Talk:Jesus/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

The Trial Again

Oub's revision

According to the Gospels, Jesus came with his followers to Jerusalem during the Passover festival where he gained substantial attention, for a very large crowd welcome him by shouting, Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest! (Matt 21:8). After this triumphal entry Jesus drove those out of the temple, who were selling (Luke 19:45). Jesus was arrested by Roman soldiers aided by Temple guards (John 18:3), clandestinely at night to avoid a riot, because Jesus was popular with the people at large (Mark. 14:2). Since the soldiers and guards had difficulties to identify Jesus, he declared "I am he" (John 18:5). One of this disciples, used a sword to attack one of the captors, cutting off his ear. After his arrest, Jesus disciples went into hiding. Jesus was questioned by Annas and Caiaphas about his disciples and his teaching and then taken to the roman prefect Pontius Pilate (John.18:19, 24, 28). Although Pilate was known to use violence to enforce Roman rule (Luke 13:1), he offered the crowd a choice between Jesus of Nazareth and an well known prisoner named Jesus Barabbas (Matt 27:16). The crowd chose to have the insurrectionist Barabbas, who had taken part in an armed struggle against the country's rulers (John 18:40), freed and Jesus crucified. Jesus was scourged as part of the Roman crucifixion procedure once Pilate ordered his execution (Mark 15:15). All the multitudes of Jews were sorrowful about Jesus' crucifixion (Luke 23:48).

Comments

The Synoptic Gospels say that the Last Supper was a passover seder, and that Jesus was killed the next day. John says that Jesus was killed at the time the lambs were being slaughtered for the passover feast. That means that in the Synoptics, Jesus was killed on 15 Nisan, while in John he was killed on 14 Nisan. This is a standard issue which is discussed in mainstream scholarly sources - Raymond E. Brown's The Death of the Messiah has a lengthy discussion of this issue in an appendix (Volume II, pp. 1350-1378). Here's the summary paragraph:

The chronological relationship between the death of Jesus and the date of those two feasts [Passover and the Unleavened Bread, which were apparently distinct at that time] is complicated by the fact that at face value there is a contradiction between the Synoptics and John. The meal that Jesus ate on Thursday evening before he was arrested, according to the Synoptics, was the paschal (Passover) meal, whereas in John 18:28, on Friday morning when Jesus was being tried before Pilate, the Jewish authorities and people refused to "enter into the praetorium lest they be defiled and in order that they might eat the Passover (meal)" — a feast that according to John 19:14 was to begin the next day (i.e., Friday evening). Thus, the paschal meal for the Synoptics was on Thursday evening and Jesus died in the daytime after it; for John it was on Friday evening and Jesus died in the daytime before it.

This is pretty commonly accepted, as far as I can tell - E.P. Sanders also has a discussion of it, for instance. john k 17:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: john k Correct, thanks for your reply. Just let me add the following: In all gospels Jesus was crucified on a Friday, according to John that was the day before the Pessach/Passover supper, Erev Pessach, Nisan 14th, while according to the Synoptic, is was the day after the Pessach/Passover supper, that is Nisan the 15th. To complicate things further: there is even a contradiction in the Synoptics itself:

1. because according to Mk14:2 the plot to kill Jesus shouldn't have carried out during the feast, but later it seems that Jesus already has taken the Passover supper. That is not a very strong contradiction since one could argue, the priest had to change their plans. It is striking that this is not mentioned explicitly.
2. Mk 15:42 refers to the preparation day, which could mean, Erev Pessach, the day for the preparation of the Pessach, since preparation day is not used just for day for any Shabbat but the day before Pessach/Passover. That is the saturday/shabbat which followed that preparation day was Pessach.
3. Mk 15:21 refers to man coming from the fields, unthinkable on a Shabbat and even more on a such holy day as is Pessach.

There have been several attempt to explain these contradictions, one has been that Jesus followed the calendar of the Essennic sect which would mean he would have celebrated Pessach Tuesday of that week. However since there is no evidence that he did, these idea has lost its supporters. It is also striking that the Synoptics at no point mentioned that the feast would have been desecrated by the execution. (IMHO all that makes Nisan the 14 more likely). Oub 16:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

Since we discussed that several days ago and everybody seems to have agreed, I will make the changes we discussed concerning the trial. I want to emphasise this, since I once was in a similar situation and my changes where undone. Oub 16:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC):

No problems yet. Stay tuned. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but Oub's changes were so poorly written, with numerous grammatical and spelling errors, omission of a lot of information, and without correctly cited sources. I reverted until the section quality can be increased. —Aiden 19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If Oub wished we can discuss the content and quality of the changes here. I remember a table of two versions from a few days ago, but I haven't checked the edit Oub made today. I have to run now, though. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see much wrong with them when he had them up here, he only changed like 1 or 2 lines I think..... Homestarmy 21:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've pasted Oub's revision above. Discuss and/or revise away. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 22:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I just archived the rest of this section (including Oub's original proposal), so I'm moving the remaining discussion back to the bottom of the page. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Arch O. La Hi, I am a little confused about the recent changes in the Talk page. I hope the actual structure remains. Thanks anyway for copying and pasting my version down. Oub 17:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC):

Yesterday I merged this section with the rest of the Life and Teachings discussion (at the time, it was near the top of the page) for the sake of organization. Today I archived the rest of the Life and Teachings discussion (see /Archive 53), so I moved this section back to the bottom of the page so that people could find it again. I apologize for the confusion, Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the current version better. It includes more information; this version seems too condensed. —Aiden 17:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: Aiden I thought we discussed that:

1. First the actual version contains at least 2 errors (please look it up)
2. There is no unique narration of what happened concerning the trial and the execution etc. The actual enhances the Jewish guilt. In order to emphasise this point I wrote the table in which you can compare. Please read it and the comments.

Now to the alternatives: I proposed, either to write up a balanced version emphasising the differences in the accounts or take more or less mine. I understood from the comments that most people were in favour of the second possibility. So that is what I did I substituted the old by mine. That of course does not mean that mine should be the last word. You pointed out that there are misspellings errors etc. Fine you are right. I can correct them. Or anybody else. In any case leave the old version as it is, please explain why and why didn't you contribute to that discussion earlier. Oub 17:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC):

For the sake of clarity: A little over an hour ago I archived Oub's original proposal. Here's the link. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You do realize someone snuck a Harold Shipman reference on there, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.168.83.231 (talk • contribs)

If the vandalism is still there, I'll fix it. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Version revised

Hello,

I have revised my version, corrected the citations, and spelling errors:

According to the Gospels, Jesus came with his followers to Jerusalem during the Passover festival where he gained substantial attention when he entered the city riding an ass (Matthew 21:5-21:7), for the crowd cried, Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!-quoting Ps 118.26 - (Matthew 21:9), (or King of Israel (John 12:13)). After this triumphal entry Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought. (Luke 19:45). Jesus was then arrested by Roman soldiers and by Temple guards (John 18:3), clandestinely at night to avoid a riot, because Jesus was popular with the people at large (Mark 14:2). Since the soldiers and guards had difficulties to identify Jesus, he said to them "I am he" (John 18:5). One of his disciples used a sword to attack one of the captors, cutting off his ear (Mark 14:47). After his arrest, Jesus' disciples went into hiding (Mark 14:50-14:52). Jesus was questioned by Annas and Caiaphas about his disciples and his teaching and then taken to the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate (John 18:19, 24, 28). Although Pilate was known to use violence to enforce Roman rule (Luke 13:1), he offered the crowd a choice between Jesus of Nazareth and a well known prisoner named Jesus Barabbas (Matthew 27:16). The crowd chose to have the insurrectionist Barabbas (John 18:40), who had taken part in an armed struggle against the country's rulers (Mark 15:7), freed and Jesus crucified (Matthew 27:21). Jesus was scourged as part of the Roman crucifixion procedure once Pilate ordered his execution (Mark 15:15). All the multitudes of Jews were sorrowful about Jesus' crucifixion (Luke 23:48).

Please tell me your opinions or correct errors I did not find. Since I did no see any objections concerning the content of my proposal, I might try to submit it again in the coming days. Oub 11:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC):

Version revised comments

I personally like the current version better than your version. You have omitted important details (last supper, titulus, blasphemy charge) and added seemingly insignificant details such as the quote from the crowd and Barabbas' background. I do like that you omitted the details from the 2nd paragraph, though. Finally, your version seems to combine all 4 gospel accounts into a single series of events. While this is a common practice for Easter stories and apologetics, I personally feel it is unencyclopedic and possibly OR. --71.251.183.69 14:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: 71.251.183.69 Did you read my original post where I explained what I think is wrong with the current version? It seems not, therefore I just paste here the important points again. Before I do to your points

1. it is precisely the question how to select the given material, see below.
2. the charge of blasphemy is only found in Mark and Matthew, not in Luke, in John there is not even a trial.
3. Barrabbas' background is important, since it makes it more understandable that the crow wanted to free him, given that he was part of revolt.
4. Luke 23:48 describes that a great multitude was sorrow about Jesus' death and this fact is a very important point and should not be omitted.
5. please log in if you want to make a vote.

now to my older points:

The actual part not only contains some errors, ney unfortunately in its given form it violates the basic principles of wikipedia, namely NPOV. Even worse it is partially anti-Judaism, which I think is not tolerable. So let me present my arguments before making some proposals.

• As for the errors: citation

He was subsequently arrested on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas for blasphemy, because he claimed to be the messiah (Mark 14: 62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be God (John 10: 33).

That is plainly wrong. When Jesus was arrested he was not charged formally of anything, not even at the beginning of the trial before the Sanhedrin. He was arrested, stop, brought before the Sanhedrin stop, asked whether is the messiah, which he either confirmed or did not answer clearly stop. So he can't have been arrested for something, which he did after the arrest! John 10:33 is also irrelevant here, since again it is not refereed to, when the arrest takes place.

Moreover

He was identified to the guards by one of his apostles, ...

Apostles is not the right word to be used here, the Greek word is mathetes, which is translated as disciples. Apostel is a word which was formed after the death of Jesus.

• now to NPOV versus POV. It is the following. As I said before the narration of the Gospels is by no means unique. So one is either forced to make a particular selection or trying to mention the differences. The present section chooses the first alternative. In order to see why this is problematic, consider the following table.

Left you see the current version, to which I have added the relevant references from the Gospels (if say Mark and Matthew are listed, but not John and Luke well then there are no such references!). On the right you will find a different version, which is based on a different selection of the material; as much a fact as the current version.

I think it is quite obvious what is going on. The left version is a selection of the given material which enhances the Jewish gilt, while the right version does not. So a selection of given material is clearly a violation of one of the basic principles of wikipedia, namely NPOV.

The main difference in the narrative of the Gospels concerns John versus the Synoptics: According to the Synoptics the chief priests tried to make a plot against Jesus, arrested him, condemned him and sent him to Pilate, while according to John it was the Romans who arrested Jesus. On the other hand, in John, it is the Jewish mob who is mostly responsible that Pilate condemned Jesus, even against his own conviction.

Now the current version follows the Synoptics, when it comes to the arrest but mostly to John when it comes to the trial before Pilate, while my version does it the other way around.

The point is that both version can claim with equal right that they are faithful to the facts as presented in the Gospels.

That the Passion material is selected in a specific way is not new, for example the movie of M. Gibson does this in a far more extreme way than the current article and I am not sure whether this selection of the given material in the current version would qualify for using the term anti Judaism but it is close, too close in my opinion.

So the question arises what to do? Since my version can claim with equal right that it is faithful to the facts we could just substitute one for the other. However both versions might be problematic (because they might be POV) and hence I think we need a truly balanced presentation of the material. I made a proposal some time ago which got rejected (at least that was my impression), so could anybody else make a proposal? I think what we can't do is to keep the current version as it is.

Anti-Judaism has been mentioned and discussed already in wikipedia article so I only wish to add that I think nowadays we cannot have a presentation which is so tendentious as the current one, whose tendency is even enhanced in a subtle way by having included the picture showing a Jesus, flogged before the crucifixion.

I shall also emphasise that I am not talking about a (critical) discussion of the material as presented in the Gospels as some historian have done it, I am just talking about the selection of the material as presented in the Gospels.

Oub 14:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC):

I don't mind you inserting some of your version or removing the 2nd paragraph, but I feel the current version is still substaintially more informative. I think if you'd merge the two and remove the second paragraph, we'd have a higher quality section. —Aiden 02:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Merged version

Here's kind of what I was talking about:

According to the Gospels, Jesus came with his followers to Jerusalem during the Passover festival where a large crowd came to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the King of Israel!" (quoting Psalms 118:26; John 12:13–16). Following his triumphal entry, Jesus created a disturbance at Herod's Temple by overturning the tables of the moneychangers operating there (John 2:13–17). Later that week, he enjoyed a meal, possibly the Passover Seder, with his disciples before going to pray in the Garden of Gethsemane.

While in the garden, he was arrested by Roman soldiers on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas, for blasphemy, because he claimed to be the Messiah (Mark 14:62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be God (John 10:33). The arrest took place clandestinely at night to avoid a riot, because Jesus was popular with the people at large (Mark 14:2). Judas Iscariot, one of his apostles, betrayed Jesus by identifying him to the guards with a kiss. Another apostle (identified as Simon Peter in john 18:10) used a sword to attack one of the captors, cutting off his ear, which, according to Luke, Jesus immediately healed (luke 22:51). Jesus rebuked Peter, stating "all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."(Matthew 26:52) After his arrest, Jesus' apostles went into hiding. Jesus was condemned for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin and turned over to the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate, charged with sedition for claiming to be King of the Jews (Matthew 27:11; Mark 15:2).

Pilate first had Jesus flogged, and then, remembering that it was a custom at Passover for the Roman governor to free a prisoner (a custom not recorded outside the Gospels), offered the crowd a choice between Jesus of Nazareth and an insurrectionist named Barabbas. The crowd chose to have Barabbas freed and Jesus crucified. Pilate washed his hands to display that he himself was innocent of the injustice of the decision. All four Gospels say Pilate then ordered Jesus to be crucified with a charge placed atop the cross (known as the titulus crucis) which read "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." (The titulus crucis is often written as INRI, the Latin acronym.) According to Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 his last words were "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (taken from Psalm 22); according to John 19:30, "It is finished"; and according to Luke 23:46, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit."

While it was common practice to let a body hang upon the cross for days and decay, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were allowed to take his body down and place it in a tomb (John 19:38–42).

Merged version comments

Your version lacks so much important information I don't see how or why we would substitute it. I've merged the two versions (removing the second paragraph.) Let me know what you think. —Aiden 03:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: Aiden Hi, thanks for your efforts. Of course I don't mind a merge. I think a merge should at least include the following, perhaps mentioning important differences: triumphal entry, the temple disturbance, last supper, arrest, involvement of the priests, trial before Pilate, Barrabas, crucification, Jewish crowd were sorrowful about Jesus' death. Now your version contains some point, I consider as problematic. I start with the most problematic.

While in the garden, he was arrested by Roman soldiers on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas, for blasphemy, because he claimed to be the Messiah (Mark 14:62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be God (John 10:33).

I am sorry but this is POV . It is not mentioned that he was arrested because he claimed to be the Messiah!!! Referring to Mark 14:62 is a circular arguments, since this is the result of the trial! There is no reference to John 10:33 in the process. So this part should be out as well. On the orders of Caiaphas is not clear neither, this is not part of all gospels, I even can't find a verse in the synoptic. Also it sounds odd to have arrested by Roman soldiers on the orders of Caiaphas , since it was the other way around, Caiaphas received orders from the Romans

• Next

Another apostle (identified as Simon Peter in john 18:10) used a sword to attack one of the captors, cutting off his ear, which, according to Luke,...

Why another? Apostele is not the right word, disciples should be used in this context!

• Further

Jesus was condemned for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin and turned.

In John there is only interrogation by Annas and Caiaphas, that should be mentioned. In Luke it is not clear that he he condemned for blasphemy, should be mentioned as well.

Pilate first had Jesus flogged.

This in contrast to Mark, where he is flogged, as part of the crucifixion, not before should be mentioned.

It should be mentioned that Barabbas was involved in a armed struggle against Rome.

• Luke 23:48 is missing. I sent you my version in a couple of minutes

Oub 14:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC):

Merged version II

Here is my version

According to the Gospels, Jesus came with his followers to Jerusalem during the Passover festival where a large crowd came to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the King of Israel!" (quoting Psalms 118:26; John 12:13–16). Following his triumphal entry, Jesus created a disturbance at Herod's Temple by overturning the tables of the moneychangers operating there (John 2:13–17). Later that week, he enjoyed a meal, possibly the Passover Seder (Matthew 26:17) or the day before Passover (John 18:28), with his disciples before going to pray in the Garden of Gethsemane.

While in the garden, he was arrested by Roman soldiers and temple guards. The arrest took place clandestinely at night to avoid a riot, because Jesus was popular with the people at large (Mark 14:2). Another disciple (identified as Simon Peter in john 18:10) used a sword to attack one of the captors, cutting off his ear, which, according to Luke, Jesus immediately healed (luke 22:51). Jesus rebuked Peter, stating "all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."(Matthew 26:52). After his arrest, Jesus' apostles went into hiding. Jesus was questioned by Annas and Caiaphas about his disciples and his teaching. Perhaps Jesus was condemned for blasphemy (Matthew 26:64-66), (Mark 14:61-64) by the Sanhedrin, since he did not refuse to be the Messiah (Luke 22:70-71), and turned over to the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate, charged with sedition for claiming to be King of the Jews (Matthew 27:11; Mark 15:2).

Pilate, remembering that it was a custom at Passover for the Roman governor to free a prisoner (a custom not recorded outside the Gospels), offered the crowd a choice between Jesus of Nazareth and an well known insurrectionist named Barabbas. The crowd chose to have Barabbas, who had taken part in an armed struggle against the country's rulers (Mark 15:7), freed and Jesus crucified. Pilate washed his hands to display that he himself was innocent of the injustice of the decision. All four Gospels say Pilate then ordered Jesus to be crucified with a charge placed atop the cross (known as the titulus crucis) which read "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." (The titulus crucis is often written as INRI, the Latin acronym.) According to Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 his last words were "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (taken from Psalm 22); according to John 19:30, "It is finished"; and according to Luke 23:46, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit." All the multitudes of Jews were sorrowful about Jesus' crucifixion (Luke 23:48).

While it was common practice to let a body hang upon the cross for days and decay, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were allowed to take his body down and place it in a tomb (John 19:38–42).

Merged version II comments

I think that this version is getting there, but I think there are still a couple of problems having to do with combining different accounts to make one narrative. For example, overturning the tables at the temple occurs in the very beginning of Jesus' ministry according to John (the verse quoted in this version above). The "perhaps" is incorrect in regards to the blasphemy charge. see Mk 14:64/Mt 26:65-68. I think we should wait for a few more comments, then let it go live and let a couple other heads edit it once its out in the main article.--Andrew c 17:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: Andrew c the perhaps was a proposal. The problem is, that according to John there was no trial, and according to Luke (Luke 22:70-71) (who does not report a night trial by the way) blasphemy is not mentioned (another problem is, but this might go too far, it is not clear what the blasphemy consisted which could have let to a death penalty). The next problematic thing is the Sanhedrin: according to Matthew, it is not the Sanhedrin, who condemned him for blasphemy, but

Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death.

The same for Mark (Mark 14:53) only

And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

So somehow this should be taken into account.

Oub 18:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC):

---

What about.

Jesus was condemned, perhaps by all the council of chief priest (Mark 14:53) (Matthew 26:57), for blasphemy (Matthew 26:64-66), (Mark 14:61-64), or perhaps by the Sanhedrin for not having refused to be the Messiah (Luke 22:70-71), or perhaps he was not condemned at all (John)

— Oub

This is cumbersome I know, but the situation is complicated. Oub 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC):

Perhaps still is not the right word. We need to say that Matthew/Mark state X, Luke states Y, and John states Z. There is nothing "perhaps" about what they claim. It is POV to think that a) these verses contradict or b) these verses can be harmonized. Saying perhaps gives the illusion that one of the Gospel accounts actually happened, and if we are talking about the plot summary of the gospels, it is extremely POV to claim that any of it happened (outside of the historical reconstruction, or the various religious POVs). --Andrew c 00:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: Andrew c Well if you say so, I am neither very happy with the perhaps, but somehow I don't know to state the possibility, that one of the Gospel accounts may be true and a another not. I agree that we should state that, as you said, Matthew/Mark state X, Luke states Y, and John states Z , especially in such an important point. So we could then simply mention all the 4 different versions. That is a little cumbersome, but may be worth it. Oub 12:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC):

Do you have any source for digtinguishing between the Sanhedrin and "the high priest, and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes"/"the chief priests and the entire council"? Everywhere I'm looking says they are the same entity. Regarding combining the narratives into a single account; I don't see how a presumption of disharmony is any better or more neutral than a presumption of harmony. The harmony seems as "obvious" to many Christians (e.g., Aland's Synopsis of the Four Gospels, Calvin's Harmony of the Evangelists) as the "disharmony" seems to be to others. I think that we should, ideally, be representing both views; though I'm not sure exactly how to put that into actual practice here. » MonkeeSage « 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: [[User talk:MonkeeSage|»] Sure, right now from my memory two references come into my mind (I have to look it up to find more and to find details).

1. Sanders.
2. Cohn.

Oub 12:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC):

Sanhedrin is this group of people. Sorry but I still don't see what the big deal is. The merged version (current + oub's) is very accurate. —Aiden20:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sanhedrin is Greek for council. 209.78.18.233 21:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong's G4892

---

Re: Aiden I am afraid is not that simple. I quoted above some literature of scholars, which carefully analyse the different words used for that various groups (More maybe tomorrow, I have to look that up). I also would like to add here a small table explaining the differences about the trial.Oub 12:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC):

We should start out without any presumptions, but it's worth noting that only conservative Christians accept that everything in the Bible can be harmonized, and there's no particular reason to think that such people are looking at the evidence fairly, rather than having already decided that the Bible is inerrant. Most mainstream and liberal Christian scholars, and all secular scholars, accept that there are (a varying degree of) contradictions among Biblical accounts. Beyond this, there are obviously apparent contradictions among the Gospel accounts. That apologists have harmonized these apparent contradictions doesn't make those apparent contradictions any less real. An apparent contradiction is not necessarily a contradiction, but even if it could be proved that it is not an actual contradiction, that doesn't change the fact that it's still an apparent contradiction. john k 03:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone accepts that there is such a thing as psychological/epistemological neutrality, especially not on issues of great import, which are foundational to one's entire worldview. So, those persons would be equally inclined to think that errantists have decided in advance of any particular example that error in the Bible is possible (or likely), and hence are not looking at the evidence any more "fairly" (i.e., without any bias, controlling presuppositions, or emotional baggage, &c). The idea of the mind as a tabula rasa, or able to think "outside the box" of its own constructs and categories, is actually quite controversial in philosophy and psychology. But even so, conservative and fundimentalist Christians have no problem with the idea of apparent contradiction, as you imply; I was only suggesting somehow representing all significant views. For example, when the gospel of John gives an event in a different order from the synoptics, but does not specifically say "the events took place in this order," rather the chronology is derived from an assumption based on over-all syntax (i.e., one event being recorded later in the actual flow of the text than another), we can say something like "John apparently places this event after the other one", rather than giving preference to the one interpretation and saying "John [implied: actually] places this event after the other one"; in such a case it is possible to see the various placement of events as thematic rather than following a set pattern of recording one event directly after another chronologically. But as I said, I'm not certain exactly how to go about representing all significant views; but I think, in principle, we should (though without giving undue weight to the minority view, like that of conservative/fundimentalist scholars, of course). » MonkeeSage « 09:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your distinction. On the one hand, we have a group who has a priori decided that there cannot be any contradictions within the Bible. On the other hand, we have people who think we should analyze the Bible like any other document, and that errors or contradictions are possible. In the analysis of any given verse, why on earth should we respect the views of people who have already decided that the verse cannot contain a contradiction, because no verse contains a contradiction, rather than that of people who think that each verse has to be analyzed separately to determine whether or not it might contain a contradiction. The latter is scholarship, and the former is apologetics. That said, I'm happy to use "apparently" and so forth to indicate the possibility that any given contradiction can be explained. In terms of the views of "conservative/fundamentalist scholars," that's fine, I guess, so long as they're actually scholars, and not just apologists. For a start, any "Biblical scholar" who is not an expert in ancient Hebrew or koine Greek, as appropriate to the biblical book under discussion, is not much of a Biblical scholar, and I don't think we have any reason to refer to any explanation they might give of contradictions between Biblical verses. john k 18:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Inerrantists don't just arbitrarily decide that there are no errors prior to looking at the book; they first read the book, then accept the claims they believe it makes, and then adopt them as an interpretive grid, which leads to the a priori assumption of inerrancy. Errantists equally, for various reasons, make an a priori assumption, viz., that the Bible must be approached like any other work of literature. The very idea of what is possible or impossible is insolubly linked to the foundational presuppositions of one's worldview in every case (e.g., Is it possible on Earth for humans to fly without aid of technology? Not if one holds that the rule of law applies to every instance, and gravity is one of the laws; but it could be, if one holds that the rule of law only applies to some instances). In any case, I think I may be rambling at this point, as I agree with your criteria and I understand that many "scholars" (read: "apologists") are just popular authors whose views are not overly relevant. I am concerned with people who hold professorships and have doctoral degrees in relevant fields; people like Aland, Morris, Bruce, Brown, Wright, Motyer, Carson, Norris, Ferguson, McGrath, &c. » MonkeeSage « 11:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit war?

Hello

As far as I understood the merged versions, right now the only open point is the Sentence:

Jesus was condemned for blasphemy (Mark 14:64 Matthew 26:66) .

This is more complicated than I thought and I want to discuss it a part. However there are at least three changes which could be made now.

1. Add: All the multitudes of Jews were sorrowful about Jesus' crucifixion(Luke 23:48).
2. Change: While in the garden, he was arrested by Roman soldiers on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas, for blasphemy, because he claimed to be the Messiah (Mark 14:62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be God (John 10:33). to While in the garden, he was arrested by Roman soldiers and temple guards.

Rationale. That sentence is POV. There are no verses supporting that the arrest took place because on the orders of Caiaphas (besides it looks odd that Roman soldiers should get orders by Caiaphas, it was the other way around). Mark 14:62 is irrelevant since this is a circular argument. He was condemned after the arrest, and there was no charge stated when he was arrested. John 10:33 is also not relevant since it is not referred to!

1. Add: The crowd chose to have Barabbas, who had taken part in an armed struggle against the country's rulers (Mark 15:7), ...

It seems that the second point is controversial. I just tried to change and somebody undid my change. In order to avoid an edit war, I would like to discuss this now. I actually did that already and nobody responded to my argument. Only Aiden explicitly stated The merged version (current + oub's) is quite accurate . Oub 18:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC):

Another reason to wait on the FA nomination ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

While in the garden, he was arrested by Roman soldiers and temple guards. I think this is a bit too vague. Readers need to know why he was arrested. Without a reason, it seems as if he was arrested out of the blue. —Aiden 18:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: Aiden Well, what do you propose, there are no verses which explain why he was arrested. We could add that there are some possibilities: the disturbance in the temple, the triumphal entry, etc. But what we can't to is leave it as it is, because there are no verses!Oub 19:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC):

Obviously the story is written out and referenced. Removing it in the name of PoV when the source is pretty obvious is not right. It could read According to the Bible... Dominick

^(TALK) 18:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: Dominick it is NOT! Again, which verse states on the order of Caiaphas? Which verse states the reason for the arrest was blasphemy or John 10:33. Such a verse does not exist, hence POV. The reason could be the disturbance in the temple or the triumphal entry. I am not making this up, there is huge literature trying to argue what could have been the reason, since that reason is not stated.Oub 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC):

An aside: Oub can you not do line breaks every time you respond? Thanks. :) —Aiden 19:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

John 18:3 states clearly: "Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons." I am aware of some of the controversy you speak of Oub, but certainly not all of it. This has been discussed several times on this article. Question: Would you agree that whoever gave the orders would be the first person the soldiers would report to? They did not go to the Roman representative first, but to the spiritual leaders of Jerusalem...Annas and Caiaphas. We could "evade" the controversy by saying who the soldiers reported to afer arresting Jesus in the Garden. Thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Storm Rider Well to make this clear, I am just saying it is controversial. According to the Synoptic, yes I would agree that the arrest was ordered (most likely) by Caiaphas. With John, well, if really Roman Soldiers were present, it looks hm not very convincing that they have been there because just of orders of Caiaphas (and Pilate was not involved). As to your suggestion, would they bring him automatically to the person(s) who gave the order? Well not necessarily, if the Romans were involved, they might have just brought him there, for identification or in order that he could be previously be interrogated. That is all speculation of course. What bother me more is the part because he claimed to be the Messiah . For that I can't not see any reasoning. As I said the reason could have been the triumphal entry (which BTW is one of the most popular thesis in the "average" literature about the process. For me your proposal looks OK. Oub 20:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC):

---

Re: Aiden oops, sorry. Which lines do I break, seriously mines, yours or the ones of the whole section, or the text to which I respond? Oub 19:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC):

I mean the lines you insert under everyone's comments. —Aiden 19:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Aidenwell the truth is, I find it much more convincing this way, I wished everybody would use it. It helps to see where one entry starts and one finishes. But of course if it annoys the others there is no point. As a sign of my flexibility I don't use it now! :) Oub 19:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC):

Especially since there is a line underneath each ==header== your lines were really breaking up the page and making it very hard to read what was going on with all the different indents, etc. People will reply to something three indents previous and if there's a line inbetween, it's difficult to see who is replying to whom. Thanks for the flexibility. --Oscillate 20:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Oscillate Ok, I am convinced, I want my contributions to be read, and not causing people to get annoyed.Oub 20:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC):

Pilate Arrest and Trial:Judas, Scourging, Apostle, Style

I forgot 4 points.

1. The identification during the arrest. There are 2 versions: the Judas kiss, and according to John 18:5 the fact that Jesus identified himself. Either we mention both or none.
2. it should be mentioned that even the gospels admit that Pilate was cruel. Although Pilate was known to use violence to enforce Roman rule (Luke 13:1)
3. According to Mark (Mark. 15:15) Jesus was scourged as part of the crucification not before. Again both versions or none.
4. Apostle is not the right word is should be disciples.

And finally some parts coherent style: some parts use a direct narration as in

Pilate first had Jesus flogged, and then, remembering that it was a custom at Passover for the Roman governor to free a prisoner

but for example the part I added, got changed to

Luke states that all the multitudes who had witnessed Jesus' crucifixion were sorrowful (Luke 23:48).

(Sorry for not having used the template). So that is weaker in my eyes than using the direct narrative style. I don't mind, just it should be used coherently. So it is late on this side of the ocean, so I will wait with any changes. But I think in the last days/weeks I have argued quite a bit, and I have waited long enough. So if I do not hear any arguments I will try to repeat my changes. Oub 19:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC):

What do you have against Apostle? It's used in Mark 3:14, Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:13 and others. 209.78.18.233 20:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: 209.78.18.233 Only in Matthew 10:2 there is reference to apostoles, the other references mention the twelve.

WRONG! Strong's G652 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.26.88 (talk • contribs)

My point is a that at the arrest there is no references to the twelve, but only the disciples. Mathetes, disciples is the word used in the relevant verses. (Although in my understanding the word apostles should be used for these persons, after the death of Jesus', not before, before they were disciples). Please check the inter-linear translation at.

[[1]]

Oub 14:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC):

Wherever would you get that understanding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.26.88 (talk • contribs)

If you read Luke 23:48 you'll notice that he says those who had come to witness the crucifixion, not the "multitudes of Jews", were sorrowful. —Aiden 21:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Aiden Right, but if you read (Lk. 23:27) you see that there is a reference to a large company following Jesus! Oub 14:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC):

1. Agreed. I've included John's account.
2. Stating Pilate was cruel based on this verse alone would border on POV and OR.
3. Agreed. I've rewritten the account.
4. Apostle is the widest accepted term for the 12 closest disciples.

—Aiden 21:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: AidenThanks, so it seems that we that the merge comes closer. To say that Pilate was cruel, based on Luke 13:1, is as POV/OR as it is to claim, that the arrest was done, on the orders of Caiaphas, since there is no (real) verse claiming this. Again: both or none.

another point, since you agreed to rewrite the part of the scourge it would be logically to eliminate the corresponding graphics.Oub 14:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC):

On Apostles, technically it could be called the "Twelve", however, Apostle is the name they are generally known by. And, even though early versions of Mark don't contain the noun form apostollos, they contain the verb form apostello (send out).

And he appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, and to have authority to cast out demons. Mark 3:14-15NRSV

A Greek reader couldn't help to draw the conclusion that those who are sent out (apostello) are therefore apostles. In fact, it is possible that Q or Luke and Matthew drew that conclusion. Same issue as Seventy Apostles. 209.78.17.95 22:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the arrest

The sentence

While in the garden, Jesus was arrested by Roman soldiers on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas (cited later in Matthew 26:65-67), for blasphemy, because he claimed to be the Messiah (Mark 14:62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be God (John 10:33).

violates elementary logic. The blasphemy, which is referred to happened after the arrest. You cannot be arrested for something you will do in the future. (Well Minority Report a part). As for John 10:33, this is POV insofar, that there is no verse, which states that he was arrested because of this claim!! Oub 14:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC):

This section is on the Gospel account. Whehter the Gospel account is consistent, hisotircally accurate, theologically sound, or poetically moveing, is not for us to judge. Our task is to provide the basic Gospel account. An article on the historicity of Jesus (or, Cultural and historical context) can go into what historians (not me, not you) believe happened, and an article on Christology can go into the different theological questions and readings. Perhaps other linked articles can go into other dimensions. Our sentences should reasonably reflect the gospels' accounts. Elementary logic has nothing to do with that. Slrubenstein 14:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Slrubenstein Beg your pardon? Are you serious? Are you really defending a sentence stating we was arrested for something he did in the future ????? How can we hope to get a featured article, if we leave such sentences in? The gospel account does not say: He was arrested because he would commit blasphemy in a trial which will taken in some hours!! If it were like this, you would be right! But it is not. Oub 15:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC):

Exactly, we need to reflect what the Gospel says, not introduce a new PoV or correct the Biblical PoV. I changed the sarcastic title of this section. It would be a good idea not to "poison the well" of goodwill, so to speak. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: ^(TALK) But the Gospels do not say, that he was arrested, because of crime he would do in the future. Can you please give me a verse, where it is written, he was arrested, because the Priest/Sanhedrin thought he has done so. Please, tell me! I am talking about the Gospels, it seems you do the interpretation. As for your change of my title, if you feel it is sarcastic, well one verse you show me and I am satisfied. Oub 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC):

I think I understand your question. We was arrested on orders of the high priests (not named in MATT.) for past "blasphemies", and according to the High Priest (names Caiaphas) he blasphemed again in the verses I cited. Unless they changed High Priest in the time the arrest was executed and the incident in Matthew, that would be the same person. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dominick Ok, it seems that we agree there might be a problem. Please name me the verses supporting

I think I understand your question. We was arrested on orders of the high priests (not named in MATT.) for past "blasphemies"

now unfortunately I do not understand the next part:

and according to the High Priest (names Caiaphas) he blasphemed again in the verses I cited.

That is exactly the verse referring after the arrest! So what we need is a verse for past blasphemies and delete the reference to Matthew 26:65-67) (Mark 14:62), because these are future blasphemies . I am really keen to see such verses. Oub 15:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC):

The inference seems logical enough to me: John 10:33 shows that there was a basis for a charge of blasphemy to be leveled against Jesus, combined with the plot of the Jewish leaders to arrest and kill him (Matt. 21:45-46, 26:3-5), so the "formal" reason for the arrest being to question him about blasphemy makes sense. Add to this the testimony of the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin fol. 55a-56b, cap. 7, mis. 7):

Through the entire trial the witnesses are examined pseudonymously--i.e. (the blasphemer said): "Jose shall be beaten by Jose." (Rashi explains that the name Jose was selected because it contains four letters, as does the proper name of the Lord.) When the examination was ended, the culprit was not executed on the testimony under the pseudonym; but all are told to leave the room except the witnesses, and the oldest of them is instructed: "Tell what you heard exactly." And he does so. The judges then arise, and rend their garments, and they are not to be mended. The second witness then says: I heard exactly the same as he told. And so also says the third witness.

and it appears that they were fishing for substantiation of the witnesses and the the formal cause of the arrest (and got it). But I also have no problem with rephrasing the problematic sentence, as it may be close to non-verifiable and original research. Perhaps this would be better:

While in the garden, Jesus was arrested by Roman soldiers on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas (possibly on the suspicion of blasphemy). At the trial he was found guilty of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65-67), because he claimed to be the Messiah (Mark 14:62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be equal with God (John 10:33).

How's that? » MonkeeSage « 16:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: [[User talk:MonkeeSage|] I am not completely convinced. Seems logical to me depends on the point of view (POV) and I disagree, for me it is speculative, and as I have emphasised now for a couple of times, the average literature about the process, finds John 10:33 not convening enough, so the speculations goes from the triumphal entry to the temple disturbance. I do not say we should mention that, all I am saying there is not need to refer to an event in the future at the arrest. Suppose A is arrested by the police because he caused a traffic accident, then he insults the police officers and get condemned for that. Would you say he was arrested because he insults the police officers??? So find the reference to Mark 14:62, not helpful, even confusing. It should simply be deleted. If you insist in John 10:33 a perhaps should be put, again because we do not have any verse. I don't mind speculation, but either we really speculate or we don't. If we do it speculate just very locally that is not coherent. As for the Talmud: if we are going to refer to the Talmud, and again I don't mind, we should immediately point out all the violations (around 10) against the rules under which a trial by the Sanhedrin operated at that time. That may be worth its own article. So I say, Mark 14:62 out at that place and John clearly marked as speculation. It is not even OR Oub 16:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC):

Oub wrote,

Re: Slrubenstein Beg your pardon? Are you serious? Are you really defending a sentence stating we was arrested for something he did in the future ?????

Re: Oub Beg your pardon? Are you serious? Are you really criticizing a sentence describing what the Gospels say, in a section on what the Gospels say? Honestly, Oub, please read our NPOV policy. Our task is not to write what we believe to be true or logical. Our taks is to represent accurately verifiable sources. In any event, my reading of mathew and Mark is not that he committed the blasphemy in the future. That is like seeing someone arraigned for murder and then saying "How could you have coarrested him for murder when he didn't commit the murder until later?" The charge is made at the arraignment, but it does not mean that the crime was committed at the arraignment. Now, most historians i know would say he was probably not arrested or tried by the Sanhedrin and definitely not charged with blasphemy. But this is not about what historians think, this is the gospel account. The Gospels are not (in my opinion) historical documents and do not provide a consistent, step-by-step chronological account of what happened. The Gospels provide edited-together fragments, and some Gospels have material others do not. be that as it may, it seems to me that according to Mark and Matthew Jesus was arrested for blasphemy. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Slrubenstein I am not criticizing a sentence describing what the Gospels say, in a section on what the Gospels say?, I am criticizing the arrangement of those sentences and I am not saying that this is POV (John 10:33 might be POV), I am saying as written it is unlogical. I agree that we do not have write want we think on what happened and I most likely agree which most of what you said later, but this is not the point. Matthew and Mark, are verses which correspond to events which happen after the arrest. I do not mind that there are there, but I do mind this particular formulation. Please read, he was arrested (in the evening) for possible blasemphy (refereed to an event later). My complain has nothing to do with the Gospels. Any presentation of events in that chronological order I would find un logical. Oub 16:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC):

Well, okay, what do you suggest? Should we say that at the time of the arrest the Gospels do not specify the charges? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Slrubenstein I would find this the "cleanest" solution, we cannot provide verses, which specify any specific charge at that moment, so best would be to leave it out, or if we speculate, we clearly say so. Oub 17:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC):

I would object to any change, based on the discussion. This is not the place to change the Biblical narritive based on one apriori PoV conclusion. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dominick But we don't change anything. I asked you now, at least 3 times, to provide a verse, which supports the view, that Jesus was arrested, because of blasphemy. You failed to provide such a verse. It seems that it is you, how are making a apriori POV assumption. Since he was condemned for Blasmephy (well only by Mark, but this is a another story), he was arrested because of blasmephy. This is a circular reasoning.Oub 17:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC):

Holy cow dude! I provided a verse. You just don't agree it applies. Others agree with the normal interpretation. Like I said, from when the orders were issues to his exclaimation of Blasphemy, they had the same High Priest! Dominick ^(TALK) 17:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dominick which one? Mark 14:62? that refers to events after the arrest. It seems that you have not understood: what I say has nothing to do with the Gospels. If you tell me, the police arrests a guy and later on it happens he is condemned for murder, it does not mean that he has been arrested because the police suspected him to be murder. Do you get that!!!Oub 18:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC):

Your tone is bordering on a personal attack. While in the garden, Jesus was arrested by Roman soldiers on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas (cited later in Matthew 26:65-67), I said before the Matt. quote. Dominick^(TALK) 18:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dominick Well and holy cow is not? The fact that you change my edits without asking, is also quite questionable. Look, it is not that part, it is the part:

for blasphemy, because he claimed to be the Messiah (Mark 14:62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be God (John 10:33).

14:62 occurs after the arrest!!! And John 10:33 is speculation, and should be denoted as such.Oub 18:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I keep telling you that the verse says before and after. I said holy cow because you keep repeating that I did not supply the verse. It is clearer when you see that the crowd was sent in Matt 26:47While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. 48Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him." 49Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him. The leaders sent the crowd, and they would have to have some sort of order to arrest him. That could only come from the High Priest. The High Priest is identified in MATT 26:65-67 Dominick ^(TALK) 18:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dominick Let us try again to settle that out. I try to do this step by step Right now the sentence in question reads:

While in the garden, Jesus was arrested by Roman soldiers on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas (cited later in Matthew 26:65-67), for blasphemy, because he claimed to be the Messiah (Mark 14:62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be God (John 10:33).

my interpretation of that sentence is that Jesus was arrested for blasphemy. Do you agree?

• The only verse I can find, in which the high priest, Sanhedrin mention blasphemy is in the trial. (Mark, Matthew) (in Luke the phrase blasphemy does not appear). But it is not only that this phrase appears there, ney, it is that Jesus committed blasphemy only in the trial. Do you agree?
• if not can you provide me with a verse which would suggest that the High priest/Sanhedrin thought that Jesus has committed blasphemy, before the arrest.

after we have settled that we may continue with the discussion. Oub 15:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC):

Oub: Were you saying that you don't like my suggestion or what? My point of citing the Talmud was to show about the tearing of the garments for blasphemy and use of the witnesses; it doesn't need to be in the article. Caiaphas' statement would imply that the witnesses were there to charge blasphemy: "He has uttered blasphemy [in our hearing]. What further witnesses [to this fact] do we need?" John 10:33 shows a precedent for the charge of blasphemy and the witnesses. So it is very possible that the reason for the arrest was to bring the witnesses forward to charge blasphemy. But since not passage specifically says the reason for the arrest, I put the reason in parentheses and qualified it with "possibly". I'm not sure why that would still be objectionable. » MonkeeSage « 17:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: MonkeeSage There have been quite a interchange of arguments (and again that wikipedia software showed its flaws for such discussion), so I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear. Don't you agree, that you do now OR, or POV? (I don't mind but that is usually not what we have done so far). One problem with the Talmud is: Caiaphas could not have condemned Jesus, since that would have violated the rule of the Witnesses. That is the Judge can't be witness. A confession is, according to the Talmud, not sufficient to condemn the accused. The witnesses mentioned in the trial, are those with respect to the Temple cleansing, and they were false witnesses, mind you. But anyhow back to your sentence

While in the garden, Jesus was arrested by Roman soldiers on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas (possibly on the suspicion of blasphemy). At the trial he was found guilty of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65-67), because he claimed to be the Messiah (Mark 14:62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be equal with God (John 10:33).'

The first part is fine with me, but the last part of the sentence is speculation. I anyhow would have preferred not to enter into speculation, for as I said the majority of literature does not think that this was the primary charge (and we want a featured article)? Oub 18:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC):

Oub: According to Matthew and Mark Caiaphas doesn't condemn Jesus for blasphemy, he just tears his own robes and then asks the council what their verdict is, having heard the blasphemy themselves and thus becoming witnesses, no longer needing any other witnesses (Mat. 26:65-66, Mark 14:63-64). I don't know of any proscription against the judges being the witnesses if the crime is committed in the presence of the court — in fact, if the accused is asked about the testimony of the witnesses and agrees with it, that is the same thing as pleading "guilty" and becoming a witness against themselves. Even so, the Mishna didn't take shape until c. 200, so it would be anachronistic to think that the trial would have had to procede by the exact letter of the Mishna and Gemara. Regarding the initial false witnesses, we are not told what their testimony was about, only the last two: "[they] were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward. . ." (Mat. 26:59-60); "[they] were seeking testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimony did not agree. And some stood up and bore false witness against him. . ." (Mark 14:55-57). So it is possible that the initial witnesses were accusing of blasphemy. It is speculation, but some third-party sources imply it ("The two charges. . .are that Jesus threatened to destroy the Jerusalem Temple and that he committed blasphemy." [New Jerome Bible Commentary, [41.101(52)], p. 627]; "[The] charge of blasphemy is translated into a political charge about kingship. . ." [Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture, p. 48]), so it is verifiable in the Wikipedia sense. »MonkeeSage « 03:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: [[User talk:MonkeeSage|»] We are entering now a very interesting field of discussion about, to which extend the trial followed the rules shaped by the Mishna. You mentioned one of the standard arguments I have heard, well it was written 200 years after so, we can not apply it. Unfortunately it is not that simple. It was a collection of rules which some of them already in use, some of them may be not, which were collected 200 later, but might have been in use earlier. It is complicated to sort that out and may be we can have that discussion a part (may be in the private even) since even if we would settle it out, it would not enter in the section of question, since I thought this article (about Jesus) wants strictly to stick to the Gospels. So very short about the Witnesses, it is not in the Talmud, but in Deut 17,6: At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. More later about the judges, I have to run. Oub 15:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC):

BTW, how is citing John 10:33 speculation? We're speculating about the reason for the arrest, not about what John 10:33 claims, which is repeated almost verbatim in the article. John 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God." » MonkeeSage « 03:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: [[User talk:MonkeeSage|»] Oh, misunderstanding. Citing John is not speculation, but drawing the conclusion, that Jesus was arrested because of blasphemy because of John 10:33 is speculation. My point is, at the arrest nobody, none of the priests or anybody said, "We arrest you because you have done blasphemy". Hence I would prefer a formulation like. Perhaps (or even most likely if you insist) Jesus was arrested because of blasphemy, since the Jews thought he made himself God. We have no verse which supports the view, that the Priest are acting because of John 10:33, don't you think?Oub 15:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC):

Just to note, we shouldn't (like some bible translations) "assume the internal harmony of the Biblical narrative." If Matthew and Mark indicate that Jesus was condemned for blasphemy for things he said at his trial before the Sanhedrin, while John says that before his arrest, people were threatening to arrest him for blasphemy, we cannot automatically combine these two statements into a single story - that would be assuming that one POV (the viewpoint that the gospel narratives do not contradict one another and should be harmonized with one another) is true, in spite of the fact that most scholars would disagree with that particular POV. Our version should either say things that all the gospels agree on, or say "Matthew describes" or "According to Luke," or "According to the Synoptic Gospels," or "John reports," or whatever. john k 22:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Though it is entirely plausible that the people were commonly accusing Jesus of blasphemy and only during the trial did they try to build a legal basis for such an accusation. Jesus had said things prior to the trial that upset some of the Jews, causing many of them to start accusing him of blasphemy anyway, as John shows. Then in Matt/Mark, there was an attempt to make it a legal accusation. I don't see how the accounts are in disharmony. By the way, the correct translation of John 10:33 is not "God", but "a god", keep reading where Jesus references their statement with Psalms 82:6 that refers to human judges (in a superior position, hence "gods") and Jesus corrects them saying he is the "Son of God". In John 10:18, it is correctly translated as "making himself equal to God", but this was the Jews' misinformed opinion, which Jesus refuted by saying in 10:19 that he can't do anything by himself. --Oscillate 22:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article as a debate tool

I don't care if this is a featured article it must be accurate. Stop dangling that please. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dominick At least we agree in something. But referring to an event in the future, is not my idea of correctness.Oub 18:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC):

I've been waiting for the dust to settle before I comment. However, I and others are definitely working towards making this a featured article eventually. That's why I nominated it for the Article Improvement Drive, why others voted for it and why there is a to do list near the top of this page. A few sections ago, Aiden suggested that we nominate the article for FAC, but he agreed with me when I said we should wait to see how the AID drive goes. Dominick and some other editors may not care if this ever becomes a Featured Article, but many of the rest of us do. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If this is an inaccurate article, based on a PoV interpretation, it doesn't belong as a featured article. To say I am sabotaging that is rather rude. To say that we misidentified the High Priest, and that costs this article "featured article" status is not a defensable position. That is Oub's position he keep restateing. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominck: Who said anything about sabotage? Right now it seems to be mostly a disagreement between you and Oub. As I said, I would have preferred to stay out of it until you all had worked out an agreement, POV or no POV, but I felt I had to respond when the FA drive was brought up. Personally, I've been working towards FA status since January, and I'm sure many others have the same goal. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

After a cup of Tea, I find I owe you an apology. Pardon me. I don't like it to be a debate tool. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You're pardoned ;) I did participate in the debate earlier by bringing up John 8:58, but when I found myself in the minority, I decided to let other people work it out. Romans 1:7 Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a general comment in response to all the discussion. It is the nature of the gospels that they sometimes duplicate, sometimes provide alternate accounts, and are sometimes incomplete. This observation is not meant to forward any theological or historical argument, it is just an observation. But from it I conclude this: the section on the "Gospel accounts" should be minimalist and precise, and resist synthetic claims and inferences as much as possible. The result is of course an account that raises lots of questions. I think those questions should be answered in linked articles. Historicity of Jesus, Cultural and historical background of Jesus, and Christology are the obvious ones. For some, Jesus simply could not hav ebeen charged with blasphemy, which means that the entire last weeks of his life are reinterpreted. For others, he must have committed blasphemy, which then becomes the basis fo a whole theology. Even here I am simplifying. So perhaps we need more, more linked articles I mean. The kinds of synthetic claims and inferences occasioned by the fragmented nature of the Gospels are I think very interesting and we should have as many linked articles as necessary to do justice to them. But in this article, the "according to the Gospel" account, should be as minimalist as possible and if that means admitting to contradictions (or apparent contradictions0 and gaps 9or apparent gaps) let us just say so, and provide a link to the other article that explores one solution to these apparent contradictions or gaps. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree. As long as we keep the Gospel accounts, historical views and religious views in separate sections, this is the only way to go. The particular issue under discussion is the proper subject for a recently created article, Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus.Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)