevant POVs with due weight given to each (whether one agrees with them or not) — not attempting to reach some ideal "objectivity" (the possibility of which is a contentious POV in itself). The policy specifically articulates that it "does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense, a 'view from nowhere' (in Thomas Nagel's phrase)--such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true. That isn't the policy and it is not our aim!" One could easily argue that since Jesus is viewed as the founder of a religion by millions, this article should only give the religious POV and claim that all dissent is doubtful, and should be tucked away in a subarticle; but that wouldn't be fair either. Thus we represent (broadly, in a summary fashion) the Christian perspective, the critical-historical perspective, the Jesus-myth perspective, the Muslim perspective, and so on; with due weight (i.e., space, emphasis, selection of data) given to each one according to its relevance and prominence. » MonkeeSage « 00:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, that's a rather bold and very debatable statement. •Jim62sch• 01:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Very smart reply which infact makes clear one of the points I'm questioning - WP:NPOV means representing all relevant POVs with due weight given to each - I'll ask again: Does this article serve Bible believers as much as Bible disbelievers, Bible skeptics or someone who doesn't know anything about the Bible? To put it much more simply the fact is that from my point of view this page does not give a neutral answer to the question: "Who, what and when was Jesus?" like it is supposed to do. I'd rather see this page reduced to an index of sorts where all facts (eg. Jesus is an important figure in Christianity and according to Bible he was the son of God) were contained in the introductory text followed by short treatise about historicity of Jesus and (short) sections about different viewpoints with the core content on the appropriate page like Jesus in Christianity, Jesus based on Biblical account, Jesus in Qu'ran, Jesus as a fictious character, etc... Instead this article treats Biblical account as much more important than other equally valid viewpoints - And might I add: This article isn't about Christian view of Jesus but Jesus character as a whole. - G3, 22:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Neutral", as defined by the policy, does not mean "all views are represented with the same amount of space and emphasis" or "no bias is present"; it means "all significant points of view [biases -MS] are presented, not just the most popular one. [. . .] Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." It has nothing to do with the "validity" or "truth" of the views being presented (". . .we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense.").

It would violate NPOV to give every view of Jesus equal space and emphasis: that would destroy the very idea of "weight" as being based on prominence and relevance (i.e., the only undue weight would be any division of weight). It is in accord with the policy to give greater emphasis and space to the view which sees Jesus as its primary representative (and alleged founder), than to other views which accord him a less central role. What would be against the policy would be to exclude those other views entirely, or to misrepresent them as to content (or as to their significance and relevance).

It doesn't matter if the article "serves" some party or other; that may be a consequence of following the policy, but it is not a factor that trumps policy ("[NPOV is] absolute and non-negotiable" — regardless of the consequences). » MonkeeSage « 23:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Isa

Now that we've revised this section of the Jesus article, I should point out that Isa (or whatever—the article keeps getting moved around) has an NPOV-tag on it. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My oh my. What a mess they have going on over there. —Aiden 21:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And I even went in and told them about how you really should not edit war over page titles because apparently it messes up all sorts of google cache or ranking stuff, but nooooo -____- Homestarmy 01:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I kind of got caught up in it but we arrived at an agreeable compromise on the title. It is Jesus (prophet in Islam) although Islamic views of Jesus also redirects there. —Aiden 02:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I never understood what was wrong with "Isa". Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Day of Jesus' Death

I just added a small section in the Chronology area about the day on which Jesus died (Wednesday as opposed to Friday). If you have any questions please leave a message on my talk page notifying me. Thanks! standonbible 15:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the text of the paragraph in question:

The day of the week on which Jesus died is also in question. Historically Friday has been the accepted day, since the Gospels record the death as being the day before the Sabbath, which the Hebrews celebrated on Saturday. However, the gospels also assert that Jesus was dead for three days and three nights, and was resurrected on the first day of the week, Sunday. Jesus died right before Passover, and Passover was a special holiday that would have created a "Special Sabbath" on whatever day of the week it fell upon. More modern examinations show that probably Jesus died on Wednesday and the Passover was a special Sabbath the day after.

There is not a single source for this paragraph. First of all, could you please cite your sources. Next, while possibly a valid POV, the idea that Jesus died on a Wednesday is not mainstream or "probable". We need to clarify who exactly holds this POV and how prevelent it is. Next, it seems a little wordy and could possibly be reduced to one sentence: However, a minority of scholars theorize that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday because the claim in the Gospels that Jesus died before the Sabbath could be referencing a so-called "Special Sabbath" of the Passover feast .-Andrew c

16:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: Andrew c I agree. In my understanding (reading books of scholars, which I will not list here) the fact that Jesus died on a Friday is mostly accepted. What is open whether this was Nisan 14 o 15, as discussed recently. Precisely which verses state that he was dead for 3 days and nights? About the special sabbath: I am confused: usually if, Nisan 15, the first day of Pessach/Passover falls on a Sabbath, this Sabbath is called great Sabbath. (well more or less). Oub 16:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC):

I don't believe the gospels say he was dead for 3 days and nights when giving a strict account; they might make a comparison between Jesus and Jonah, who was in the belly of a fish for 3 days and nights, or something close to that. The gospels do say that Jesus rose on the "third day." If we count Friday as day 1, Saturday as day 2, that makes Sunday day 3, or the third day. I think someone would have to decide to give extra weight to the allusions to Jonah, and less to the "rose on the third day" accounts (and predictions) in the gospels, to come up with Jesus being dead for three days and nights. Wesley 16:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and most Christians believe that Jesus died on Friday afternoon and rose on early Sunday morning. That's actually less than 48 hours. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Matthew 12:40 says "for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." This seems to be another instance of Matthew shoe-horning old testament prophecies to prophesy Jesus. In other parts of his own gospel, I believe that Matthew indicates (like Mark, his source for the Passion Narrative) that Jesus died on Friday. At any rate, Wednesday wouldn't be three nights - it'd be at least four nights - Wednesday night, Thursday night, Friday night, Saturday night. Thursday would presumably be the way to get to three days and three nights. john k 17:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

FA Nomination

Perhaps it's time we nominate the article for Featured Article status? —Aiden 18:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd wait to see how the AID drive goes first. This article is currently on the AID list until May 25. After all, the pupose of the AID is "to improve non-stub articles to featured article status." We can nominate Jesus after its AID week if it succeeds, or after it gets dropped from the list if it fails. Also, don't we still have items on the to do list to do? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. We'll hold off. —Aiden 18:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Chronology section

This is mainly about scholarly opinions of the birth and crucifixion dates, with an aside about Christian, Jewish and Roman holidays and the AD calendar notation. Is there any reason not to merge this section into the historicity section? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummm. I can see reasons for both. I think it really centers enough on Gospel accounts and their intepretations, but also it sets the historical timeline for these events. For these reasons I can see why it should be kept at the beginning of the article. —Aiden 21:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Bible versions

I've added a template for the New King James version of the Bible. Personally I prefer this version over both the archaic King James Version and the seemingly too colloquial New International Version.

I wanted to make a comparison on a sample verse:

NIV	KJV	NKJV
Luke 2:46–49: After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you." "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?"	Luke 2:46–49: And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?	Luke 2:46–49: Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. 48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.” And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?”

What does everyone think? —Aiden 02:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the Revised Standard Version. It preserves some of the language and phrasing of the King James, but is also concerned with accuracy and modernizes. Unlike the NIV, it's also non-sectarian and willing to call 'em as they see 'em. john k 03:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you think the NIV is "too colloquial," you should try the TEV some time. I like the NKJV, though. No preference on the RSV.Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 03:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the reason I bring this up, aside from my preference for NKJV, is because in some places in the article we quote KJV while others we quote NIV. NIV may be easier to understand, but most verses (John 3:16 comes to mind) tend to be remembered and spread in their KJV format. However, KJV is at times hard to understand. I think we should choose a standardized version and use it throughout the article. NKJV is quite easy to understand, is more recognizable than NIV IMO, and is closer to the literal translation. —Aiden 04:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that in articles about Biblical verses, or particular parts of the Bible, we should try to give several translations, and one of these translations should always be the KJV. However, in articles on Biblical subjects, one source is probably useful. An issue with the NKJV is that it's not very widely used, as far as I'm aware. The RSV is also, I think, the most commonly used Bible which is genuinely attempting to give a literal translation without sectarian prejudice. The RSV version tends to often be quite close to the KJV, but it doesn't slavishly follow it, as the NKJV seems to. If we want to give the traditional readings of verses, we should probably stick to the actual KJV. If we want to try to give a more accurate and modern rendering, I prefer the RSV. john k 06:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

NKJV is alright by me; I like that it gives the important variants in the footnotes. NRSV (or RSV, though based on older textual criticism and a little archaic), ESV, HCSB are also fine with me. I think that KJV is too archaic and inaccessible (it has a 47/13/21 on the readability scale for John 3:16 compared to 50/12/19 for NKJV, 50/12/21 for RSV, 55/12/20 NRSV, HCSB, and 60/11/17 for ESV). » MonkeeSage « 09:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You've mentioned the ESV before, but I'm not all that familiar with it. I've never even heard of HCSB. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the King James but defer to what contemporary scholars say. Were this an article on a Jewish theme I would choose Fox or Alter. Does the King James sound archaic because it uses archaic English, or because it is translating Greek? I personally like translations that seek to convey the rhythm and feel of the original. Just my opinion. I am, by the way, entirely ignorant of intra-Christian sectarian conflicts, and do recognize the need for a translation that is as non-sectarian as possible. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Archaic phrasing and syntax, e.g., "we do you to wit" for "we want you to know" in 2 Cor. 8:1; "lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness" for "put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness" in James 1:21. I personally think that the ESV does the best job of all the translations I've seen in giving a "literal" word-for-word translation, in modern English, while preserving the cadence of the Greek to a large extent, and retaining the idiosyncrasies of the individual authors. » MonkeeSage « 11:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The KJV sounds archaic because it IS archaic, it was written in 1611. It is so old, it doesn't even qualify as being written in the same language we use today. Reading the KJV requires learning a foreign language for a modern English speaking person. The KJV is highly sectarian, it is a Protestant bible, particularly liked by fundamentalists. Drogo Underburrow 11:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

And some would say that the RSV, NRSV et al are too Catholic. You'll probably run into sectarian disputes no matter which translation you use. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are three editions of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV):

1. the NRSV standard edition, containing the Old and New Testaments (Protestant canon);
2. the NRSV with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books in addition to the Old and New Testaments;
3. the NRSV Catholic Edition containing the Old Testament books in the order of the Vulgate.

The NRSV has received acceptance among a broad range of Christian churches including the Catholic church, nearly three dozen Protestant churches, and at least one Greek Orthodox leader. The ESV, recommended by MonkeeSage, is an alternative revision of the RSV that does not use gender-inclusive language -- Drogo Underburrow 15:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we are quoting text, we may want to consider a case by case examination, instead of setting a rule for using one text universally. However, when we are linking bible references to an external site, I believe the best option is to use one of the existing templates that directs to biblegateway.com. There around 70 different bible versions there, in over 30 langauges. The user can easily change versions once they reach the external site. The question then remains what version do we redirect to as the default? Unfortunately, this site does not have the NRSV, but it does have ESV. This isn't that big of an issue for me personally. I would agree that the KJV is probably not the best one to link to because of readability/comprehension issues. I personally see nothing wrong with using the default/NIV.--Andrew c 16:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

NIV reads great; the trouble is, it is a biased translation with an agenda. Drogo Underburrow 16:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that if you use the {{bibleverse}} template to link to biblegateway.com and leave the version field in the template blank, then you'll get either biblegateway's default version (NIV), or the version you have set in your biblegateway.com preferences (NKJV in my case). I learned this by accident once when I clicked on such a link that didn't specify a version, and the verse came up in NKJV; I can only assume it was because of my preferences. This seems like an ideal way to let readers see the verse in their preferred version. The site also lets you easily switch versions if you want.

The only problem I have with biblegateway.com is that it doesn't include the deuterocanonical books in searches by default unless you "turn them on" in your preferences. I haven't tested to see whether a direct link would work if someone didn't have them turned on. Also, some translations don't include those books at all; there are versions of the KJV and RSV that do (KJV did from the beginning), as well as NRSV, but I don't think there's an NIV version that does. And like Drogo says, the NIV appears to be deliberately biased in a number of places. Wesley 16:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think any genuinely scholarly translation should translate Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman" rather than "virgin", which is why I prefer RSV (or NRSV, although I'm not a big fan of gender inclusive language). As far as I can tell, there's no linguistic reason one should translate the Hebrew "almah" as "virgin" rather than "young woman" - such a translation is made entirely because of a priori religious concerns regarding the virgin birth, and refers to Matthew's use of the Greek word for "virgin" in his quotation of the verse, which derives from the Septuagint. Thus, it seems to me that any bible version which uses "virgin" is pretty clearly attempting to advance a Christian POV. Note that every translation on BibleGateway uses "virgin," suggesting an agenda on their part - why on earth do they include translations I've never heard of like the "Darby translation" but not the RSV or NRSV (or any Catholic Bibles)? I'm also confused as to how the RSV and NRSV, are "Catholic" - the usual complaint about the RSV is that its version of the Old Testament is too Jewish. But this is really getting beyond the scope of this article. Perhaps we should find an appropriate manual of style subpage to discuss which version of the Bible is best to use for quotations. john k 18:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The translators of the Septuaginta are advancing a Christian POV too?

THE NRSV is problematic as it uses inclusive language, sometimes sacrifcing the sentence structure to it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I prefer the RSV. The Septuagint is not a modern scholarly translation, and is known to contain many variations from the original Hebrew text. In most other such instances, Christian translators of the Old Testament go with the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint. Isaiah 7:14 is an exception to this, because it fits with Christian POV to have that verse translated as "virgin." john k 20:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

John, I don't want to raise a big discussion on this, but the case of Isaiah 7 is a choice between the Greek and the Hebrew but a choixe between Greek and Hebrew (leading to virgin) or just the Hebrew, as the Hebrew word AFAIK can be translated either way. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I might be misremembering (some fundamentalists have accused the RSV of having a communist influence), or maybe what I read was specifically about the RSV-CE. It's hard to tell, since I can't remember where I read it. I have no problem with the RSV myself. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well BibleGateway has the Young's Literal Translation which I like to crossreference when I'm reading a verse but it of course has difficult wording at times. I didn't see the RSV at Biblegateway. Frankly I think KJV is probably the most widely recognized version in the world, and I wouldn't say that NKJV "slavishly follows it"--it's just an updated version. Where KJV has 'thou' and 'shalt' NKJV has 'you' and 'will' which makes for easier reading without really changing the dynamics. —Aiden 18:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, Young's translates "alma" as "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14. Here's a response from Rabbi Toviah Singer (who I've mentioned before.) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm perhaps being too hard on NKJV, but I do think it's problematic that it uses the textus receptus rather than a text based on earlier manuscripts. If we're going to use a version based on the textus receptus, why not just use the regular KJV? Rabbi Singer, by the way, seems entirely too eager to believe that showing that "alma" does not mean "virgin" somehow discredits Christianity. It seems to me that it does nothing of the sort, unless one is a Biblical inerrantist, which most Christians are not. Numerous mainstream churches, including the Catholic Church, accept translations which translate "alma" as "young woman." I believe the RSV was accused of being a Communist translation, or some such, but such things are obviously ridiculous. This information belongs in perhaps as a curiosity, like the way the John Birch Society accused Earl Warren of being a Communist, but not as an actual mainstream POV. john k 20:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are those of us who prefer the NKJV to the KJV simply because it's easier to read (also, my Study Bible is an NKJV). I have no problem with using other translations that refect non-Textus Receptus manuscripts. Before this discussion we'd mostly been using the NIV, but some people object that the NIV is too Protestant.

IMHO Rabbi Singer is basically a Jewish apologist, but his group, Outreach Judaism, does help to highlight the differences between Judaism and Christianity. A conservative Christian would respond by saying that Mary was both a young woman and a virgin, so there is no contradiction. My own opinion is that Jews and Christians should be part of a fellowship, while also acknowledging the differences. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the Contemporary Standard Version discusses the translation of "young woman" vs. "virgin" in a footnote. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 21:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thought: if we cannot decide on a standard translation, why not link to multiple versions?

I'd say that the NIV is too evangelical, rather than too protestant. The NRSV or RSV are relatively non-sectarian, but might be considered too liberal. I suppose that for Biblical translations, there's at least four axes - sectarian/non-sectarian; liberal/traditional; word for word/general meaning; and archaic/modern language. Personally, I'd prefer that we quote two versions - the KJV, as the most familiar English rendering of any given Biblical verse; and a more modern translation that is relatively non-sectarian, relatively liberal, goes for a more literal word for word translation, and uses relatively modern language. I'm not sure any translations have the precise balance I'd prefer, but I feel as though the RSV is probably closest. And, yes, I noticed that one of the virgins on Bible Gateway mentions "young woman" as an alternative reading in a footnote. But it's interesting that it provides no versions that actually have "young woman" as their main translation, as well as no Catholic Bibles. This suggests that Biblegateway is pushing a traditionalist protestant perspective. john k 21:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd add that perhaps the best way to do this is to try to figure out what version is most commonly used by mainstream scholars. john k 21:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

John: New English Translation may be what you're looking for (see on Isa 7:14 for example [1], and fn. 26). Unfortunately, they don't have an easy system for doing external queries like BibleGateway does. » MonkeeSage « 14:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, one of the main reasons that most Bible's don't translate that Isaiah thing as "young woman" is because the sentence seems utterly pointless that way. I mean think about it, "And he will be born of a young woman...."? if it reads like that, its sort of a "well, DUH" moment, and it certainly wouldn't be anything special that would belong in a prophecy or really in the Bible at all. Just because one believes that a Bible has decided to choose the "virgin" translation does not inherintly mean there is no logic to their decision and that therefore it is horribly biased to protestants or whatever, there is much more to things like this than meets the eye. Homestarmy 16:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't especially like the New English Translation - it's highly awkward. I much prefer the RSV. Homestarmy - the traditional Jewish interpretation of the passage is that the "young woman" is Isaiah's wife, and that the child is Isaiah's son. The point of the passage is supposedly that, by the time Immanuel (who is about to be born) reaches adulthood, the two kings who are besieging Jerusalem (Pekah and Rezin) will be dead). It is not read as a messianic prophecy. The principal reason that it is read as a messianic prophecy is because of a bad translation by the Septuagint and the use of that bad translation by Matthew to support the idea of the virgin birth. Reading the verse in context, this makes a lot more sense:

And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. (Isaiah 7:13-16, RSV)

I'm not sure about the eating curds and honey business, but the "before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted" part doesn't make any sense if it's a reference to Jesus. The point of the passage is not supposed to be that the birth of Immanuel is some kind of miracle. The idea is that Immanuel will be born soon, and before he comes to manhood Rezin and Pekah'll be gone. john k 17:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

More specifically it's a sign to King Ahaz of Judah (starting at verse 10). Many Christians would say it's a double prophecy—that it refers both to Isaiah's son and to Jesus. Of course, Jews disagree. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Im pretty sure Matthew couldn't of used a bad translation of the Septungint when the Septungint was made hundreds of years after his death, right? And besides, id say it's miraculous that this son was mentioned as a matter of prophecy, if it was just any child being mentioned here, well, that seems kind of silly. Homestarmy 22:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's debatable. From what I've seen, most Bible scholars believe that the Septuagint was translated by Jewish sages between the third to first century BC/E (several centuries before his death), and that the New Testament writers quoted from the Septuagint. This isn't universally accepted. Those who support the Aramaic primacy hypothesis believe that the Gospel writers wrote in Aramaic, and would have had no reason to quote from the Greek Septuagunt. There are others who believe that the sages only translated the Torah, and that the rest of the Tanakh (Old Testament), including Isaiah, was translated by Christians. However, both of these are minority opinions.

Also, not everyone agrees that the Septuagint was a mistranslation. There are those who believe that the Hebrew word alma really did have a secondary meaning (connotation) of "virgin" in addition to the primary meaning (denotation) of "young woman of marriagable age," which is why the Septuagint uses the Greek word "parthenos" and the verse in Matthew is usually translated as "virgin." Christian apologists prefer this explanation, as do some non-Christians; but in the wider world, this explanation is controversial. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 06:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just created a new template, {{bverse}} (see User:MonkeeSage/Bible templates) that allows using NRSV and several other translations not available in {{bibleverse}} and {{bibleref}}, as well as ESV, NKJV, KJV, &c. » MonkeeSage « 04:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I just finished archiving, and I had to recover the "sexual orientation of Jesus" section. User:Spicynugget erased this section without archiving it. Please don't do that. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)