This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives: 1, 2, /3, /4, /5, /6, /7, /8, /9, /Key
I just made two minor changes to paragraph 2. First, I added that most scholars believe Jesus was baptized by John. I added this because it is true (that most historians believe this). Also, I have raised this point several times over the past couple of months - no one has objected to it, and some people agreed it should be put in. No one ever put it in, but given the lack of objection, I thyink it is time. Second, I deleted the claim that most historians believe Jesus was accused of blasphemy. As a number of people on this talk page have pointed out, he was not accused of blaspehmy against Rome. Moreover, all of the historians I have read doubt that Jesus was charged with blasphemy. This word was added recently by an anonymous user, 64.12.117.6, and as far as I can tell it was not added based on any discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
•Jim62sch• 12:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, good. That is the type of stuff the article needs. Not generalities, argued points that have citations. Obviouslly, someone would need the cv on the "scholars" because, as I said, the requirements are pretty stringent, but it's off to a good start. (You were right about the German). As for misuse, would I think they qualified as misuse? No, but then I'm not the crazed priest who is rending his clothes. •Jim62sch• 17:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that people keep picking up stones in John's Gospel. "Before Abraham was, I AM!" (John 8:58). Did Jesus use the sacred name? Note that this is not the high priest in the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 12:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
And thus one of the reasons the page was protected. Excuse me for my seeming incivility, but who the hell are you to determine what is and is not relevant? Have you any greater credentials than any other editor on this page? •Jim62sch• 20:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Oub 10:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC):
Jesus is not specifically charged with blasphemy in either Luke or John. john k 15:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Do most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that "Jesus was ... accused of blasphemy ... against the Roman Empire"? -- JimWae 01:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe he was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire. Blasphemy would have been against God, and the Romans wouldn't have cared - that would have been left to the local authorities. I've never clearly understood why, if, as the Gospels say, the Jewish authorities were the ones who wanted to kill Jesus, they didn't just have him stoned to death for blasphemy. john k 04:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Oub 10:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC):
Re: Oub: Jesus may have used the sacred name in John 8:58–59: "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I AM!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 12:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, Crossan's Who Killed Jesus? [1] finds the notion that the Sanhedrin did not have authority to execute, implausible. The Romans executed Jesus for sedition, his overturning the tables at the Temple during Passover (a notoriously rebellious time) was sufficient cause, the so-called "crowd of Jews" were scapegoated. From Publishers Weekly: "In a book sure to generate both conversation and controversy, John Dominic Crossan, author of two well-regarded books on the historical Jesus, names the New Testament Gospels' insistence on Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death as Christianity's "longest lie." Crossan argues particularly against many of the theories posed in Raymond Brown's The Death of the Messiah. While Brown finds that many of the events in the stories of Jesus' last days are plausible historically, Crossan claims that almost none of the events are historical. According to Crossan, they are "prophesy historicized," accounts written by looking back at the Old Testament and other early materials and then projecting those prophecies on whatever historical events occurred. Because many of those early writers were persecuted by the Jewish authorities, they threw in a heavy dose of propaganda against the Jews. As Crossan aptly states, these gospels were relatively harmless when Christians were a small sect. When, however, Rome became Christian, those anti-Semitic narratives became, and continue to be, lethal. Well argued and highly readable, Who Killed Jesus? also includes an important epilogue stating Crossan's own faith perspectives on the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Scholars rarely go this far, yet such a confession provides another valuable entry into this fascinating material. Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.7.171 ( talk • contribs)
Here is some more Literatur:
Oub 10:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC):
John K: I don't know how you meant the distinction between "conservative writers" and "actual scholars", but on the face of it, it sounds like you don't consider the authors I mentioned (Leon Morris and Darrell Bock) to be "actual scholars" — which is odd if you accept R. E. Brown, since Chilton said that in the book I cited "Bock has accomplished for Evangelical theology what the late Raymond Brown achieved for its Catholic counterpart". But if you want "actual scholars", perhaps A. N. Sherwin-White will do — "[T]he capital power was the most jealously guarded of all the attributes of government, not even entrusted to the principal assistants of the governors." (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, [Oxford, 1963], p. 36). We also have primary source material from the period with Josephus (Antiquities, 20.9.1 [2] [§197-203 [3]]), which goes toward confirming John 18:31. » MonkeeSage « 19:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Codex Sinaiticus has added a "citation needed" tag to the charge of sedition in the second paragraph. This is in spite of the citations provided in footnote 2.
Is there yet another Paragraph 2 war brewing?
Oh, and why are we not semi-protected? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Why not contract the sentence:
and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion for the crime of sedition [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.78.17.176 ( talk • contribs) .
Claiming to be the Judean King, or not denying the charge, was an act of sedition in Roman Iudaea Province. The action against Herod's Temple, see Jesus and the Money Changers, probably began Roman action against Jesus. The Roman Senate appointed the Idumean Herod the Great Judean King, approved his son Herod Archelaus till 6 as ethnarch, then deposed him for being unusually cruel to Judeans (he killed over 3 thousand Pharisees), then they put Iudaea (Idumea, Judea, Samaria) under direct Roman administration, appointing a Prefect and Jerusalem High Priest, occupying Antonia Fortress in Jerusalem and their capital Caesarea Palaestina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.19.162 ( talk • contribs)
Maybe this should be quoted if people are gonna refuse to read their own bibles:
The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS. They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!" Mark 15:26-30 NIV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.19.162 ( talk • contribs)
Just for the heck of it, here are the Scholar's Version translations:
And the inscription, which identified his crime, read, "The King of the Judeans." Mark15:26
And over his head they put an inscription which indentifed his crime: "This is Jesus the King of the Judeans." Matt27:37
There was also this sign over him: "This is the King of the Judeans." Luke23:38
Pilate also had a notice written and posted it on the cross; it read: "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Judeans." John19:19
translation note for John 19:19: At a crucifixion this sign (titulus in Latin) was customarily posted on the cross and indicated the crime deserving execution.
Claiming to be King was an act of sedition against Rome, as was claiming to tear down the temple and "cleansing" the temple, particularly during Passover in Jerusalem. If you need a reference for that, many have been cited above. I would recommend Crossan's Who Killed Jesus?. If you just want to cite the Bible only, that would be New Testament view on Jesus' life.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.19.162 ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 29 April 2006
I am brand new to editing. Why does the 2nd paragraph state the resurrection followed the crucifixion when John 11:25 quotes Jesus: "I AM the resurrection..." (present tense)? Sahansdal 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives: 1, 2, /3, /4, /5, /6, /7, /8, /9, /Key
I just made two minor changes to paragraph 2. First, I added that most scholars believe Jesus was baptized by John. I added this because it is true (that most historians believe this). Also, I have raised this point several times over the past couple of months - no one has objected to it, and some people agreed it should be put in. No one ever put it in, but given the lack of objection, I thyink it is time. Second, I deleted the claim that most historians believe Jesus was accused of blasphemy. As a number of people on this talk page have pointed out, he was not accused of blaspehmy against Rome. Moreover, all of the historians I have read doubt that Jesus was charged with blasphemy. This word was added recently by an anonymous user, 64.12.117.6, and as far as I can tell it was not added based on any discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
•Jim62sch• 12:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, good. That is the type of stuff the article needs. Not generalities, argued points that have citations. Obviouslly, someone would need the cv on the "scholars" because, as I said, the requirements are pretty stringent, but it's off to a good start. (You were right about the German). As for misuse, would I think they qualified as misuse? No, but then I'm not the crazed priest who is rending his clothes. •Jim62sch• 17:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that people keep picking up stones in John's Gospel. "Before Abraham was, I AM!" (John 8:58). Did Jesus use the sacred name? Note that this is not the high priest in the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 12:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
And thus one of the reasons the page was protected. Excuse me for my seeming incivility, but who the hell are you to determine what is and is not relevant? Have you any greater credentials than any other editor on this page? •Jim62sch• 20:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Oub 10:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC):
Jesus is not specifically charged with blasphemy in either Luke or John. john k 15:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Do most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that "Jesus was ... accused of blasphemy ... against the Roman Empire"? -- JimWae 01:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe he was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire. Blasphemy would have been against God, and the Romans wouldn't have cared - that would have been left to the local authorities. I've never clearly understood why, if, as the Gospels say, the Jewish authorities were the ones who wanted to kill Jesus, they didn't just have him stoned to death for blasphemy. john k 04:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Oub 10:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC):
Re: Oub: Jesus may have used the sacred name in John 8:58–59: "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I AM!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 12:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, Crossan's Who Killed Jesus? [1] finds the notion that the Sanhedrin did not have authority to execute, implausible. The Romans executed Jesus for sedition, his overturning the tables at the Temple during Passover (a notoriously rebellious time) was sufficient cause, the so-called "crowd of Jews" were scapegoated. From Publishers Weekly: "In a book sure to generate both conversation and controversy, John Dominic Crossan, author of two well-regarded books on the historical Jesus, names the New Testament Gospels' insistence on Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death as Christianity's "longest lie." Crossan argues particularly against many of the theories posed in Raymond Brown's The Death of the Messiah. While Brown finds that many of the events in the stories of Jesus' last days are plausible historically, Crossan claims that almost none of the events are historical. According to Crossan, they are "prophesy historicized," accounts written by looking back at the Old Testament and other early materials and then projecting those prophecies on whatever historical events occurred. Because many of those early writers were persecuted by the Jewish authorities, they threw in a heavy dose of propaganda against the Jews. As Crossan aptly states, these gospels were relatively harmless when Christians were a small sect. When, however, Rome became Christian, those anti-Semitic narratives became, and continue to be, lethal. Well argued and highly readable, Who Killed Jesus? also includes an important epilogue stating Crossan's own faith perspectives on the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Scholars rarely go this far, yet such a confession provides another valuable entry into this fascinating material. Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.7.171 ( talk • contribs)
Here is some more Literatur:
Oub 10:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC):
John K: I don't know how you meant the distinction between "conservative writers" and "actual scholars", but on the face of it, it sounds like you don't consider the authors I mentioned (Leon Morris and Darrell Bock) to be "actual scholars" — which is odd if you accept R. E. Brown, since Chilton said that in the book I cited "Bock has accomplished for Evangelical theology what the late Raymond Brown achieved for its Catholic counterpart". But if you want "actual scholars", perhaps A. N. Sherwin-White will do — "[T]he capital power was the most jealously guarded of all the attributes of government, not even entrusted to the principal assistants of the governors." (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, [Oxford, 1963], p. 36). We also have primary source material from the period with Josephus (Antiquities, 20.9.1 [2] [§197-203 [3]]), which goes toward confirming John 18:31. » MonkeeSage « 19:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Codex Sinaiticus has added a "citation needed" tag to the charge of sedition in the second paragraph. This is in spite of the citations provided in footnote 2.
Is there yet another Paragraph 2 war brewing?
Oh, and why are we not semi-protected? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Why not contract the sentence:
and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion for the crime of sedition [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.78.17.176 ( talk • contribs) .
Claiming to be the Judean King, or not denying the charge, was an act of sedition in Roman Iudaea Province. The action against Herod's Temple, see Jesus and the Money Changers, probably began Roman action against Jesus. The Roman Senate appointed the Idumean Herod the Great Judean King, approved his son Herod Archelaus till 6 as ethnarch, then deposed him for being unusually cruel to Judeans (he killed over 3 thousand Pharisees), then they put Iudaea (Idumea, Judea, Samaria) under direct Roman administration, appointing a Prefect and Jerusalem High Priest, occupying Antonia Fortress in Jerusalem and their capital Caesarea Palaestina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.19.162 ( talk • contribs)
Maybe this should be quoted if people are gonna refuse to read their own bibles:
The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS. They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!" Mark 15:26-30 NIV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.19.162 ( talk • contribs)
Just for the heck of it, here are the Scholar's Version translations:
And the inscription, which identified his crime, read, "The King of the Judeans." Mark15:26
And over his head they put an inscription which indentifed his crime: "This is Jesus the King of the Judeans." Matt27:37
There was also this sign over him: "This is the King of the Judeans." Luke23:38
Pilate also had a notice written and posted it on the cross; it read: "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Judeans." John19:19
translation note for John 19:19: At a crucifixion this sign (titulus in Latin) was customarily posted on the cross and indicated the crime deserving execution.
Claiming to be King was an act of sedition against Rome, as was claiming to tear down the temple and "cleansing" the temple, particularly during Passover in Jerusalem. If you need a reference for that, many have been cited above. I would recommend Crossan's Who Killed Jesus?. If you just want to cite the Bible only, that would be New Testament view on Jesus' life.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.19.162 ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 29 April 2006
I am brand new to editing. Why does the 2nd paragraph state the resurrection followed the crucifixion when John 11:25 quotes Jesus: "I AM the resurrection..." (present tense)? Sahansdal 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |