Talk:Crucifixion of Jesus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Barbara Frale

The question of Barbara Frale's statements about a death certificate has come up. She is a well known scholar and her work has been reported in major publications. Hence it is not a fringe approach, given that she is a respected scholar. History2007 (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Eucharist NOT a commemoration/reenactment of the Crucifixion

Communion is a commemoration/reenactment of the Last Supper, the Lord's Passover meal, which signifies reception of his saving body and blood, that of the New Covenant (for Catholic and Orthodox Christians, really; for most Protestants, metaphorically), prior to the Christian dogma of the Passover of the Lord (the death and resurrection of Christ). It has nothing to do with the Crucifixion in and of itself, although its institution ushers in the Crucifixion, historically and spiritually.

This is very important. I will remove the incorrect association of the Eucharist to the Crucifixion as it appears in the introduction. (I think I have sufficiently explained why this needs to be done; it would be totally inaccurate and misleading to keep it there.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.156.106 (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've changed this slightly (because the 'sacrifice' or 'ransom' is a belief not fact), but it's not saying the Eucharist is a re-enactment of the crucifixion, only that the Eucharist is a means by which Christians (allegedly) participate in the 'sacrifice'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually all parties who edited there have correct points. I modified it to say most Christians, given that there are non-sacramental churches too and also the issue of "participate" in it or not is subject to debate, so I just said "proclaim" so it is not stated that they participate because some think they do, some do not think so, etc. And I added refs. Not a big issue, but as usual the different churches do not agree on details at all. And as we type this there were probably 2 new churches formed that have yet another idea about it, so needs to be somewhat vague and also needed to refer to Last Supper as the IP said. History2007 (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What happened next?

Can someone find out what happened to Jesus' cross? Or at least what is believed to have happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.207.163 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

According to my research, Queen Helena, along with her son Constantine, found the crosses of Jesus and the other two criminals buried in Mount Calvary where it all happened. She also found the nails that were used to crucify the three. The queen easily found the ones that belonged to Jesus since one wooden cross did not decompose and some nails did not rust. The cross was then preserved. Some of the "holy nails" as they call them were given to the queen's son, Constantine the Great, for protection, and then the others were also preserved.

I hope this information helps. PrettyPetite ^Talk 10:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As stated somewhere below here, and on the page on Relics of Jesus, that story about St Helena has been told. She did come back with lots of things (and the only thing not claimed was Larry Kings' microphone). But seriously, Erasmus complained about the large number of buildings constructed from the wood claimed to be from the True Cross and while experts debate whether Christ was crucified with three or with four nails, at least thirty Holy Nails continue to be venerated as relics across Europe. So claims of relics always abound and do not harm the tourist/pilgrim business, but there is absolutely no way to verify if these are real relics. But then 30 nails do sound like 27 nails too many. History2007 (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

First Paragraph and POV

Perhaps the first paragraph should be adjusted to reflect that the crucifixion is a part of Christian mythology and not historical fact. It might confuse readers otherwise. 75.204.129.200 (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see/search Talk:Good Friday where the mythology issue declaration was discussed at length, and not accepted by consensus. History2007 (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps we should not push the non-mainstream Christ myth theory as the mainstream scholarly view when it isn't. The crucifixion (that is specifically the nailing to the cross) is as accepted as the existence of Jesus, even if the resurrection is fair game to call Christian mythology. The crucifixion was an embarrassment to early Christianity, and yet they did not deny it. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but we must expect these comments once in a while. Usually these debates start around Easter, this year we did not have any. Would be interesting to have a bar chart of their frequency, however. History2007 (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge (POV fork)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Consensus not to merge

---

I have begun reducing the article at User:Jeffro77/Dispute about Jesus' execution method to a section suitable for inclusion at this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually that topic is much more of a Pandora's box that may seem at first. What is at stake there is not just a JW issue, although that article makes it look as such. As a fun issue, it should be mentioned that there is also a dispute about 3 nails vs 4 nails (also depicted in art - Western art vs Eastern art) and that although there is debate about 3 or 4 nails there are at least (yes, at least) 30 separate churches in Europe that claim to have the actual Holy Nails.... good for the tourist trade, Go figure. So if anything that article needs to get less of the JW items, then add other material that is both relevant and interesting. Not that I have time to do it this week, but I do not think that article needs to be crucified yet. Else it may have to be resurrected... pun intended... History2007 (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

They (unstated individuals) even argue about the number of nails used?? But is that dispute notable?? In any case, religion just gets stupider and stupider the more I look. Sigh. I'll wait for some more comments and decide from there what course to take.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Erasmus complained before you did. He complained about the large number of churches, all built using the wood from the True cross. The 16th century pilgrims did not know of the other churches and paid good money to visit those churches. The Holy Nails were just one item. There were also those who marketed the beard of Muhammad to pilgrims. Really. One must accept the fact that as in any other commodity there are people who market God/religion. Today, there are also those who market future stock market reports, magic diet pills, etc. But the variations on the crucifixion method are many fold, e.g. were the nails placed on the wrists or the palms, were there also ropes, was there foot support, etc. And the differences are also reflected in art, and that would make a good gallery for that article. You can tell many Eastern vs Western depictions from the placement of the feet, if they are next to each other or on top of each other. There are even people who analyze the placement, e.g. left foot over right in art etc. As recently as the 20th century, there was a move to depict an arched crucifix, rather than a straight one, etc. So that is in fact a large topic in itself. History2007 (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically, folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge to the gullible, long before there was a Brooklyn Bridge. This kind of stuff is partly what sparked Martin Luther to action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

But are those disputed points notable? In any case, the purpose of the content fork in question seems to be about presenting a single point contested primarily by JWs rather than addressing those other disputed points. Therefore, it would seem that the present content of the fork should still be reduced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

They were notable to the person who created the article. The vast majority of us perhaps don't give whatsit. But I would be curious to find out more about some of the more interesting holy relics. Nails and wood are fine, but what of Christ's Last Breath, caught and corked in a bottle by John the Beloved Disciple? And Christ's Holy Bellybutton? Not to mention the Sacred Foreskin of Jesus, which disappeared in mysterious circumstances just a few years ago? The Blood, Sweat and Tears of Christ, all of which were preserved by the faithful? And the Holy Toenail Clippings, which weren't? I mean, holy shit! PiCo (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The relics are out of the scope of this thread.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the relics are another story. However that article needs to mention the several other issues that relate to the discussion/dispute about the process and the namely:

• Form of the cross: a cross or stake, etc. as discussed there at length.
• The number of the nails in the crucifixion: there are two main theories, namely 3 nails vs 4 nails, and stated before.
• Location of the nails: on the hands, or on the wrists, etc.
• The use of ropes to support the hands, or tie the feet
• The use of additional wood pieces between the nails and the wrists to stop them tearing through
• Angle of the cross: was it at 90 degrees or was it tilted?

There have been several experiments on these with living subjects (no nails, however), the measurement of the weights of the subjects, angle of the cross, etc. to determine the likelihood of each scenario, e.g. with foot support without, etc.

I do think that the reduction of the large amount of the current semi-JW text in that article is a good idea. There is too much of that. But the sum of all these other issues, once addressed in a few paragraphs each will make a reasonable sized article on its own, regardless of the JW issues. So I do not see how that article can just disappear, when in time these other issues need to be added to it as multiple aspects of the topic.

This is a much large topic than the current article, and just the JW corner of it has been addressed. Anyway, there is a simple gallery below, but that just handles one of these issues. I do not have time to add this material to that article right now, but may do so later. This is a large topic. History2007 (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Depictions

• 
  no support 3 nails
• 
  supported 3 nails
• 
  supported 4 nails
• 
  no support 4 nails

You clearly want to take over this thread and the article. You're welcome to do so. I'll give it a couple of weeks for you to add what you think should be in the article, and then I will decide how to proceed based on what remains of the existing JW POV fork and whatever new material you provide.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I had no interest in writing on that article as of yesterday. I just responded because I thought there were facts that were not mentioned. That article does have a single perspective, but the topic goes beyond the JW. The current text may be a JW POV , but the topic is not a content fork. I think it is best if you can trim the extra text there, then I can add material later. That way, it will get multi-dimensional. At the moment it is 1 D. History2007 (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion will require trimming of the existing article to a different extant than that which I had considered suitable for making it a section at this article. I will need to re-assess the suitability of content with respect to scope and context if it is to remain as a separate article. You are welcome to add other material in the meantime to the live article while I work on my sandbox copy with the existing part of the article over the coming days.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I will have to do that slowly, given that I have other things to do the next few days. I had researched that topic at length in the past, but I do not have all the references together. What I typed above was mostly from memory. So I will wait until a less-JWPOV version appears. There are also other people who edited that article, so let us see what they say. I looked at your shorter version now and it is well written but the hair cut given there probably too short. Some of the other refs that support the 2 bar cross should probably go in. As is the other article has many long quotes at the end that do not amount to much and they need to go, but there is some material that informs the user and supports the 2 bar theory - which is the theory with most support. Anyway, I will stop now and see what happens with the more moderate trim. History2007 (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

My current shorter version is not yet finished. However, it was from the perspective of being a section at this article. Your suggestion above completely alters that. I won't be editing the main article for the time being, so just go ahead and make your edits. You'll be dealing with different sections anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I outlined the basic ideas as a section in this article, now that you brought it up and it was fresh in my mind. So the basic concepts are here now. As to when I can get to include them in the other article, time will tell. But the basic issues have, by and large, been mentioned now. I am definitely going to wait for that article to be cleaned up before I touch it, given that it needs a pretty good clean up. I think your summary needs to be about two or three times the current length to do the subtopic of the cross/stake justice, then the rest can be thought about. I will not touch that article before the clean up. History2007 (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on what you've added here (which seems good on first glance), I think I will go ahead with working on a reduced section for this article. I am still not convinced that there is a notable 'dispute' to warrant an extended fork either on the JW POV, or the new material you've added here. If/when it becomes evident that there are in fact notable disputes on various issues rather than soapbox-type arguments, I'll do a separate reduction on the existing material at the other article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make unilateral decisions regarding the execution of that other article, given that it is a topic unto itself and each of the sections Nails, etc. here is just a summary at the moment. The addition of that much extra material to this article will overweight it with the "dispute over method" rather than other issues, and this new section will then dominate this article beyond what a section should do. Then that article will need to get restored again in a few days. History2007 (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As stated previously, I am only working on a sandbox copy of the other article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can of course do as you wish in user space. My issue was the deletion of too much text from that article and the overweighing of this one with the "dispute over method" topic, given that the section on it here is already long enough as a section and any additional material should go to the Main which is that other article. History2007 (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I still haven't seen much indication that the dispute is notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Which dispute? The one about the shape of the gibbet? The one about the nails? The one about the standing platform? The one about the angle of the cross? The one about the ropes? There is so much material on this that it can not fit in a small section in any article, hence it needs its own article. If you have notability issues, you need to do an Afd. And I am over 90% sure that article will survive an Afd. The merge/redirect as a surrogate for an Afd is not appropriate. History2007 (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Irrespective of the other issues, the weight given to the single issue of the shape of gibbet is disproportional. Therefore, as I have indicated previously, a greatly abbreviated summary of the other article as it currently stands can be made, and sections about other issues as indicated by you above can be added. It would be premature to raise an AfD because so far only one editor has responded to my concerns, which hardly indicates any kind of broad consensus to do anything at all. So I will keep working on my sandbox copy for now, as time permits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree on that point. Not only is there too much on gibbet there, it is also messy. The references section is used as a 10 foot tall soap-box. That was my reason for not even touching it - just too messy and too much JW view on top of that. Once it has been reduced and cleaned up, then more material can be added there. At the moment it is like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I needs clean up. History2007 (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer your other question, I haven't seen much indication that any of these disputes are especially notable. Therefore, I'm still not entirely convinced that any of these issues require more than a couple of paragraphs to simply present the various views. It is not necessary to try to prove or disprove any of the views.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I think we are going in circles now, but there is much more than two paragraphs on each sub-topic, and there are more sub-topics. Anyway, enough for now. History2007 (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• I suspect merging is a not good idea here. There is a genuine dispute, religiously significant to some, with a huge article on it. That is not a POV fork, even if a particular POV feels strongly about the matter. The question also depends, more or less, on the interpretation of texts relatively near the event. There are other questions about the exact mechanics and appearance of the event which have no textual basis to speak of, but are of interest because they influenced the iconography in art, and in some cases were probably related to shifts in theology. All these could easily make another long article. Both this and the "pole" subject are essentially rather arcane issues which should be dealt with briefly here, and allowed to sprawl at sub-articles. Since the amount of independent coverage of the topic is so vast, there are no real notability concerns here. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well put. I agree. History2007 (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with History2007 and Johnbod. For Jehovah's Witnesses, this is a notable question, one on which they insist strongly. For those uninterested in the views of Jehovah's Witnesses, it will seem as unimportant as the Trinity seems to those with no interest (favourable or unfavourable) in Christianity and the Immaculate Conception to those uninterested in Catholicism - but these are matters that do merit Wikipedia articles. Esoglou (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra comments. Based on this information, and the fact that there is a fair bit of repetition and redundancy in the 'fork', I will go with my secondary plan as previously indicated here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I say ALL the information should be on the main article page...especially the POV that it was only a stake. I am not a JW but it is EXTREMELY relevant to correctness if Vines Expository dictionary and other notable works state it was not a cross. Majority is not always right. Sometimes the truth is smothered by the majority. SOMEDAY it will come out. 70.178.76.138 (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It was suggested that the other article should have content on aspects other than the shape of the gibbet (though I haven't seen any indication that the other issues are notable). No actual edits with that intent seem to have been made. My activity on the article is on hold until some action is taken by other editors who have claimed they would work on the article. In the meantime I have other priorities.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No objection against merging (if the length of the article technically allows it), and striking the doubles. Mendelo (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. The article currently at Dispute about Jesus' execution method is no beauty, and it suffers from real flaws. But it's certainly not an example of WP:CFORK, where the same topic is discussed in parallel articles. Incidentally (and at the risk of having WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS screamed at me), Wikipedia has other articles related to hypotheses about Jesus: Swoon hypothesis, Stolen body hypothesis, Vision hypothesis. Comparing and contrasting, is Crux simplex hypothesis uniquely intolerable? The article here (Crucifixion of Jesus) discusses everything related to Jesus' crucifixion, and has just a sentence or two about the shape of the gibbet. At the other article, both sides of the gibbet-shape "dispute" are well sourced from secondary sources, and it just seems remarkably unlikely that the Wikipedia community would benefit from eliminating the majority of that topic discussion just to shoehorn the topic into a single section here at Crucifixion of Jesus. The "dispute" seems to have continued for more than 150 years now (preceding Jehovah's Witnesses) and most of the cited scholars are not Witnesses. Perhaps move some of this discussion to the article Stauros? perhaps reinstate a less-ambiguous name at Dispute about Jesus' execution method? I'm still unconvinced about the change from what was a perfectly acceptable name ("Dispute about the shape of the gibbet of Jesus").--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think merge of the article is unwarranted, as the article is of sufficient notability and length to act as a stand alone article. Additionally, it is well sourced. It may need some attention for readability, but that is a minimal problem that can be corrected without going to the extreme measure of a merge. Willietell (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the page where the formal merge/deletion proposal has been made is the proper place for comments: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dispute about Jesus' execution method. Esoglou (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The AfD proposal by User:Jeffro77 of the related article was closed with Keep.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apart from a few comments appended in the last few days, the discussion above from a year ago had nothing to do with the recent AfD.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Editor User:Jeffro77 himself connected this thread with his own AfD proposal (see last comment at the bottom of the AfD page).--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You just can't stop can you. Actually, this discussion was only mentioned at the AfD after you accused me of raising the AfD for other motives.[1]--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Jeffro77 himself linked to this thread in his own comments at Talk:Dispute about Jesus' execution method and at Jeffro77's own AfD proposal for that article.
No "accusation" forced him to connect the three threads or to forget that he himself had connected them. The chronology:

• Jeffro77 writes at A about wanting to merge B into A (see closed thread above).
• Jeffro77 writes at B about wanting to merge B into A, and explicitly links to the above thread at A .
• Jeffro77 submits an AfD to delete B.
• At the AfD, I write, 'The nominating editor has been surprisingly candid that he would rather see B deleted than improved!' (linking to his own User Talk).
• At his own AfD proposal, Jeffro77 himself cites the thread at A (above)[.
• The proposal to delete B is rejected; everyone at B knows.
• At the A thread, an editor (me) blandly notes the AfD results.
• The A thread is closed by another.
• Below the closed A thread, Jeffro77 appends "the discussion above from a year ago had nothing to do with the recent AfD".
• I link to the diff where Jeffro77 himself connected A with his own AfD.
• Jeffro77 claims I "can't stop" attacking him.

Forgive me, it certainly isn't me that "can't stop".--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

And there you go again. You really feel a need to 'prove' to the world how horrible a person I am don't you, again by 'cherry picking' (I couldn't even be bothered going through the flaws in your selective join-the-dots). Okay. I'm a terrible terrible person. I'm also mean to puppies and small children. Now will you please just shut up about trying to tell anyone who'll listen every time you imagine some elaborate plan.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam has been advised by an admin in the past (in relation to attacks on me and another editor) that "Digging through an editor's old comments to find what you think are incriminating comments and then posting them is looking like a pattern of behaviour that might constitute harassment."[2]--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, it should be quite obvious that I did not mean that the stale merge discussion had absolutely nothing to do with the AfD (as would, for example, an article about cheese). I meant that the year old discussion was not an active discussion during the AfD, and that it was only referred to as historically relevant. This should already be obvious to most people. Sorry I missed 'Legalese 101'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

In either case, the merge suggestion failed. Makes no difference anyway. History2007 (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but for quite different reasons. The merge suggestion from last year was essentially abandoned because it was claimed that other information aside from the cross/stake issue would be added. This was not actually done to any significant degree. Now, there is a discussion at the other article about renaming the article to again sound more like it's only about the shape of the device.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, we will let that wonderful discussion take place on the other talk page. But given that the merge issue is over, so is this discussion. Look, this merge issue is over, and there is no resurrection of it in the cards here. History2007 (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that the merge discussion be re-opened. I am suggesting that the original improvements that were nominally put forward should actually happen.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I a added a short paragraph there a few days ago. Let us wait to see what ideas appear in the discussion there, then I try will add some more and expand that based on those ideas later. History2007 (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the continuation of this discussion, per the posts above, as they say it takes two to tango. So what if we all stop on this. History2007 (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Crucified on a Wednesday, Thursday, Friday?

I just removed, and now place here the following arguments for Wednesday:

• http://www.ucg.org/doctrinal-beliefs/jesus-wasnt-crucified-friday-or-resurrected-sunday/
• http://www.cogwriter.com/news/church-history/jesus-crucifixion-was-on-a-wednesday/
• http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2011/04/holy-week-wednesday-3/

If there is anything in this there should be WP:RS as well. What's more surprising is the article didn't have a Thursday theory since this was reasonably well documented in 19th C discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Thursday last supper has RS support, and Thursday crucifixion has some support, but Wednesday has much less. Could you please add more on Thursday crucifixion with RS sources? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A Wednesday crucifixion is undoubtedly a minor view, but a growing view nonetheless. If you do not feel this warrants mention I understand.--YHoshua (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually what I think matters not, it is what the RS sources say. So if there are RS sources for it can be discussed, and if a minority view can be mentioned in passing, but without RS sources nothing can be done. However, a Wednesday Last Supper is the subject of scholarly debate, as in that article. If In ictu oculi has RS sources for modern scholarship for Thursday crucifixion, that should be mentioned in the article, or even better in the Good Friday article perhaps, given that the day is secondary here. History2007 (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should've clearer. I assumed that The Good News, the flagship publication of the United Church of God, qualified as RS support. It does not? Thanks for you assistance. I always want to achieve reliabiltiy.--YHoshua (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Those denominational sources usually refer to their own religious items, not general scholarship. The best WP:RS sources are books by professors usually. History2007 (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I now saw the subsection by In ictu oculi, that would be fine if you also have a more modern source and this one needs a page number of some sort for the ref and time of day (which is pretty speculative from a historical view, but has religious following) needs a ref too. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but John's use of Roman clock added. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A number of scholars disagree with the Wednesday Crucifixion theory, but nonetheless find it pervasive and compelling enough to address and refute. The Mystery of the Last Supper: Reconstructing the Final Days of Jesus, written by Prof. Colin J. Humphreys of Cambridge University and the Royal Institution in London, recounts and refutes the arguments for Wednesday Crucifixion. Jimmy Aiken of the National Catholic Register also takes time to refute the Wednesday Crucifixion theory here, noting that "some Protestant churches, especially Fundamentalist ones" subscribe to the theory. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ by H. W. Hoehner also discusses this at length. Other sources from books which advance the theory include Wednesday Crucifixion by Rev. George L. Miller and this older doctoral dissertation by Jeremiah Knigh Aldrich, altough neither of these two authors are professors. Taken together, the Wednesday Crucifixion position is certainly a minority one but I included it because of its pervasiveness in the scholarly discussion of crucifixion dates.--YHoshua (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know the Humphreys reference. Let us see what In ictu oculi thinks too. May be we can put in a sentence that Humphreys disagrees with wednesday etc. That way it gets mentioned via an RS source. If a minority view debated by RS sources, it can get mentioned, yet per WP:Undue not get a lot of real estate. But now I would agree with 1 or 2 sentences on it, with the Humphreys source which is RS. History2007 (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as History2007 says. I would say Chronology of Jesus is the place, and WP:WEIGHT is less of a concern there than in the main crucifixion article, which is after all designed to link off to other subjects. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

So could you guys suggest 2 sentences for that so we can wrap it up? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggested text: "Some Biblical scholars and commentators - particularly those of Fundamentalist Protestant churches - claim the traditional Holy Week calendar is inaccurate and Jesus was crucified on Wednesday, not Friday. This theory is based in part on literal interpretation of the Biblical texts indicating Jesus was dead for three days and three nights, and the distinction between weekly Sabbaths on Saturday and the seven High Sabbaths."

In ictu oculi I think you know that topic better than myself, so could you please add a couple or more sentences and a couple of more refs? The 19th century item needs clarification. We do not need to overkill on the day/time but a single sentence on time seems lost by itself and will also invite less scholarly elaborations that you can add. So if you wrap it up nicely as a 2-3 sentence paragraphs, it will be great. History2007 (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, by way of linking. But I didn't realise when I linked to Roman clock that I would have to create the article. Surprising there wasn't one. Ciao :) In ictu oculi (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Pretty nice article on Roman time, and a good sundail too. History2007 (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The source: Newton's Date for the Crucifixion, John P. Pratt. Quarterly Journal of Royal Astronomical Society 32, (Sept. 1991), 301-304. , places Jesus' crucifixion as taking place on Nisan 14 of the Jewish calendar in 33 CE . A date which corresponds to Friday, April 3rd of 33 CE. Willietell (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Willietell, Is that already in the Chronology article? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had researched that one in detail. Newton had it first in fact. History2007 (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That I am not sure of, I'll have to check it to make sure. I found the source doing research for the Jerusalem article, I added the date, but it has since been edited out. Willietell (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure. I researched that in detail. In fact Humphreys reviews the whole issue in his last book, and he is very systematic. History2007 (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In any case, what we are waiting for are 2 sentences that mention the Wednesday item with RS sources such as Humphreys. E.g.

Some Biblical scholars hold that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday, not Friday, partly based on a literal interpretation of the Biblical texts indicating Jesus was dead for three days and three nights, and the distinction between weekly Sabbaths on Saturday and the seven High Sabbaths. ... but needs Humphreys' comment on that...

There seems to be consensus for this: "Some Biblical scholars and commentators - particularly those of Fundamentalist Protestant churches - claim the traditional Holy Week calendar is inaccurate and Jesus was crucified on Wednesday, not Friday. This theory is based in part on literal interpretation of the Biblical texts indicating Jesus was dead for three days and three nights." How is that?--YHoshua (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about the Fundamentalist Protestant churches, no agreement on that one, but I found a source for it. Will add for teh time being anyway, as we discuss. Or maybe we can just move on now that there is a source... History2007 (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

We can leave out, but as you likely found that comes from The National Catholic Register.--YHoshua (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I made the change to Chronology of Jesus without reference to the "Fundamentalist Protestant churches" for now.--YHoshua (talk) 06:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

We are almost there, I think. I would leave our "commentators" because they do not matter, and add the Blomberg ref. Then we should be close. History2007 (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

They have this issue only because they are holding to Easter Sunday as the date of the Resurrection. What they fail to account for is that Easter was not originally celebrated by Christendom, but has it's origins in paganism. Willietell (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That is for the Easter page... History2007 (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

John and a Roman clock

What's that about John and a Roman clock and his "sixth hour" for the trial meaning "sixth hour of the Roman night" (as if the Roman night were different from other people's night)? Jews and Romans counted the hours in the same way: 12 hours (variable in length according to the seasons) between sunset and sunrise and another 12 (inversely variable) between sunrise and sunset. John said that Pilate's condemnation of Jesus, after saying "Behold your king!", was "about the sixth hour" = about midday (Jn 19:14). Mark said it was the third hour when they crucified him (Mk 15:25). The usual explanation is that Mark divided the day into four parts and by "third hour" he meant the period that on modern clocks, which count from midnight, would be from 9 to 12, in other words, late forenoon. While the night had 12 variable hours, in practice it was spoken of in 3-hour periods: first watch, second watch ... That's the difference between Mark and John: like the difference today between a person who says "it's a quarter past ten" and one who says "it's 10:13". Pilate certainly did not say "Behold your king!" to the Jews around midnight, and it wasn't in the first half of the night that his wife came and told him of a dream she had had.

To say that the Wednesday theory is "based on a literal interpretation of the Biblical texts" is misleading. It is based on the English way of counting days. In the time of Jesus, Jews, Romans, Greeks and Mediterranean people in general included in their count both the first day and the last. Even today an Italian will say "fra otto giorni" (in a word-for-word but not really literal translation "within eight days") to mean "in a week's time", a Frenchman will say "dans huit jours" (in a word-for-word but not really literal translation "in eight days") to mean "in a week", "d'aujourdhui en huit" (in a word-for-word but not really literal translation "today in eight") to mean "this day week" (future). And so on. I am reading Plutarch these days and have several times come across a phrase like "πρὸ ἡμέρας ἑπτά" (in a word-for-word but not really literal translation "before seven days"), but rightly rendered in Bernadotte Perrin's English translation as "six days earlier". Esoglou (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Esoglou, yes that's Saint Augustine's explanation for the difference between Mark and John's timing (Gospel of John, Tractate 117). But I don't know if Augustine's explanation is the common explanation in modern academic sources. As regards watches of night, yes, but watch is phylakē, not hōra, hour. It seems to be reasonably well attested in WP:RS that many scholars consider John's "sixth hour" "behold your king" and the Mark/Luke "sixth hour" "darkness" are not the same moment in time, and also not a full 12 hours apart. Hence the solution in the WP:RS added. It may well be that some modern scholars also favour St Augustine's explanation. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Does either of the cited sources say the trial before Pilate (not that before Caiaphas) took place at night? I'd be surprised if any scholar whatever says that John's "about the sixth hour" and Mark and Luke's "the sixth hour" were anything even remotely approaching twelve hours apart. Esoglou (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I have the explanation: the Romans, according at least to these sources, counted the hours from midnight as we do today, not as I thought from dawn or sunrise (though they certainly thought of the length of the hour as variable, if I remember rightly a comment by Caesar about the length of the hours in Britain). So "about the sixth (Roman) hour" would mean "soon after six in the morning", not "the sixth hour of the night". Esoglou (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Pilate trial is certainly not at night. Your explanation sounds logical, but needs sources, of course. I do not have time to look into it right now, but they will be needed, else the same issue will come up in 3 months. History2007 (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, on a separate note, there are arguments (Harrington is the reference I seem to recall) that there was an informal night trial by Caiaphas, then another one in the early morning because the night trial was not done properly. But that is a separate issue, and does not relate to the crucifixion page. History2007 (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that concerns the theory that the Last Supper must have been on Tuesday, not Thursday. Esoglou (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This is probably not the place to discuss it, but that theory is also about a Thursday last supper but I think says that the two trials were but a few hours apart, because the first night trial was arranged in haste. History2007 (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You're doubly right. The Tuesday theory was based on the idea that there couldn't have been a night trial. And any discussion of it belongs under Last Supper, not Crucifixion of Jesus. Esoglou (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The two cited sources do seem to take it that John's "about the sixth hour" was related to 6 in the morning. I have looked up Raymond Brown's Death of the Messiah. He writes: "One of the most popular attempts to harmonize is to contend that although Mark calculates hours from 6 A.M., John reckons from midnight, so that his sixth hour is 6 A.M. and paradoxically earlier than Mark's third hour. ... In my judgment this has been convincingly refuted (in defense of John's reckoning from 6 A.M.) by J. E. Bruns, NTS 13 (1966-67), 285-90; and Ramsay ('Sixth')" (p. 846). On page 959 he lists six ways in which attempts have been made to harmonize the two accounts, and concludes that they cannot in fact be reconciled: "Both indications may be theological; one may be chronological and the other theological or liturgical; but both cannot be chronologically exact." He adds: "We should recognize that Mark's 9 A.M. for crucifixion has much less likelihood than that Jesus hung on the cross in the early afternoon. Mark himself may give an indication that Jesus was not crucified so early; for with evening drawing on (between 4 and 6 P.M.?), Pilate wonders that Jesus had died so soon (Mark 15:44)." 13:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC) (comment was by Esoglou I think...) I must have typed a wrong number of tildes. I have now added abbreviations that I thought better, the first time, to omit; but I should perhaps have replaced them with "..." I presume that part of the refutation of the six-in-the-morning idea is that Jn 4:6 says: "Jesus, wearied as he was from his journey, was sitting beside the well. It was about the sixth hour." Tired from his journey already at about 6 a.m.! Surely the more likely meaning of "the sixth hour" is the hour leading to noon. Just after noon the seventh hour would begin. Esoglou (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, New Testament History by Richard L. Niswonger 1992 ISBN 0310312019 pages 173-174 refers to the issue and offers the explanation that in antiquity, times were always approximate anyway, and so "about the 6th hour" may be close enough to Mark's time because sundials were not that accurate. And The Wiersbe Bible Commentary by Warren W. Wiersbe 2007 ISBN 0781445396 page 305 supports the argument that the varying time intervals of John made then coincide, as well as approximations. A pretty good source may be John by Andreas J. Köstenberger 2004 ISBN 080102644X page 538 which states: "since people related the estimated time to the closest three-hour mark, any time between 9:00 AM and noon may have led one person to say that an event happened at about the third or the sixth hour". Köstenberger then adds: "Mark's concern likely was to provide the setting for the three hours of darkness (15:25, 33), while John seeks to stress the length of the proceedings, starting in the “early morning”" ... And I think many readers will guess that neither John, nor anyone that day had a Rolex chronometer with them in the midst of those events. History2007 (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now that you added those items, I think we should just mention the arguments based on the various issues, without deciding on the exact conclusion, give Köstenberger's no-Rolex argument. History2007 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Now I think we also need to clarify the segments in Mark and add that: "Mark's passion narrative has three hour segments, in the early part Jesus is before Pilate and the Crucifixion takes place at the third hour (9am), darkness appears at the six hour (noon) and Jesus' death at the ninth hour (3pm).(The Gospel of Mark, Volume 2 by John R. Donahue, Daniel J. Harrington 2002 ISBN 0814659659 page 442). D&H say that it is difficult to reconcile this with John's timing, but do mention the Roman reckoning. On page 188 of his book, Humphreys provides the reconciliation argument that: "The Jewish method of time keeping started at sunrise (which in Jerusalem is about 6am) while the Roman method started at midnight and John may have been using that method, with Roman hours". Page 190 of Humphreys's book then has a table based on "morning and afternoon" characterizations showing a somewhat closer proximity of the events than other approaches. Steven L. Cox, Kendell H Easley, 2007 Harmony of the Gospels ISBN 0-8054-9444-8 pages 323-323 also review the issues and then support Köstenberger and Niswonger's no-Rolex argument, saying that several notable scholars have argued that the modern precision of marking the time of day should not be read back into the gospel accounts, written at a time when no standardization of timepieces, or exact recording of hours and minutes was available.

Anyway, unless you have other suggestions, I will draft something based on that. But I think we should put the longer version in the Chronology argument with a brief mention here, not to get carried away with stop watches. History2007 (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

... and ignore Brown, who says that, whether one (at most) of the two was indicating a historical fact or whether one or both were pointing to some theological significance in the hour or whether one or both were referring to the hours of liturgical commemorations, John did speak of midday and Mark of midmorning? Esoglou (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Were you suggesting that we forget Brown, or was that in jest? One of the sources pointed out that Mark was not there anyway, and that John probably had to ask one of the Romans for the time, etc. So again, any thinking reader (intellectuals excluded) will know that John was not wearing a sundial. History2007 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Cherry-picked source offers only an opinion

The cited reference backing up the statement "That Jesus was crucified is a well-attested event of Roman history." (Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0060616628) is cherry-picked and offers only an opinion on the matter i.e. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact." What is described as well-attested relies on no more than two brief passages and the historicity of Jesus is disputed enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus describing the crucifixion is disputed and almost certainly contains an interpolation. That leaves us with only the passage by Tacitus on the Great Fire of Rome where he incorrectly identified Pilate as a procurator instead of a prefect. This calls into question whether he is documenting Roman history or merely the repeating the mythology of the religious sect that he is describing. It is impossible to say which it is and therefore it cannot be unquestionable accepted as fact. In any case Mr Crossman's apparent acceptance of known interpolated passage by Josephus discount him as a reliable source to back up the statement "That Jesus was crucified is a well-attested event of Roman history". I see that since I began writing the paragraph my edit to the lede where I inserted "according to Christian tradition" has been removed. This is unfortunate. JAC Esquire (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "well-attested" is slightly more than NPOV can support, but as I'm sure you know, there is only an absence of other evidence, and no good evidence that anything else happened. Starting the article "according to Christian tradition" is at least as excessive. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely accurate. JAC Esquire (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No - at the very least what is in the Gospels should be distinguished from "Christian tradition" which normally means what is not in the New Testament but was believed anyway. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If this is a valid distinction I stand corrected. I originally intended to write "According to Christian doctrine" but noted the phrase "According to Christian tradition" further down the page. Would you accept "According to the Gospels" or "according to Christian doctrine"? JAC Esquire (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The phrase that drew my eye was "According to Christian tradition, Jesus then rose from the dead two days later (the "third day")." I don't see this distinction coming into play here. JAC Esquire (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that should be changed to "according to the Gospels". Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the beginning should be left as it is - as there are no (Islam apart) alternative theories, there is no need to qualify it. But as I say "well-attested" should be softened to "some other evidence" or something. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "alternative theory". The event either happened or it did not. If the evidence that it happened is not sufficient to state it as fact, it should not be stated as fact. JAC Esquire (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to draw a parallel with articles of other religions. For instance the article entitled Golden plates begins thus: "According to Latter Day Saint belief ..." and continues with a tone that shies away describing the events as fact. Let us say for the sake of argument I found a near contemporary source, say a newspaper article from about 5 years after the alleged incident with the Golden plates which described the discovery in factual terms - would it not then amount to a similar situation to the report of Tacitus and therefore give an editor looking favourably on that religion a valid argument for amending the wording and removing all the "According to ..." bits? JAC Esquire (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Re "Christian Tradition": Christian tradition refers to what Christians exclusively or almost exclusively believe for religious reasons. That is not the case here. Most secular scholars acknowledge the crucifixion.

Re Historicity of Jesus: If you actually read the historicity of Jesus article, it plainly states that those qestioning Jesus's existence are in the fringe minority and not mainstream, and that mainstream academia (regardless of religion) acknowledge the crucifixion as one of the few things about Jesus we can be sure of. Please review articles instead of just citing thier titles.

Off-topic: Why does nobody go after Buddha or Socrates? I'm not doubting their existence, but why is it that in those cases, anyone doubting their existence would be dismissed as a crackpot, but the people doubting the existence of Jesus are given any consideration?

Re rising from the dead: There is a big distinction between acknowledging the crucifixion and accepting the resurrection. The first happened to lots of people and could readily happen to Palestinian Jewish insurgents, the latter is not attested to that well and is considered supernatural by even those who accept such ideas.

Re evidence: regardless of what you or I think, mainstream scholars see the evidence as leaning towards the crucifixion. Per WP:V and WP:RS, we go with that, not with your original research and speculation on the subject (per WP:NOR).

Re Golden Plates: Smith's claims (including advanced metalworking, horses, elephants, chariots, and cement in the Americas) are contrary to historical evidence. The existence of a first century Jewish messiah claimant who ticked off the authorities and was executed for it is not only completely plausible, it happened all the time.

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ian. Please tone down the rhetoric and read what I have written and address the points I made rather than going off on a tangential rant about what you think I wrote and how you feel targeted because people argue about a figure from your religious tradition rather than other figures with dubious historical heritage. No doubt their fans feel similarly targeted. My reference to the article Historicity of Jesus was not to cast doubt about the existence of Jesus - because if I had wanted to do that I would have referred to the Christ myth theory. The Historicity of Jesus article very clearly states that it is "about the basis for holding the view that Jesus existed as portrayed in the Bible" - i.e. that the events associated with Jesus depicted in the Bible happened as described in the Bible. In particular I was addressing the very insubstantial non-Christian documentary evidence for the specific event that this article addresses. i.e. the crucifixion and whether therefore it can be stated as fact or as part of Christian teaching/tradition/doctrine - use whichever term suits. Jesus's existence can be left to one side and we can keep focus on the crucifixion alone. I have read the article Historicity of Jesus and you assume bad faith in suggesting that I have not. It states "it is widely held by scholars that at least part of the passage [Testimonium Flavianum] has been altered by a later scribe". It's unreliable evidence and would be thrown out if we were discussing any other subject. Tacitus's passage does not make it clear whether he is citing Christian teaching or accepted Roman history. As the article states "There is disagreement about what this passage proves, since Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information". This is not original research as both of these facts are stated in the Historicity of Jesus article. These are the facts we now come to opinions. The claim that "Most secular scholars acknowledge the crucifixion" may be true, or it may not. If it is true it is currently not supported by evidence and should be backed up with a reference. Do you have one which is not just an opinion but is backed by evidence? As it stands Mr Crossan's opinion is not sufficient for stating that the crucifixion is fact. With regard Smith's claims you throw out red herrings about alleged events documented in the contents of the golden plates and the origin of the plates themselves. But I have no interest in this at all. I specifically referred to discovery of the golden plates - whereby I drew a parallel to that specific event being described by newspaper reporter some years after the event and a report by Tacitus of the crucifixion. It is on that specific third-party description of an event being regarded as a piece of evidence that I draw parallel. I have no interest in comparing the improbabilities of "advanced metalworking, horses, elephants, chariots, and cement in the America" with virgin births, transformations of liquids, spontaneous multiplication of food or dead saints wandering around Jerusalem and bodily resurrection from a sealed tomb. To be sure the Resurrection requires extra-ordinary evidence while crucifixion was common enough to require a more modest level of evidence. That evidence exists but it comes by way of Christian sources. Non Christian sources amount to a couple of unreliable passages one of which was almost certainly amended by Christians and the other of which may well have been sourced from Christians. I did not seek to state that this event did not happen but to clearly indicate that the basis of suggesting that it did happen relies almost entirely upon the Christian teaching and documents. JAC Esquire (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is better now, thanks History, but "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal ascents". (Dunn, is it) must contain a typo. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe this issue has been resolved. JAC Esquire (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

JAC Esquire. Please see WP:NPA, calling Ian's comments a "tangential rant" pretty well negates any other valid points you might have had. Also, Crossan doesn't appear to me to be too cherry-picked but, even if a bit forceful, not so untypical of views that there is somebody called Jesus crucified at this period. If there are better/other refs then we can consider specific refs here on Talk. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple WP:RS sources (refs 13-19 in the article) were added after those comments, some being "review of scholarly literature", so that issue is a moot point now. We need to archive these older threads after 30 days or so, for they usually refer to snapshots of the past. History2007 (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Checked all of those sources, they are ALL opinion-based with no backing of their own. Issue is not resolved, this page should not be claiming it as certainty until it meets the criteria in WP:V. Also, lack of evidence of it being otherwise isn't evidence in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.119.192 (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Gnosticism section

I have seen a few reverts and now a large Gnosticism section which is partly unfounded, as Esoglou stated, and to a large degree beside the point on a page on Crucifixion. The "theological beliefs" of some Christians long after the event have little, if any, bearing on the accounts of the Crucifixion and deserve but a passing mention I think. I would support going back to Esoglou's much briefer edit several edits ago. History2007 (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree. In reporting views about the crucifixion of Jesus expressed by Gnostics, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses and others, this article should not get into irrelevant discussions about their status as heretics or infidels or what have you. Esoglou (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then let us agree just on one sentence (or 2 at the most) about the Gnostics and other "nature of" issues and just mention that as a theological belief, with no relevance to the items that pertain to historical elements. There have been many "theological debates" among Christians about the Hypostatic union etc. and if Gnostics are discussed they need to be discussed too , and suddenly the page on Crucifixion turns into a page about the details of Christian theological debates long after the fact. I think it should be mentioned that Muslims do not believe in the Crucifixion, but again given that the Quran was written centuries later, that should be qualified as a theological issue, not an issue of debate among historians. The JW issue is only about the shape of the gibbet, right? If so, that is already addressed in another section, no need to mix it in with this discussion.

For this issue, I think we should just mention that there have been theological discussions about the nature of Jesus (or some would at that point have to say Christ because it is then theology not history and the general term is Christ, again indicating teh lack of applicability of the discussion here) having a human form, not, or both, and leave it at that. Gnostics, as a small group, should not get prime real-estate if Hypostatic union is not even mentioned, and getting into that issue will be way out of the way for this article, and not related to Crucifixion as a topic. History2007 (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

After the trims Esoglou and myself did based on the discussion above, Lung Salad reverted both our edits with no discussion. I think he should discuss it, not revert at will. History2007 (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this article going to be nominated for a Papal Blessing or is it going to be a responsible NPOV Wikipedia article? Which is it? Lung salad (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That is not a discussion on content. Address the content, not make general statements. I did not revert you again not to start an edit war, but you have not addressed the issues discussed above. History2007 (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Gnostics were Christians. Their doctrines are part of this subject matter. There is an argument to suppress a section on Gnosticism. Lung salad (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That did not address the issues above. If there is to be a discussion on the "theological debates" among Christians about the "nature of Jesus", then hypostatic union, miaphysitism,monophysitism etc. need to be discussed along with the Gnostics, and that long discussion goes way, way, way out of the scope of a discussion of the crucifixion. History2007 (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Omitting reference to the Gnostics represents censorship and tendencious editing. Lung salad (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, neither is the case. And again you have not addressed the issue in the discussion above. References to Gnostics were not omitted in what you reverted, they were just trimmed, per discussion above. Anyway, I will wait for other users to suggest/comment on that given that my statements are not even being addressed by you. History2007 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There's that Supercilious attitude again. Lung salad (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Lung Salad, the Gnosticism section was moved, not suppressed. It still explicitly calls the Gnostics in question Christians. It keeps their doctrine on the subject matter of the article. Anything about them that is unrelated to the crucifixion of Jesus is off topic. If you keep reverting, you run the risk of being blocked. Please don't. Esoglou (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Esoglou. History2007 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This flatulent Roman Catholic article deserves a Papal Blessing, Lung salad (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And this article should be retitled Crucifixion of Jesus (Roman Catholicism) since it has been written by Roman Catholics for Roman Catholics. Lung salad (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Try to avoid vulgarity whenever possible, for it does not help. And the article includes a number of multi-denominational discussions, hence your statement is just incorrect. And of course, you have not addressed any of the items under discussion. History2007 (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Roman Catholics contiune to demonstrate how dishonest and untruthful they are. Lung salad (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry Lung Salad, but that was a clear WP:Personal attack by you. You are not addressing the content in that comment but issuing insults. History2007 (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I will note here that in this edit Lung salad was informed about the personal attack he made in the context of the final administrative warning he had received before. History2007 (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

History2007 is right. I am right ahem, a Roman Catholic. (Everyone knows the two words are synonyms, after all, but in the interest of neutrality...) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 05:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As above. Not acceptable. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations

This article would benefit greatly from some work on standardizing the citation format. There are several works that are used as references multiple times, but from different pages or sections. This can be accomplished using a reference notation that cites the entire work once, in alphabetical order, and then refers to that citation by page number or section in the inline references. I'm not sure if I explained that well, but I will look into addressing this over the weekend (whilst checking in on the "Jesus wasn't actually crucified" nonsense). HokieRNB 16:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean the shortened footnote template with the harvard format, e.g. as in the page The Exodus. It looks better, but does take a lot of work to convert. But it will not change the content, just the look.

And what is the other wasn't actually crucified item? There are already sources that refer to scholarly consensus that the crucifixion was historical. Is that not clear enough now? Anyway, after Monday things get calmer, as they do every year this time. Tomorrow there will be some comments as every year, but by early next week calm should return. History2007 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I expect to have to revert at least one quack who feels compelled to insert disqualifiers like "according to tradition" or "alleged" or some other nonsense intended to cast the event's historicity into doubt. HokieRNB 19:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do you call people who ask for evidence of the assertions made in this article "quacks"? A quack is a person trying who attempts to treat medical conditions with unproven or dangerous treatments. There's no parallel. This article still offers nothing but links to ad-hoc opinion assessments to support the claims about the historicity of the events described. JAC Esquire (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think anything constructive is to be achieved by using the quack honorific back and forth. So do let us move beyond that please. But the way Wikipedia works JAC is that one can not argue evidence the way one might at the Old Bailey. All one can do is use WP:RS sources per WP:V. And once a number of WP:RS sources say "X = Y" the debate is over regardless of what any editor may think. That is how Wikipedia works. WP:RS/AC rules. I do not make the rules, you don't make the rules, we just need to follow them. History2007 (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Date of Crucifixion of Jesus?

According to the article, most scholars agree on a date of A.D. 33 as the year of Jesus' crucifixion. But, according to the Nativity of Jesus article on Wikipedia, most scholars say Jesus was born between 6-4 B.C. Luke states that Jesus was around 30 years old when He began His public ministry. John's Gospel assumes a three year public ministry. 6 B.C. plus thirty-three years gives us the date of A.D. 27. This seems like a contradiction on the part of these "most scholars." Can anyone comment on this for me? L. Thomas W. (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC) L. Thomas W. L. Thomas W. (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see Chronology of Jesus which discusses it in great detail. Some scholars argue as late as 36, others say 30 or so. Those who say 30 usually support an earlier birth date etc. History2007 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"The crucifixion of Jesus is an event that occurred..."

Can we change this to "The crucifixion of Jesus is an event the Bible reports occurred..." 66.66.149.221 (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be using WP:Primary. The article has plenty of WP:Secondary to support the current version. If Wikipedia would get a penny every time we said that here.... History2007 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the suggested change would be an improvement. There are no contemporary WP:Secondary sources supporting the event?Theroadislong (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually WP:Secondary sources are not in general at the same time as the event. Many of the reliable WP:Secondary sources are those written in the 20th century. Changing that as such would suggest that the event (and by implication the existence of Jesus) would be a purely Christian belief, while modern historians, including non-Christian historians such as Jeza Vermes hold that the crucifixion was a historical event. So Vermes is a totally WP:RS non-Christian source which is 2,000 years removed from the event and is what a WP:Secondary source should be used as such. I should note that what was said during the Crucifixion, whether Jesus carried the cross, or the Romans carried it, etc. are considered "biblical narrative" and there is no historical support for those. But that is a different issue from the statement that "Jesus was crucified" which is the subject of broad scholarly agreement. Per WP:RS/AC when there are sources that summarize the scholarly consensus they immediately override the views and arguments of individual Wikipedia editors. And said sources do not classify the crucifixion as a "biblical event" but as a "historical event" and per WP:RS/AC should be what the article states. I think the policies stated in WP:RS/AC are clearly followed in the article, as they should be. History2007 (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternate Accounts

Can we please include references to alternate accounts of the crucifixion, such as the account provided by the Gospel of Barnabas and the conclusion provided by Dr Zakir Naik regarding the event according to the Bible, within the opening paragraphs of the article. This would greatly dispel bias that seems to exist within the article about the certainty of the event.Jafar Saeed (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to make such an addition using reliable sources. However, it would be considered undue weight to suggest that this pseudepigraphical work is on equal ground with the much older and much more widely attested canonical gospels. The bias you perceive in the article is based on textual evidence, not on editors' personal opinions. HokieRNB 20:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this the Naik you mean? If so, he is a medical doctor, not a historian or expert on this subject. And what are WP:RS sources for his views? It appears that he also thinks evolution is incorrect etc. and have you managed to get his views in the wiki-article on evolution? That would have been closer to his medical field anyway. Frankly he seems to have a lot of extreme views, if you read that article. Unless you have WP:RS sources by Naik, they can not be used. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The 'canonical gospels' have been stated to be extremely unreliable, and newer (and not more reliable) than early Christian texts such as the Gospel of Barnabas. I feel that the event should not be denied to have taken place, on this article, but rather the dispute between whether the victim really was Jesus should be discussed (considering reliable texts such as the Gospel of Barnabas & Quran dispute this). Dr Naik has established thid conclusion based on the 'canonical Gospels' which you mention. Therefore, I think that it would be relevant to include this widespread view.78.149.10.23 (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:V, WP:RS/AC, and WP:Fringe. Unless you have other WP:RS sources that can not happen, given that I can see no WP:RS publications by Naik . So please present WP:RS sources that support Naik's views. That is how Wikipedia works, by using WP:Secondary sources. FYI many scholars who suppor the crucifixion do not believe the rest of the Christian gospel accounts and only believe in the baptism and crucifixion as historical events, as the article states. History2007 (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There are no early manuscripts nor early testimony to the Gospel of Barnabas. No serious scholar considers it an "early Christian text". There are literally thousands of early manuscripts of the canonical gospels. The vast majority of scholars consider them extremely reliable. There is no single work of antiquity with greater attestation or textual support. As I said before, please feel free to draft something to consider. We can help you format your citations for inclusion if you just paste in the references. Perhaps a sentence or two posted here? HokieRNB 12:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that vast majority of scholars consider the baptism and crucifixion as historical events. But as far as I know that uniformity in scholarly agreement does not extend to the historicity of other biblical pericopes such as Marriage at Cana, the Temple incident or the Transfiguration, etc. But that is really beside the point here, given that this page is about the crucifixion not other episodes. And yes, the Gospel of Barnabas is Medieval or even post-Medieval. But in any case, let us wait to see if W:RS references appear regarding this. That is the key issue. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Its so frustrating for many of us who are genuinely interested to know the truth, to come across a heavily biased article like this. It is dishonest the way some vague extra biblical references are given, and then this leads into the biblical narrative of supernatural claims. Even Christians deserve to know the real history behind this event. Once again because Christianity is so ingrained inti western psyche, this article gets a pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.72.220 (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternate Locations of the Crucifixion of Jesus

Although somewhat new in comparison with the Garden Tomb, the possible location of Golgotha on the mount near the Lion's Gate is certainly creditable. There have always been many who interpret the accounts of the gospels as being given by eye witnesses. Three of the four gospels testify to the ripping of the temple curtain. This place, in appearance similiar to the skull-pan of a head, is virtually the only place from which this spectacle could have been witnessed. For this reason I have altered the text not to have any references except to the scriptures and the writings of the early church fathers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.15.147.98 (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is original research. You'd need a reliable secondary source to draw these conclusions. Huon (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup?

114.79.178.53 added the followig cleanup message to the article:

History should be based on facts or through some form of science not on belief system

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources, such as books by scholars published with reputable publishers. This article has a plethora of such sources, and I don't see what specifically 114.79.178.53 thinks needs improvement. The likes of Bart D. Ehrman or Craig A. Evans are definitely reliable enough for our purposes. Unless 114.79.178.53 can clarify how the article needs to be cleaned up, I don't see what purpose the cleanup message is to serve, and I'll remove it. Huon (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Medical aspects

I've also reverted 114.79.178.53's change to the section heading of the "medical" section back from "Medical aspects of the crucifixion & views by a range of physicians, historians and even Mystics." to "Medical aspects of the crucifixion". While I'm rather surprised to find a mystic cited in that section, apparently physicians agreed with her account, lending it some credence. Anyway, the title is overly detailed; there's no reason to summarize the people we cite as sources in the section heading unless the entire section were devoted to a theory proposed by one particularly notable proponent. Huon (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think your revert was appropriate. History2007 (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Caiaphas

The high priest Caiaphas was allegedly present throughout his trial and played a role as an antagonist.. anyone know more about this?

Twillisjr (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The trials of Jesus are not within the scope of this article. They each have their own separate articles, and are already linked in the lead. HokieRNB 00:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a rumor that Matthew 26:57 discusses Caiaphas, and there is a well known depiction by Matthias Stom in his article. History2007 (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)