Talk:Jesus/Archive 59

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

The trial again, part 2

Burial & historical details

The material on Jesus' burial seems potentially problematic to me. Two points:

  1. Only John mentions Nicodemus' involvement. In the Synoptic Gospels, it is Joseph of Arimathea alone. Raymond E. Brown in The Death of the Messiah feels that Mark's account, at least, suggests that Joseph was, at this point, neither a disciple of Jesus nor even a sympathizer, but that he was merely an agent of the Council trying to ensure that Jesus was buried on the day of his death in accordance with Jewish law, and that his conversion came later. Which brings up the second point...
  2. Brown seems to feel that it is not unusual that Jesus would have been buried the same day he died, because of the Deuteronomic law against people being put on a tree after their death, and a desire to bury someone the same day - especially the day before the sabbath. Our article suggests that this would have been (almost) unheard of, which doesn't really seem to come into Brown's account at all.

At the least, I think we should mention that it is Joseph of Arimathea who buried Jesus, and add a note that John mentions that Nicodemus, as well, was involved. I also think the sentence about crucifixion practices probably ought to be modified. john k 22:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

While Arch was earlier advocating "beefing up" the Gospel plot summary section with historic details, I feel that this is an example where the historic qualifier (Typically it could take days to die from crucifixion (usually by asphyxiation), and it was common practice to let a body hang upon the cross for days afterwards to decay) should probably simply be removed, or at least moved to this historical reconstruction section. Your suggestions in regards to Nicodemus and Jn. sounds prudent.--Andrew c 22:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
That was quite some time ago, but I've given in to consensus. As I responded to Slrubenstein above, if we're going to keep the Gospel summary, religious views and historical views in separate sections, then we should keep them in separate sections. I'm not sure who added the "historic qualifier," but we can merge it into the historicity section. From what I've read, there seems to be a clash between common Roman practice and the Law of Deuteronomy, which is an interesting issue in and of itself that might merit inclusion in a subarticle. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 00:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
John's edits look good to me. —Aiden 05:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So where is the information on typical crucifixions now? Just gone, right? Are we really considering discussing every event in different sections depending on whether or not it is historical or biblical? I'd think THE presentation needs to have context & should attempt to accomodate the historical and biblical wherever possible. That section is not THE biblical account, but is BASED on EVENTS in the bible. --JimWae 22:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the section on the Gospel account stick as closely to the Gospel account as possible - and that there be a new section on "elements of the Gospel account that have led to discussion and debate among theologians and historians" with links to articles covering different views. In such a section it would be perfectly appropriate that many historians have called attention to the fact that Jesus's crucifixion was unexceptional, while many theologians have argued that it was exceptional 9and then provide the links ...) Slrubenstein | Talk 22:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It was somewhat exceptional that he died so fast, and extremely exceptional that the body was allowed to be buried at all rather than left to rot on the cross. His being allowed to be buried in a tomb exceedingly exceptional - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/roman.html. Without mentioning that, Joesph & Nicodemus are excessive detail. If the Section on Gospel accounts is to contain only what is in the gospel, it might as well link to Christian views of Jesus & Gospels views of Jesus with an extremely short summary. Why should there be a one-sided presentation with no other context provided within the article? --JimWae 22:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this goes to the heart of the issue of whether this article can ever hope to be NPOV, or will forever have sections dedicated to one POV or the other without any interface between them. --JimWae 23:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--JimWae 23:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The Gospel accounts - with contradictions and gaps - is the primary source material. people who interpret them literally, metaphorically, allegorically, use them as the basis for competing theologies, or subject them to critical historical scrutiny, all refer to them. We will achieve NPOV by representing all of these diverse religious, literary, and historical readings. But for any of them to make sense there has to be a presentation of the Gospel account. It is the inclusion of the Gospel account that makes the inclusion of those diverse views in an understandable form possible. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

- Of course, but what happens is people keep trying to isolate the sections, as with the recent (& past) removal of historical context from the gospel section --JimWae 00:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You are violating the No Original Research rule when you use a primary source like the Gospels to make statements. Articles may not contain any unpublished statements. There is no dearth of secondary sources on Jesus; use them. Drogo Underburrow 00:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The Gospels are published in various translations and are certainly not "unpublished statements." WP:NOR#Primary_and_secondary_sources allows for the use of primary sources. To wit: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." As Slrubenstein says, the Gospels are our primary sources. If we "stick as closely to the Gospel account as possible" as Slrubenstein proposes, we will meet the WP:NOR principle of making "no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims." It's a bad idea to use only primary sources (except in rare cases), but that's not what we're doing here; we're using a number of secondary sources when we discuss the various theological and historical views.
In short, it is not a violation of, but a part of WP:NOR that "All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 04:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting "collecting and organizing information" if you think that means you can make statements about the organized information. Organizing information is presenting it in an orderly fashion, such as listing the ingredients of an apple pie. It does not mean taking a primary document and re-telling its story, as that involves interpretation. NOR says:

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

Its ok to quote the Gospels; its not ok to tell the Gospel story and back up what you say with passages from the Gospels, as this is an interpretive process. This is not what is meant when it says that "source-based research" is allowed. If it was allowed to use primary sources to then tell a story, the entire NOR prohibition would be meaningless. Who would ever need secondary sources? Editors could write their own material from primary sources, which is what you are doing here on the Jesus page when you are telling the reader the Jesus story based on the Gospels. Drogo Underburrow 04:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Particularly what I am objecting to, is the attempt to harmonise the Gospels, and explain them. Its ok to say, 'Luke says in verse X, blah blah blah." if you are literally quoting what Luke says. Its not ok to say "Luke says X, But John says Y, but actually they both are right, they mean Z" Drogo Underburrow 05:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We've been trying to move away from Z in the Gospel section. We have enough Z's in the Religious Views and Historicity sections. Why am I suddenly tired? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 06:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view: "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. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better." I don't see how one can adhere to the policy without representing both sides of an issue fairly and explaining their reasoning. When we say something like "some scholars believe A based on reading Y and X as saying Z", we need to allow it to be balanced by the contrary position (when it is significant and relevant), and say (or allow to be said) something like "others believe B based on reading Y and X as saying ~Z (or W)". Both position need to be attributed and, where necessary/prudent, sourced, of course (so as to meet WP:NOR). » MonkeeSage « 10:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim, the problem is not people removing context. Putting context thee violates NPOR. You are concerned with NPOV. They way to comply with both policies is this: make NO synthetic or analytical statements, or explanations or interpretationsi, in the section on "the Gospel account." Put all the historical context you find (rightfully so in my opinion) so important in a linked article on the context and how it is used by historians (e.g.the article on the Cultural and historical background of Jesus) - and put the symbolic or theological context in the article on Christology or however many linked articles we need in order to represent all POVs each ov which have their own reading (and rely on different context, make different interpretations) of the Gospel accounts. Comply with NPOV with multiple linked articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No. That is engaging in POV forking. Drogo Underburrow 16:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not, if we summarize those subarticles in appropriate sections of this article. The thing is that religious views and historical views are both diverse: Z and ~Z(or W) are not distinct views but distinct sets of views. It is possible to be NPOV about existing POVs: simply Cite sources. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The POV forking is an issue we addressed here two years ago. It is impossible, given current technology, to include all points of view fully developed in this article. The topic is simply too complex that any such article that is fully NPOR and NPOV compliant and complete will simply be too long. Different points of view must, for ultimately technical reasons, go into other linked articles. The only way we can mitigate about the POV forking problem is this: provide clear links to each article in the body of the article itself (i.e. not just a list of links at the end) along with a very cincise summary or abstract of that linked article. Thus, all POVs will be represented in this article. But virtually none of them will be represented adequately (i.e. holding up to our encyclopedic standards); that has to be i in liked articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So no view will get more space? There won't be a preferred view dealt with at length in the article?Drogo Underburrow 17:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, that would be true. In reality, from there we get into the eternal debate of what is and what is not undue weight. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my sense is this:

  1. an introductory section that lays out the most general poionts of view. I think our intro currently does that: it signals that some people think Jesus never existed, that many think he existed but was fully human, that some think he existed and was divine, and a few other views.
  2. Then, there is the gospel account which should summarize four primary sources without making any interpretive or synthetic claims - i.e. not expressing ANY point of view (it is not a violation of NPOV to say that the four gospels are the principle primary sources - this is a fact all major views agree on. Saying so expresses no point of view as to whether the account is theologically meaningful or historically accurate, it simply makes a statement about the primary sources.
  3. then a number of sections, each short and of relatively equal length, providing links to other articles that spell out distinct POVS in detail, fully sourced, along with abstracts of those articles.

This seems to me the best solution given the complexity of the topic, the sheer number of sources we have and must consult, the sheer number of words written on the topic already in the encyclopedia, and our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The one thing I object to in this plan, is that the Gospels do not tell a single coherent story, and editors will try to make it appear as if they do. This is both factually wrong, and a violation of NOR. There are four Gospels and each tells a different story. What most Christians then do, is combine them. For example, If Mark has says nothing about Jesus's childhood, then its assumed he agrees with Luke and Matthew. Luke and Matthew's versions are combined, to mean that Jesus did all the things given in each one, and that is not necessarily what Matthew and Luke intended. This argument, that combining the Gospels creates a new, fifth version of the Jesus story, in not original to me of course. Drogo Underburrow 18:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, you write, "the Gospels do not tell a single coherent story, and editors will try to make it appear as if they do." and you hit the nail right on theheasd. I agree completely. However, i do not see this as an objection to my "plan" (maybe the "my" should be in quotes - I mean only to signal that I am as much describing the actual state of affair reached through an ad hoc process involving lots of people, as much as proposing my plan). on the contrary, your point is essential. I wrote earlier and repeat (in order to underscore your point) that the section on the gospel account must stringently comply with our NOR policy and must illstrate contradictions and gaps. We need to do two things - i am here making specific proposals and we should either have discussion or a poll, or, if others agree, just do this:

  1. add to the article an explicit statement that (1) the four gospels sometimes duplicate, sometimes contradict, and contain gaps and (2) that the reasons for and significance of these duplications, contradictions, and gaps have been the object of considerable discussion among Christian clergy, theologians, literary critics, and historians and (3) linked articles summarized below endeavor to lay out in detail the diverse range of views that have emerged from these discussions ... or something to this effect. But I think some statement like this must be in the text, strategically placed.
  2. we need a consensus to police the section on the gospel account to ensure that it rigorously conforms to NOR meaning: (1) that an accurate account of the primary sources is provided (including an account of duplications, contradictions, and gaps, and (2) no synthetic or interpretive claims are added. I got into a brief argument with Oub earlier concerning something like this and he was right and I was wrong (if I came to understand him correctly). I think this is a point he was making. Do Oub and Drogo agree? Whatabout Arch and CTSWynken and Wesley? JimWae? (and Aiden, JohnK and Monkeysage - I didn't mean to exclude anyone). If so, I think we can make this work.
  3. Any new contributor who wants to add an interpretive or synthetic claim should be asked this little set of questions: (1) what POV does this reflect? (2) is there a linked article that covers that POV? If so, add your point to that linked article, not here, and (3) if there is no linked article that represents that POV, why? Is it because it is fringe, or do we need another linked article? If so, start it.

This requires patience and attention but hey, look at all the conflicts we have dealt with. I can't think of an easy plan, but I do think this is workable. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Which part of any of the following is original research?

  • all four gospels say Jesus died by late afternoon
  • that deaths from crucifixion often took days
  • that most bodies were left to rot on the cross
  • that most bodies were not allowed to be buried and when finally taken down were tossed in the garbage heap

All of these have sources - bible & otherwise --JimWae 18:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am in philosophical agreement on this issue with Slrubenstein. But presenting material "according to the Gospels" right away implies that they tell a single story. Why not have four sections, each devoted to a single Gospel? This would help greatly in keeping NOR-violating attempts at synthesis out. Drogo Underburrow 18:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
But the general ideas of all 4 gospels are so similar it seems to me that it would just be retelling the same tale over and over with slightly different things added in to each one. Homestarmy 19:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was clear and apologize if i was not: the article must be clear that the four canonical gospels sometimes duplicate, sometimes, contradict and sometimes have gaps. Does this satisfy Drogo? We can provide an account of each, but we cannot comment on the significance (we can, esepcially in linked articles, provide accounts of how others comment on the significance). As to JimWae's questionj, it is not original research if sourced. However, in the section "...according to the Gospels" we should use the four canonical Gospels only as sources. If they leave something out - I am repeating for seemingly the hundredth time - we note that the Goseples have gaps and different people (clergy, theologicans, literary critics, historians) have discussed the gaps, filled them in, or conjectured on filling them in, and discussing the significance of the gaps or how they can be filled in in appropriate, linked articles and definitely NOT in a section on the Gospel account. It is NOT - by no stretch of the imagination - a violation of NPOV to say this is what the Gospels say (it is a violation of NPOV to say (1) the gospels are wrong or (2) the gospels are right).Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but please consider what I said just before. A single section, according to the Gospels, will be POV as it inherantly implies that the Gospels tell one story. I am suggesting that each Gospel account be dealt with in the article separately. This will greatly facilitate policing attempts at synthesizing material. Drogo Underburrow 19:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Why can't we just note in the one big paragraph what all the gospels say and attribute major individual differences in the accounts there? And since when is synthesizing them some evil anti-NPOV force which must be suppressed at all costs anyway? Homestarmy 19:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
That is another difficulty. Even convincing current editors that it is a violation of NOR (as well as NPOV) to synthesize the Gospels is a challenge. Drogo Underburrow 19:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, sure, we expect ALL sources to representa a POV. NPOV policy applies to us editors, not to Mark or Matthew or John. Compliance with NPOV means identifying the POV (for example, by saying "this comes from the Gospel of John") and by provideing multiple points of view (for example, in this section by sayinf "According to Mark ... but according to Luke ..." and then in other sections "X interprets the contradiction between Mark and Luke this way .... y interprets it that way ...." and then by having still more sections that express what a and b are arguing over. Above I spelled out a three point plan. Does it make sense? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the best way to make it non-OR would be to provide a whole bunch of links to apologetics sites, but I suppose that wouldn't be NPOV, would it? :) As Slrubenstein noted above, many different types of people have discussed on these gaps, tried filling them in, etc. etc. and i'd assume their not all Christians, and I haven't seen anything like a mass consensus of literary critics say, with confidence, that the gospels are absolutly positively illogical to synthesize, so it would seem to me that both a POV of synthesis and a POV of "there be contradictions, mate!" would both be equally valid to be included in this article. Homestarmy 19:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Slr, I know that its perfectly fine for a source to be POV. The POV I was refering to WAS a POV being asserted by the editors when they create a section "according to the Gospels", which implies that the Gospels are one source, and not four. It's a Christian dogma that the Gospels tell one story from different points of view. Its POV pushing to craft the article to support this dogma. If you want to at length quote from the Gospels as primary sources, instead of using secondary sources, you have to treat them as four separate sources, and lumping them all as one in one section inherently sets up the conditions where they will be viewed as telling a single story. Drogo Underburrow 19:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, all four of them are gospels, and they are all telling the same general story, what's the big deal? Homestarmy 19:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not POV to say that the four Gospels depict the same events (trial and death of Jesus) despite the differences between the four just as no one doubts that Xenophon and Diodorus are describing the same battle of Notium (no: not Notium, either Abydus or Cyzicus), though the differences are much greater than those between the gospels. Str1977 (smile back) 20:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Here I believe I and Drogo (and maybe Str1977) are on the same side. I know I disagree, very strongly, with Homsetarmy. First, "they are all telling the same general story, what's the big deal?" Well, you are wrong, they are not telling the same story. What? you ask, How can Sl say that, SL you are wrong! Okay, you say I am wrong, I say you are wrong. This is precisely why we have an NPOV policy. "... they are all telling the same general story" - this is one point of view. It should be represented, but as a point of view. And other points of view must also be represented.Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, Homestarmy says "Well the best way to make it non-OR would be to provide a whole bunch of links to apologetics sites, but I suppose that wouldn't be NPOV, would it? :)" No, this is not the best way, and I do not see what you are smiling about. Our task is to write an encyclopedia. So the best way to make it comply with NOR is to write additional linked articles, each one based on serious research and providing sources, to elaborate on each view - views held by clergy, theologians (and of different religions), literary critics, and historians. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, Homestarmy writes, "so it would seem to me that both a POV of synthesis and a POV of "there be contradictions, mate!" would both be equally valid to be included in this article" - I think this oversimplifies and misses the point. It is not POV to say that some people interpreet, some people synthesize, and so on. But there are many different interpretations. On this I think we agree. Where I disagree is with two different implications of what you are writing. First, it is not enough simply to include in this article that there are different POVs. Yes, say that, but just to say that would negate our mission as an encyclopedia. We need to research and then elaborate on each significant POV and present it in detail, clearly identifying the POV and providing its context. Second, it is not possible to fully represent each POV in this article. We need linked articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Homes that the four are telling the same general story, albeit with minor differences. However, I see taht this is not uncontroversial. However, what is uncontroversial is that all four report the same event (Jesus' trial) and not four trials of for different Jesuses (not even Rudolf Steiner could think up something like that) and that is what I wanted to state above. Str1977 (smile back) 20:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, Str77 I hadn't even thought of that, but now that you mention it, its an interpretation that the Gospels all describe the same Jesus. You say they do, and its your POV. The Gospels make no claim to be discussing the same man as each other. They do not cross reference in any way. Hence, we will need a source to make that claim, its an interpretation and cannot be made by an editor as that would violate NOR. Drogo Underburrow 20:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Slr and I are in agreement I believe on all points except one, where I would like to see some explicit agreement from him before I can say we are in complete agreement. That one point is my objection to a single section being devoted to "the Gospels"; and I object to this regardless of how the rest of the article is crafted. Treating the Gospels as a unit in the structure of the article is incorporating Christian dogma into the article's structure, as I have explained in my previous posts, and hence is violating NPOV by favoring the Christian POV in the article's design structure. - Drogo Underburrow 20:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

My objection to four separate sections on four canonical gospels is two-fold: first, I find it inelegant (a reason I expect Drogo will just dismiss, it is a matter of taste). The second is this: I see a main function of the section NOT as synthesizing an account of Jesus' life, I think we all agree this violates NOR. I see the function as providing the basis for several linked articles that provide accounts of different people's (or groups of people) own accounts of Jesus (God? literary myth? historical revolutionary? historical preacher? Prophet? fraud?). I believe that a major reason there are so many different views is beacause there are duplications, contradictions, and gaps. So a section that provides an account - without judgement or interpretation - of the duplications, contraditictions, and gaps will both justify and introduce all these other articles. One section using all four canonical Gospels will have this effect. four separate sections will not. In short: one section in my mind does not signify unity or coherence. The section is on "the canonical gospels" meaning four books chosen by the Church fathers. These men were well aware of the duplications, contradictions and gaps (why they thought they existed, or what their meaning was, is another matter entirely). The only unity we are suggesting is that by the fourth century these four books were established as premier sources on Jesus' life and teachings, that is all. It makes no necessary claim that they constitute a unified text. For goodness sake, we know that James Joyce wrote Ulysses yet debate whether it is a unified text. Let's call it the four canonical gosepels, explain the meaning of the word canonical, and let the word "four" carry the weight of communicating that we are not talking about "one." Slrubenstein | Talk 20:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I do not dismiss your first reason, elegance in expression is a laudable goal. I do think that it takes a back seat to making the article neutral. I predict, Slr, that any treatment of the Gospels as a unit will result in further violations of policy as editors repeatedly synthesize them. Editors will either not agree that this is NOR, and/or they will simply view their synthesizing as telling "the facts". I have yet to hear other editors state anything that indicates to me they agree with us on what NOR prohibits, nor do I expect that more than one or two will agree. While your intentions are good, I fear that in practice the result will be an article that is structured and biased in favor of Christian dogma, as is the case currently. Drogo Underburrow 21:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Right then, to Slr, firstly, I said that they tell the same general story, not that they tell the exact same story, I mean then they'd have to be word for word to be the exact same, who believes that? Nextly, you say that all the POVs on whether the Gospel's relate the same stories or not should be represented. So who claims that they are all different stories, not just slightly different, I mean compleatly different stories, as in like a comparison between The Art of War, A Rose for Emily, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, A River Runs Through it, etc. etc.? When I see the words "Different stories", I do not think "Stories based on the events in a single time period and location, concerning the same main characters, concerning the same actions of those main characters plus or minus a few events unique to each story, and which have information based on each individual writers experiences and the input of others", I think compleatly different stories which have no relation or very few similarities to each other at all in terms of plot or details.
Nextly, the reason I smiled is because I know the score, me throwing a bunch of apologetic site links in here to "prove" that the Gospels are considered to be harmonious works would probably not stand up very well to WP:NPOV, which is a shame really, but there's not much I can think of to do about it. Currently, it seems to me that neither perspective on the gospels harmony or disharmony is cited by any reaserch at all, and it seems to me quite odd that we need to spend so much time on it when this article is about Jesus, and the con side of this issue doesn't appear to really give any new look at the character of Jesus, it appears primarily concerned with criticizing the gospels. Shouldn't this whole debate be in the actual Gospels article?
Then, I wrote that all the perspectives on this issue are equally valid to be included in this article. I did not say that the perspectives should not be elaborated on or that all there should be is just identification of them with no background information. I find it somewhat interesting how this debate, which often concerns things "left out" of each gospel somehow amounting to a contradiction, seems to be causing people to think that whenever somebody leaves out information, then it automatically means that their perspective is contradictory to any other perspective which may seem more wide in scope than another, irregardless of any information that the reader may have not been presented with.Homestarmy 21:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Are these "direct' quotes appropriate?

The article has direct quotes from Pilate and from Jesus (below). Each gospel gives a variant account of this interchange, and translations of even the same gospel also differ. I do not see that direct quotes are at all appropriate here.

While before Pilate, Jesus was questioned "Are you the king of the Jews?" to which he replied, "Yes, it is as you say."
Well each quote says from which gospel the comment came from, right? Or better yet, why not just summarize what he said if each gospel has slightly different wording. Homestarmy 19:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

ALL 4 in my Netbible translation have similar but far more enigmatic responses anyway - like "so you have said" --JimWae 19:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, direct quotes can't really even be direct in the first place because Jesus didn't speak English. I'd say a summary of what happened in the exchange would cover this situation. Homestarmy 19:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is English Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with direct quotes... The French Wikipedia would have the same quotes in French. No substance is being changed. —Aiden 22:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do with a situation where all agree on what was said in one language. We have no idea who is supposed to have reported Jesus' words here, and ALL Netbible translations are not so affirmative in response - except perhaps John which, again, is quite different. --JimWae 01:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The reasons of the arrest II

Now that the situation has been cooled down a bit, I would like to return to my original question and proposal. Before I do, some comments: I want to start a new section mostly for reasons of organisation since the current one is almost over saturated (that is one of the reasons why I didn't reply to some of the comments, besides the fact that I have been offline for several days). Second I want to resume under which rules this article is supposed to work, Some other users in between have rose similar questions, for example Slrubenstein (sorry for not having answered so far). And finally I want to restrict myself to just one point, since I had the feeling and in particular Dominick misunderstand to a certain extend, my critics.

  • "Rules:" It is my understanding that the article is not (at least this is not its main intention) an article about Jesus in the historical context, as the corresponding German articles pretends to be. That is we don't study whether or to which extend the gospels are in agreement with historical texts of that time, such as Josephus Flavius or the Talmud. I emphasise this, as have done others in the current discussion, since in the recent discussion some comments concerns the relation between the trial to the Talmud. So let us leave this out here (or better to other articles, although it is a very fascinating subject). So since the article wants mostly refer to the Gospels itself we are forced to be as precise and faithful as possible and should leave out hypothesis as far as possible. If we need to use them we should state them explicitly. It seem that some users (Slrubenstein, JohnK, Arch O. La, MonkeeSage? I hope I did not forgot anybody) already have accepted this point of view. So does everybody agree on this working assumption????
the Sanhedrin and the High priest state that Jesus has committed a blasphemy and condemn him to be guilty of death.

Then we have to report exactly that, we even are not allowed to state, that the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus because of blasphemy. Similar if (Matthew 26:63-66) reports that

the Sanhedrin and the High priest state that Jesus has committed a blasphemy and find him to be guilty of death.

But don't use the word condemn we have to report that also and finally if Luke (Luke 23:71) states that the

the Sanhedrin and the High priest state that they found him to be guilty of death. And don't use the word neither the condemn nor the word blasphemy we have to write this also.

That might sound nitpicking but it is not. As stated several times, by me and others, the Gospels don't present a unique narration and therefore it is especially important not to hide any kind of disharmony in the context of the arrest/trial/excecution complex since they have and had several implications. (Anti semitism is the saddest of them). So we should not smooth out what is not smooth, so that everybody can make up his/hers own mind. Does everybody agree???

  • After having said this now to the critical sentence: I have put the part I find problematic in bold face.
While in the garden, Jesus was arrested by Roman soldiers on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas (cited later in Matthew 26:65-67), for blasphemy, because he claimed to be the Messiah (Mark 14:62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be God (John 10:33).

The problematic part is for blasphemy : By that I mean the sentence gives the impression that Jesus war arrested for blasphemy!!!! Does everybody agree? This is my complain and it seems that especially Dominik misunderstood it. The problem is that there are no verses which state that Jesus was arrested for blasphemy. (I have the Gospels in electronic form and I scanned them for the word blasphemy, without success), there simply is neither a verse which states that Jesus was arrested for blasphemy nor a verse from which one could conclude that the priests knew that Jesus had committed blasphemy before the trial. Does everybody agree?? If not could he/she provide the necessary verse? Despite the fact that there is no verse, the sentence seems to build up an argument (not a hypothesis) that Jesus was arrested for blasphemy, alas that argument is invalid, as we see: The argument is based on references to the trial itself and to John. There are a couples of problems with this: While in the trial Jesus was condemned (Mark) or found to be guilty of death (Matthew) for blasphemy (but not Luke), this outcome does not logically imply that he was arrested for blasphemy .

  • Rationale: Consider a person who is arrested because he/she caused a traffic accident but later it is found out that he/she has committed a murder and he/she will be condemned for it. However it would be wrong to conclude that he/she has been arrested because of the murder. While this reasoning sounds a little bit nitpicking, it would be stil reasonable to conclude that Jesus was arrested for blasphemy if in the trial, witness would testify the earlier blasphemies Jesus has committed and he would have been condemned because of these. However this is not what the trial tells: The only verses in the Gospels, where the words, Jesus, blasphemy and (high) priest (Sanhedrin) are together is during the trial. In other words, it seems that Jesus commits the blasphemy (so that the priests are aware of it) only in the trial -- (Even when the priests are making the plot against Jesus for example they do not mention blasphemy as a reason.)--. Than of course the question is how could the priests have known that he would do and how could they have arrested him for a crime in the future (that is after the arrest). That sounds really like Minority report .

A similar problem concerns (John 10:33), there is no reference in the trial to it. (I find it striking, that on one hand, John reports several blasphemies of this sort, another is mentioned, before Abraham was I , but then neither does John mentions a trial at all, nor do these sentences appear in the trial. There is only on conclusion: although these verses are correct, they do not serve as a reason for stating that Jesus was arrested for blasphemy. So to make long story short, there are some alternatives.

  • we simply do not write why he was arrested. I think Aiden did not like this idea. However if the Gospels do not provide us with a reason, why should we! Besides my impression is that some people tend to believe that the arrest/trial/execution happened in a certain way, but if one looks into the Gospels one do not find such verses.

But if most people will insist in stating a hypothesis, then we should state not only one but several, like

  1. the blasphemy charge, but emphasising, that in the trial to references is made to earlier blasphemies.
  2. since the trial starts with questions about the temple, another possible is the disturbance at the temple.
  3. since in John, Romans soldiers are present, it is somehow natural to assume that they have been sent by orders of there superior, Pilate. The reason then could be based on the triumphal entry.

These 3 hypothesis are by the way the standard hypothesis in the literature about the trial. Again, we either simply delete the sentence of why Jesus was arrested or we state some hypothesis. Opinions please? Oub 15:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC):

  1. "It is my understanding that the article is not (at least this is not its main intention) an article about Jesus in the historical context." Well, yes and no. It's meant to summarize all perspectives, including the historical context, but not limited to the historical context. My own proposal was that roughly 30% of the article cover the Gospels (or whatever primary sources we use), 30% cover historical views, 30% cover religious/theological/philosophical views, and the remaining 10% cover the rest (art, theatre, fiction, pop culture, &c). Obviously we have limited space here and cannot really go into depth, but I think a survey of all these areas is the only way to achieve NPOV.
  2. "We simply do not write why he was arrested." I think Slrubenstein raised this point before (but please forgive me if I'm misattributing). For this article, this seems fair to me. Considering that there seem to be at three different hypotheses for the charge, I suspect that we may not have room to do them all justice here. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discussed. There is plenty of room to discuss the issue in the Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus article. (BTW, was it a trial or an interrogation?)Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:|Arch O. La: so do I understand you correctly you support to delete the part of the sentence which states that he was arrested for blasphemy? That is ok with me. The question whether it was a trial or an interrogation is also a subject of fierce discussion. Oub 15:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC):

In this article, yes. In the linked article, we can explore hypotheses. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver
It always seemed to me that they just kinda arrested Him just because they could, and kept trying to make up charges as they went to make it official. If many groups think He was arrested for blasphemy, then we can cite them and say "Some groups believe, based on verse so and so, that Jesus was arrested for blashphemy, though the verse does not necessarily denote this." Homestarmy 17:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: Homestarmy: But why should we favourite blasphemy? I say either we mention hypotheses, but then at least the three I mentioned, since they are the most popular ones or we don't state any. Oub 17:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC):
It seems to me all that needs to be done is mention that many derive a charge of blashphemy from this charge, while some people disagree with this iterpretation, and I guess most scholars think it was treason or whatever they think. What were the grounds of this dispute exactly anyway? Homestarmy 17:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: Homestarmy: which dispute? The one we have or the one of the reasons for the arrest? The one we have is I think the current formulation is plainly wrong. And about many and some I disagree from what I have read it is the other way around, that he was arrested for the temple disturbance. Oub 18:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC):
Hmm, I sort of doubt the Romans would care that much about somebody disturbing the temple to sentence them to crucifixion for it, didn't they just burn it to the ground in some revolution anyway? Of course if most scholars think that and we have the citation, then we should say that, indeed, most scholars think that, but then I guess find some sources saying what other theories there are. Homestarmy 19:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: Homestarmy: Right. Again a small misunderstanding. In my understanding three possibilities as reason for the arrest seems likely.
  1. the traditional view: Blasphemy, based on the outcome of the trial and John 10:33. I already mentioned the problem with this hypothesis.
  2. taking into account the syntoptics (Caiaphas ordered the arrest, no roman soldier present (although there is a problem since Matt/Mark talk about swords which were carried by the aids. According to what one knows only roman soldiers were allowed to carry swords.) Then the disturbance of the temple would have been the reason. That is now the most popular hypothesis.
  3. taking into account John (roman soldiers being present). Then it seems likely that the triumphal entry would have been the reason. Jesus entering as a would be king would satisfy sedition. Oub 09:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC):
Wait, were we talking about the Romans or the Sanhedrin? I got the impression that the charge before Pilate was sedition. Pilate wouldn't have cared about blasphemy against a God he didn't believe in. The charge before the Sanhedrin is what we've been debating lately. BTW the Temple was destroyed in 70 during the Great Jewish Revolt. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 19:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Re:Grigory: right. It is best I think to separate two lines.
  1. according to the syntoptics Jesus was arrested on orders of Caiaphas and then either put to a trial/interrogation. It is in this version where the disturbance of the temple would fit.
  2. according to John, there have been Roman soldiers present at the arrest, and later Jesus was only interrogated but not tried. It is this version where the triumphal entry might be the reason. Oub 09:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC):
Well, I don't really like this popular hypothesis since to me it seems like pure speculation, but hey, if there's cites for it, I just don't see the problem here. Now, what stopped this all from being implemented before, it looked like there was a huge discussion about it but it seemed kind of silly to have so much discussion so I ignored it all. Homestarmy 12:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: Homestarmy: you mean, that the temple disturbance was the reason for the arrest you find pure speculation. It is as speculation as is blasphemy! The question is what shall we do? Oub 13:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC):

If you think so much discussion is silly, you may want to keep ignoring things. Now, what exactly are we discussing? If we are discussing the second paragraph, then we already settled this: historians say he was executed for sedition, and generally dismiss the charge of blasphemy. Or are we talking about the Gosepel account? If so, I do not thjink we have resolved the larger issue yet which is, what is the function of this section? I think we should leave interpretations and even contextual information out. If we add it in, we need to remember that there are different points of view, including that of theologians, and that of historians, and each group uses different contextual elemetns or claims about context to support their conclusions. Our own conclusions are irrelevant - any synthetic claim on our part is a violation of NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Slrubenstein: we are discussing this sentence:
While in the garden, Jesus was arrested by Roman soldiers on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas (cited later in Matthew 26:65-67), for blasphemy, because he claimed to be the Messiah (Mark 14:62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be God (John 10:33).
I think I explained quite in detail, why this formulation is wrong! The question is what to do Oub 13:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC):
Well the section is titled life and teachings based on the gospel, and the blasphemy charge seems derived from it, and I suppose the disturbance thing might count as a more weakly derived charge, but it doesn't look like roman soliders standing around necessarily means their there because Jesus was King, I mean, aren't they always supposed to be standing around whenever there's any sort of disturbance? Why not have it read something like ...and the high preist, Caiapas (cited later in Matthew 26:65-67) perhaps for blasphemy by claiming to be the Messiah (Mark 14:62) and therefore, in the Jews eyes, equating Himself to God, but also perhaps for the earlier disturbance at the temple (That verse). Homestarmy 14:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC).
Re: Homestarmy there is another problem, claiming to be the messiah does not mean in jewish eyes equating Himself to God, Oub 15:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC):
Re: Homestarmy: well the subsection is called arrest, trial and execution. I don't see any reason for and the blasphemy charge seems derived from it,.. . Do you really want now to discuss the 3 possibilities I mentioned? About the roman soldiers: it is a hypothesis. When Jesus entered the city and when people shouted King of Israel Pilate might have decided to arrest him. Given the events it is as likely as the 2 other hypothesis. As for your proposal, why perhaps for blasphemy . Again the only time where the priests, Jesus and the word blasphemy are together is in the trial according to Mark and Matthew (but not Luke). There is simple no verse stating, that the priest has reasons to believe that Jesus already had committed blasphemy. I find it also strange, to cite a verse which occurs after the arrest. More and more I think it is best not to specify a reason. The gospels do not provide us with one, so don't let us me smarter than the gospels. Oub 15:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC):

We should change the title. There is no way that the section called "life and teachings" can comply with NPOV and NOR, for reasons several people spelled out in the lengthy discussion above. I believe the section should be a summary of the canonical gospel accounts, calling attention to duplications, contradictions and gaps, because it is these three elements that provide the basis for almost all interpretations of the Gospels, including those of diverse theologians and secular historians. In this specific case, we should state that different Gospels give different accounts of the arrest and trial, spell out what they all agree on (which is very little), summarize the differences, and leave it at that. Linked articles e.g. on Christology and on the historical Jesus can go into the context (which different points of view define differently) and the meaning. Slrubenstein Talk 15:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Slrubenstein: you are talking now about a mayor rewrite and reorganisation? Well on the long term may be. Right now I'd prefer just to change the very problematic statements. Oub 15:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC):
I do hope in the interests of fairness that the opposing POV to "its all contradiction" will be mentioned in this suggested rewrite? Homestarmy 15:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: HomestarmyI am not sure I understand completely, what do you mean by opposing POV to its all contradictions? In any case we have to make up our mind, whether we want to mention contradictions or not. I still want something very simple: to change a sentence which is unfounded. Oub 15:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC):

Homsetarmy, since no one is proposing injecting a point of view claiming "it is all contradiction" I am not sure what you mean. Oub, I think that in order to justify the specific change you advocate, you have made more general points. And I think these more general points demand a reconsideration of the section as a whole. I do not think I am proposing a major reorganization and revision. i believe I am suggesting two things: first, change the title of the section to reflect better both the current content and the role of the section in the article, and because the implications of the current title, namely, any summary of Jesus' teachings I think would require making interpretive or synthetic claims (or to accommodate all POVs make the article 100 times bigger). Second, a plan for further revising this particular section. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Slrubensteinin principle this idea is fine with me. I am only afraid that in order to do as you propose, we end up doing nothing, since is looks like a larger change. Why not doing the following. Right now we change the sentence in question to
While in the garden, Jesus was arrested by Roman soldiers on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas (cited later in Matthew 26:65-67).
That sentence is still problematic enough. Then we discuss the outline of a revision of that section.
which title are you proposing instead of Life teaching ...
Oub 15:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC):
Nothing problematic to me, and most people here. Dominick (TALK) 16:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: Dominick I am glad to hear. So your discussion the last week was based on a misunderstanding I presume? Oub 16:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC):
I can't think of much problem with this new wording, at least until we've discussed it some more. Homestarmy 19:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oub, I have no objection to your proposal and nothing I have written should be taken as an argument against your proposal. I just think that in addition we should address the larger issue - a larger issue you introduced or called attention to at least implicitly, and a larger issue worth addressing. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite the arrest/trial/execution section?

Here is proposal for a revision of that section:

  1. state from the beginning that there are two versions. The one of the Synoptic and the one of John. Follow the events, but mention the difference if they are important. If you like I can based on the current one present here a draft. Oub 15:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC):
Seems fair to me.
In response to Slrubenstein: I don't know if you caught my question in an earlier section. I asked, if we are going to treat the Gospels strictly as texts, then which texts do we use? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are canonical to Christians. Some Catholic and Orthodox traditions are based on noncanonical texts that Protestants believe are apocryphal. Historians also use other texts; I noticed John Crossan using the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter in some of his works. It has occured to me that the very selection of primary sources could be considered POV, which is probably part of the reason that some believe this article leans too far towards a Christian POV (not entirely true because we have other sources, especially the canonical epistles, but the perception is there). So I ask you: how do we decide which primary sources to use? Do we stick with the Christian-canonical Gospels, or do we bring in other sources? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 19:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I caught this, sorry I didn't respond. I mean the four canonical texts - canonical is exclusively Christian as I mean can literally not metaphorically. I have already stated my rationale, if not in specific application to this question. My rationale has two components: (1)The section should provide the primary source material accepted by the largest and most diverse groups of people. Paul Tillich, Hans Kung, Dominic Crossan, Geza Vermes, and Morton Smith all accept the four canonical Gospels as the primary sources. (2) different points of view make synthetic and interpretive claims by bringing in contextual information. JimWae has pointed this out, although he privileges the contextual information used by historians. I do not think we can privilege any contextual information, as that would violate NPOV. we should present the contextual information used by Paul Tillich, Hans Kung, Dominic Crossan, Geza Vermes, and Morton Smith and others to justify their respective interpretations. For some, this contextual information will include the non-canonical Gospels e.g. of Thomas or Peter. others do not. Now, I do not believe we can include all the contextual information and explain all of the interpretations of Paul Tillich, Hans Kung, Dominic Crossan, Geza Vermes, and Morton Smith let alone the many other clerics, theologians, historians, and others who have interpreted the Gospels or who have made claims about Jesus in this article. we simply do not have the space. We have to do it in linked articles, with abstracts of each one in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then. I just wanted to be sure which way we were heading. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 12:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is just my view. I believe it would make the artivcle more compliant with NOR, and better accommodate NPOV, and I have tried to explain fully my reasoning - I hope others agree. But I am not claiming that this is the consensus, I just hope others see the sense in it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We'll see how others respond. As a point of fact, in the first two subsections we do have brief mentions of noncanonical sources (namely New Testament Apocraphya and Josephus). However, these are a sentence or less apiece. My own view is that if it's not disputed, it can be included; but if there are divergent views, they belong in later sections. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 13:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I stated several days ago that I don't wish for the article to become an apologetics showcase, but I really don't like the idea of stating that the Gospels disagree about X when that in itself is an interpretation. If it is not an interpretation, and, e.g., Matt. says explicitly "Jesus likes milk" and John says "Jesus hates milk", that is one thing; but when one writer says "two angles were at the tomb" and another says "one angel was at the tomb", then the interpretation that the second writer meant "one and only one" should not be given de facto priority over the interpretation that holds that if there were two angels then there was also one and hence the writers don't conflict. We can avoid this by saying something like "writer2 seems to indicate that there was only one angel, but [reputable scholar] interprets him to mean that there was at least one angel, not only one angel", or something of the like. Of course this is just a rough-hewn example, not a formula, but I think it makes the point. » MonkeeSage « 08:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "differences" instead of "contradictions?" Slrubenstein | Talk 11:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Differences" is definitely more neutral. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 12:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind "contradictions", if that is the majority view of scholars, I just want to be sure we attribute rather than assert and make room for significant minority dissent, or else phrase things in a more neutral way (like "difference", "appears to", "seems to", &c). "Differences" can be understood of a grammatical/structural/presentational difference (e.g., a use of a synonym in one writer for a different word in another, e.g., "left" "went out"; or one writer giving more details than another), or it could be taken as a difference of meaning/intent (i.e., a contradiction); so it is better because it can apply to both views. » MonkeeSage « 13:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)