Talk:Crucifixion of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Importance

I changed importance to high. If Crucifixion is not high importance in Christianity, then what is? History2007 (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medical aspects

The empty section on medical aspects has been sitting there for weeks and looks incomplete. Either someone has to write something, or it should be removed. Let us give it a week, and whoever added it can either write something, or I will remove that empty section to make the page look more complete. Thanks History2007 (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have brought over the information from Death of Jesus, as it seems more pertinent in this article. It can probably still be expanded significantly from the sources listed at the bottom of the article. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly better than before. But please do not rob Peter to pay Paul by emptying the Death of Jesus page. Please add to the Death page before butchering it, since you seem to be able to write on this topic with ease. Thanks History2007 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought the whole idea was to merge the information into the appropriate articles (Atonement and Crucifixion) for more precision in covering the topics. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In your scenario, is the Death of Jesus page going to survive? My best case scenario is:

1. The Theological Aspects section moves from Crucifixion to Death of Jesus. 2. The Death of Jesus page survives and is expanded. 3. The Theological Aspects section gets expanded. 4. The Atonement page stays by itself, as is, fo rit has good links in it.

My problem: I do not know how to write the Theological Aspects section, without making it purely Roman Catholic. I wrote on the astronomical issues on teh date of the Crucifixion, since I know those types of issues, but this topic is your area. So please write it and we will have a good page on Crucifixion and a good page on Death. Thanks History2007 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is the pictures of the cruxifiction. It saddens me that they are falsifying the actually scene..that the flesh was torn from him body. In not one picture that has been illustrated shows this. Its a mere factor of unknowledgeable artist. How can any one really learn the truth if the people who try to uphold it alters it. If we are talking the medical aspects of Jesus Christ's death then even the illustrations should show the truth. Tamhayd (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)(Tamhayd)

[edit] Darkness

The article currently quotes Diogenes as saying "Either the Deity Himself suffers at this moment, or sympathizes with one who does," but the Sanders book cited doesn't provide a source from antiquity. However, John Gill cites the Magdeburg Centuries (1. l. 2. c. 10. p. 491) when he writes the following of Dionysius the Areopagite:

It is reported of him, that being at Heliopolis in Egypt, along with Apollophanes, a philosopher, at the time of Christ's sufferings, he should say concerning the unusual eclipse that then was, that "a God unknown, and clothed with flesh, suffered", on whose account the whole world was darkened; or, as, others affirm, he said, "either the God of nature suffers, or the frame of the world will be dissolved"

This seems to me to be the more reliable source, and casts doubt on the Diogenes quote from Sanders, wouldn't you agree? Ἀλήθεια (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

I think it best if this article were to be as narrow as possible - only relating to Jesus' death as being by crucifixion. Therefore, date, place, historicity, medical aspects and natural phenomena all beong under Death of Jesus. StAnselm (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to pick this discussion up with user:Ἀλήθεια who wants this page to have date and place and the other to have theology. I think both of you guys are debate ready so I leave it to you two to debate. I do not mind either way as long as energy is not wasted. So please do not butcher the pages back and forth until an agreement is final. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with trying to narrow the scope of this article. The crucifixion is an important historical event, tied to many other related topics. The death of Jesus, on the other hand, is more of a theological event, and thus details such as the date and place are only marginally significant to that article. Try to think of this from a more neutral point of view, as in how would this event be recorded in an encyclopedia if Jesus was not God incarnate providing substitutionary atonement? Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not trying to make that argument! Perhaps its helpful to consider the John F. Kennedy assassination. Notice that the article is not titled, death of John F. Kennedy. Although the assassination certainly resulted in his death, the scope of the article is much larger and covers more than just his physical death, or even the ramifications of his physical death. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Right fair enough, I guess I was thinking of this article as analogous to Bullet which killed John F. Kennedy. The theological implications of crucifixion, for example, are quite different to the theological implications of Jesus' death. StAnselm (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Merge arrows
 Discussion regarding proposed merge

I would like to see the death of Jesus article be developed to more fully elaborate on the theological implications of the death, whereas this article really is more focused on the event of the crucifixion. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"theological implications of the death" is already covered at Atonement. 68.123.64.154 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a strange merger proposal - if anything, it would have to go the other way 'round - surely Jesus' death is a broader topic than his crucifixion! StAnselm (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming there is evidence that Jesus' death may not have been by crucifixion? 75.14.215.58 (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No. StAnselm (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, there was already a vote last year: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Jesus 75.14.215.58 (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge They can be merged under either name or Crucifixion and Death of Jesus. --Carlaude (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW- the Crucifixion includes events other that the Death-- hence his Crucifixion is a broader topic than his Death.--Carlaude (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Merge to Crucifixion of Jesus. 75.0.3.248 (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree to Merge. These articles are in need of content and there is all this energy going into the talk page! The debate should stop, and better content should start. History2007 (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. As the merge inevitably happens, please try to keep the art images in order. I searched for those carefully. Some such as the Bronzino or the Caravaggio have to do with burial and not the Crucifixion, and the so it would be nice to maintain their placement. The Vout and the Veronese images were selected to show the dark sky during the Crucifixion, so they should be placed in places such as the discussion of the eclipse. The Veronese is specially nice for the eclipse. Please try to place them appropriately. Thanks History2007 (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The art images would be a reason to have the merger go the other way - i.e. a depcition of Jesus' burial would suit Death of Jesus more then Crucifixion of Jesus. StAnselm (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Crucifixion of Jesus. It appears somehow StAnselm and Ἀλήθεια started these two pages nearly simultaneously (cf. this edit with this one), and this article seems to have developed more efficiently. Since most of the current content of the death of Jesus article is largely redundant to the atonement article, I think it would be better to keep this one and make death of Jesus either a redirect page or a disambig page (to include Passion, Crucifixion, and Atonement). HokieRNB 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well said. But the real problem is in psychology, namely:

  • Both of these guys are really well versed in scripture and hence have confidence in their point of view.
  • They have been debating scripture for years - I can tell they are good at it. So the debate may continue, unless something is done.

The best way would be for us to appeal to their Christian side not to fight and work it out so we get a nice page. Look at it this way: you are arguing over the tomb of Jesus. Stop, show respect, be friends and get a nice page please. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Heh. Well, I got in first. :) Mine was just splitting content from Death and Resurrection of Jesus, (which had been there for ages), after that article was renamed Resurrection of Jesus. Hence, the above appeal to this page's deletion is mistaken. StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment. All this sounds good but the dropped page should be a redirect somewhere (to the other that is kept, to "Atonement," etc.) not a disambig page.
I think we have consensus on a merge if any is inclined to begin it--Carlaude (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If an agreement is final, then fine, let us do it. What if you and I act like good Christians and do it together Carl so it will be somewhat well-rounded as a perspective? I need a day or two to free up time for it, but I can start it and you can comment on it, or you can start it and I can comment on it. But before we spend energy on it, let us be sure that those who know more about it (i.e. the two gentlemen above) are not going to object. After all, I am less of an expert on this than they are, although I can select nice images. Thanks History2007 (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talmud quote

I am glad to comment on your efforts. I do not think I could start it time-wize. --Carlaude (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will merge them in a day or two. Actualy, the text that is there is mostly good, just needs a nice merger. The part I feel uncomfortable about is the historicity section that has no text and just two quotes. The Josephus reference is relevant but needs text to go with it. But the first quote is just hanging there, and as a user I have no idea how it helps me. It is even confusing me about its intent. As a user, it seems like a liability to the article. It refers to the general Jewish views of Jesus, but how does that tell me anything about Crucifixion? There is an article Historical Jesus that was not even referenced there, so I added that reference already. I suggest making the first quote into some text about Jewish views/accounts of the Crucifixion and History of Jesus. Apart from that, the merger shoud be easy, because the text is pretty modular, and generally well written. History2007 (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope my edits have addressed your concerns about adding context around the two quotes. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, your new text was well written and helps the section a lot. Josephus seems like a solid case, but I looked up Yeshu in Wikepedia, and it says that there is disagreement as to it being Jesus. Again, as a "non-expert" user that fact confuses me. How does the quote prove that it was Jesus? I can keep the quote, but I do not feel like I am on solid ground here, if we keep it. Suggestions? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope my next edit clarified the issue for you. The vast majority of scholarship admits that this could be a reference to Jesus, and many argue convincingly that it likely is. Discrepancies between the Gospel accounts and this quote can be explained by the fact that the Talmud was not based on eyewitnesses, but rather "was formed as a polemical adaptation of the Christian story" (see this source). But that discussion seems out of scope for the purposes of this article. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, you are right that the Jeshu/Jesus discussion is beyond the scope of this article. And it is indeed a fascinating subject. But as a user, I feel that adding that quote weakens the whole argument. What I say to myself is: "These people start the section by saying they have an open and shut case then introduce this quote that is subject to discussion and vagueness". And I am ready to bet that in 3 months someone who is a skeptic will look up Jeshu and will add a paragraph here that this is uncertain, etc. My feeling is that we are on solid ground if we expand Josephus and Tacitus. So why open a door that may weaken our argument? My suggestion: we beef up Josephus and Tacitus and avoid the Talmud reference that will come to haunt us in 3 to 6 months. Moving the section up was also a good idea. Now if you have another Tacitus like reference that will totally wrap up the discussion without needing the vague Talmud reference. History2007 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'm willing to accept the testimonies of the Gospel writers alone. However, there are some who would look discredit any non-secular source, and thus I think a source that is actually antagonistic toward a Christian understanding of Jesus merely adds to the reliability. I welcome other editors to add their opinion on this matter, but I'm not inclined to simply remove the reference because 3 months down the road someone might question it. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You know this topic better, so let us keep it, but beef it up saying that most historians think it is valid, etc. Thanks History2007 (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation for comment on the merger

I have now finished my first cut of the merger, by taking most of the material from the Death of Jesus page, which I still left there until a redirect gets added. Please:

  • Add any/all major comments here so they can be discussed here before any major re-structuring.
  • Feel free to correct minor mistakes in place without discussion so the page gets finished soon.

Given that I am not an expert on this topic, attention from experts will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate lead?

Is it just me, or are there two lead paragraphs which are mostly redundant? Ἀλήθεια (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is significant overlap in them. Please feel free to edit it, now that my first cut merger is done. History2007 (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
PS, I so wish Wikepedia had an advanced form of one of the items here: List of revision control software, but for now, we just have to do it one person at a time. History2007 (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new lead: The crucifixion of Jesus is an event recorded in all four gospels (Matthew 27:33-44; Mark 15:22-32; Luke 23:33-43; John 19:17-30) which takes place after his arrest and trial and includes his scourging, execution on a cross, and burial. In Christian theology, the death of Jesus by crucifixion is a core event on which much doctrine depends, representing a critical aspect of the doctrine of salvation, portraying the suffering and death of the Messiah as necessary for the forgiveness of sins. According to The New Testament, Jesus was resurrected three days later and appeared to his disciples before ascending to heaven.[1]

Ok, looks good. I added it. Please feel free to delete this type of redundancy in place. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overview

I feel that the overview is somewhat short and at times telegraphic. My hope is that it gets expanded by 30% or so at least. Please add something to see how it progresses. Thanks History2007 (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I feel that the overview is appropriately succinct. If this article gets much more wordy, it will become unwieldy and will need to get broken out into separate articles (again). Ἀλήθεια (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atonement

I have made some adjustments but none that fix my major concerns to the Atonement section.

(1)It seem to pit the RC view of Atonement against all others.

(2)A number of thing need sources.

(3)and most of all it does not describe the Protestants view well, if at all.

Protestants (also) hold that "Jesus willingly sacrificed himself as an act of perfect obedience as a Substitutionary atonement, a sacrifice of love which pleased God." but I do not know what is mean by (the judicial view) "...emphasizes God as both lawmaker and judge. All humans have broken the rules that God has set (sin), and all deserve to be punished. The only exception to this was Jesus, who received the ultimate punishment despite not having sinned. This is seen as an act of Jesus accepting the punishment that was meant for humans, meaning humans can be restored to a right relationship with God." and I do not see how it is ment to be different from the Substitutionary atonement view above.

Wikipedia Substitutionary atonement states:

Many modern branches of Christianity embrace substitutionary atonement as the central meaning of Jesus' death on the cross. These branches however have developed different theories of atonement. The Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics incorporates substitutionary atonement as one (relatively minor) element of a single doctrine of the Cross and Resurrection, the Roman Catholic church incorporates it into Aquinas' Satisfaction doctrine rooted in the idea of penance, and Evangelical Protestants interpret it largely in terms of penal substitution.[2]

This is much better... we should use this instead.--Carlaude 14:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no comment I will but this in. --Carlaude 14:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Details and audience

Please provide comments on the level of detail in the Gospel narratives section. I find the comparison there interesting, but I wonder what audience it is aimed at. It is certainly relevant to students of theology, but the average "reader on the web" will find it too long in my view, and will just click away anyway. What about making a "Main" for that where a comparison of the accounts is provided. As is, I find myself trying to get away from that comparison anyway because it is too long and tells me nothing about the Crucifixion itself. And around 90% of those who believe in the Gospels usually believe them all anyway, and those who do not believe do not need further debate - they do not believe any of them. Students of theology, will however benefit from this comparison. But how many of those are there within the audience?

On second thought the problem may really be real estate and presentation. As is, these take up so much page space because they are on new lines. If they are reformatted into continuous text, they will just be one paragraph and ok to keep. That may be the best way. History2007 (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It just seems to me that an encyclopedia article on the crucifixion of Jesus should include all of the details that are provided by the earliest and most reliable sources available. The audience should probably include "students of theology" as well as anyone who wants to know about the crucifixion. If anything, fewer redundant images on the page would solve the "real estate" problem. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a matter of marketing opinion! As I said, I think we can keep the material, provided we make it take less space. As for images, it is my opinion (and I am not always right) that dry articles bore people in a day and age when they are used to unending color as they open any magazine. So the marketing person in me always tries to add some life to text by adding images. Come to think of it, in the early days of the Church when people could not read and write images were used in Churches to tell the story. But, what if all images were removed from all modern churches? People would still go there, but the experience would not be the same. The fact is that going into a church with beautiful images provides a different experience. I think the same applies to articles. But in the long term, on this article the little real estate we are debating does not make that much difference. So maybe we should just let the matter rest.

PS. After I typed this, I saw that you did turn the list into prose. I was going to suggest even more prose, or a list with less spaces, but I will leave the matter in your hands. I think we have a good article now, and any more energy will get us very little incremental benefit. So I will leave it in your hands, and I hope you remember the marketing aspects, given that you know the theology well enough to write a book on it, remembering that the book will also benefit from a few nice images. History2007 (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I go to a church with no images to speak of, and I have no issue with the experience of it. I'm not there to look at pretty pictures. I agree with Ἀλήθεια on this, in that the page looks cluttered with paintings as if the article were "Depictions of the crucifixion in Renaissance art". I think images such as this one would be more helpful to the reader. HokieRNB 20:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there will be no way to settle this debate, short of a $50 million dollar research grant into the psychology of religion. And people may yet debate it. I looked at your image and it just pains me too much. I would find it very hard to look at a page with that image ever again. It is just too painful. I think we just have to respect the diversities in the opinions and again, I would say let it be. I think all the people who spend effort editing this page, care about the crucifixion, and we should focus on that more than our personal tastes and minor differences. And we all get the same salary doing this. We have a pretty good page now, much better than 2 weeks ago,let us see how the rest of the planet reacts to it. History2007 (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Records

Last words of Jesus is a good section, but logically speaking, since it is a recorded fact does it not belong as a subsection of Records of the crucifixion? Not a big deal, just a minor question of logical grouping. History2007 (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems the vast majority of this page is "recorded fact", so it makes sense (given the overview provided) to position the section of "last words" just prior to "phenomena". HokieRNB 20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I say let it be. History2007 (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comma placement in Luke 23:43

Regarding this edit, please see this comparison of five of the most widely used and most trusted English translations available today (NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, and NKJV). I have reverted the change accordingly. HokieRNB 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dissertation on date?

The new text in Italics on date of crucifixion sounds like a Master's degree dissertation now, it includes WP:OR (original research) and debate. It is getting to be longer than the rest of the article. It should either be significantly summarized or trimmed or moved to the refs. It is not encyclopedic. Please trim it, or I will do so in a day or two. Thanks History2007 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tried my best to reinsert the portions of the previous edits that made sense. For the most part, it appears that Kwonbbl was attempting to add a level of precision and clarity that (although potentially helpful for scholars) ended up hopelessly convoluting the text. For instance, I think it matters precious little that Luke doesn't give the Aramaic translation of "the place of a skull", since he was likely writing for people who spoke primarily Greek. I believe it is still internally consistent to say that all four gospel writers identify the location as the "Place of a Skull". Also, I think the arguments for Thursday or Wednesday crucifixions are significant enough for inclusion, but probably don't warrant much more than a passing mention. I say this to my own chagrin, for I am of the personal opinion that Jesus entered Jerusalem on Sunday Nisan 10 and was crucified on Thursday Nissan 14. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)