Talk:John 18:38

untitled

This page clearly needs sorting. People are not using the discussion page!!

Doesn't seem so bad to me. One question: Pilate was kind of like a politician, right? Wouldn't it make sense to interpret his question as a practical comment - there is the "truth" the masses react to, and then there's the "truth" they either don't know or don't believe. Does anyone know why Bacon or the other smart people in this article didn't see it that way? Orthografer (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If Nietzsche is quoted here Hegel should be quote as first. Nietzsche only followed Hegel. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Analysis section

Not a bad article actually, but the analysis section has no refs and in my view has a few errors. Seems like pure WP:OR for the most part. I will try to rewrite it with refs. History2007 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What is truth? OR What is THE truth?

The article doesn't mention this, but perhaps the abscence of the definite article (the) and indefinite article (a) in Greek, gives Pilate's question an unearned philosophical gravitas. Could it not simply mean "What is the truth (here in this case)?. There are a number of Biblical verses which have been given great theological import by the old schoolmen, but which modernists think do not mean anything special. For example when God says "I am that I am" or variations thereof, he could well mean "I am what I am, and it is not really any of your business", in a similar way to a father telling his impatient sons "We'll get there when we get there". Myles325a (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources generally use "what is truth" so we have to go by that, due to WP:COMMONNAME in any case. History2007 (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with History, until such time as it is indicated that "what is truth" is not the most common rendering. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Pilate didn't wait for an answer, supporting the notion that his question was rhetorical rather than an attempt to clarify.124.149.186.21 (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Interpretations

The first reference in the article is a WP:RS source that makes it clear that scholars are debating the interpretations. In this edit a large piece of text based on a narrow interpretation was added and conflicts with the WP:RS sources. I did not double revert it, but comments will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The new information did not cite any sources, and thus was open to being removed. Additions are welcome, even if they conflict with other sources, but there must be references to verifiable sources to back up statements. I hope the editor will include citations for future additions, as requested by StAnselm on the editor's talk. • Astynax ^talk 09:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, user:DenJones has been warned and reverted. He is heading to WP:3RR and a block. I reverted him again anyway, but he keeps going.... History2007 (talk) 00:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

DenJones here. Female. I'm just learning on Wiki and apologize for the mistakes you've brought to my attention. It took me a while to figure out what was going on or how to contact you. I'm still not sure this is the correct way. Regarding the article and the changes I made: I think it would be good to add to the text section the KJV Standard text of 1769 since most readers would be unfamiliar with the English of 1611, where f is also s, u is v, i is j, etc. On my other addition regarding the interpretations built into the NIV, I disagree that the section was "based on a narrow interpretation". It did not conflict with the main premise of the page, I feel, because it was necessary to point out the English replacements for the word "said" in the NIV and their impact. This translation contains, as I said, a fixed interpretation. It seemed necessary to point this out below the other texts, where the NIV is the only text in standard English, and the article needed this clarification to maintain as unbiased an aspect as possible. As a writer myself, it is common knowledge that the word "said" can be interpreted any number of ways and such interpretation is left to the reader. Meaning can be inferred but is individualistic. Furthermore, it is common knowledge among writers and editors that, like interpretation of "said", punctuation and word order make a big difference, whether in a creative piece, a translation, a transcription, an edition of an historical work, or etc. In the case of a book of antiquity and of such import to the Christian community, it is an unscholarly practice to sway readers by substituting biased, interpretive words, i.e., "retorted" for "said", where only the word "said" (or its Greek or Latin the translational equivalent) is used. Generally speaking, no reference in necessary for common knowledge (see http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/2/) but I'll try to find a citation in the Chicago Style of Manual if it exists, or in a book of grammar or in The Art of Persuasion -- an old copy that I'll take a look at regarding bibliographical information and possible citation). There are any number of other English translations that could be included here, notably the Catholic Bible which differs from the KJV. Translations in English closest to the KJV regarding use of the word "said" would be the most important when discussing Pilate's question, "What is truth?" I cited the lds.org site New Testament because it is the Standard English KJV, was convenient and is easily referenced by the specific verses regarding Pilate, John 18:37-38. I hope you will contact me here, and also forgive my problem with figuring out wikipedia. I'm in the process of reading and absorbing the talk page guidelines and will edit this comment if I'm in error, but must do it tomorrow. DenJones (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)talk (I don't know how to sign yet.)

Ok, then please read: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:Truth and WP:Undue which provide useful guidelines for editing. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Latin semantics expected of an Equestrian Provincial Prefect in Julio-Claudian times

This is fascinating because it is SFAIK the only interaction of a historical (discounting locals such as Caiaphas) figure with Christ and it has a high probability of being an observed actual quote. That most people don't have any understanding of the concept of truth is sort of presumed in its cast as a rhetorical question. But isn't it possible that the speaker means "the truth of what?"? If it was actually said this seems a more reasonable interpretation of what would be expected and the actual interrogative might not have been "Quid" or other difference from the Prefect's spoken text. Lycurgus (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Noting similarity to the thread above ".. or What is the truth". Lycurgus (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)