Talk:Doubting Thomas

Interpretation?

I'm puzzled by the article's statement that

[The Doubting Thomas story/image] was used to emphasize the importance of physical experiences, extended by theologians to pilgrimages, veneration of relics and ritual, in reinforcing Christian beliefs.

It seems to me, in light of Jesus' words to Thomas, that the lesson is supposed to be the opposite i.e. that one should believe without physical experience. Can someone clarify? EEng (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That was Catholic theologians' interpretation - note that Jesus agrees to let Thomas examine him. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

A very quick and workmanlike response to my request. Thanks! I made some further copyedits -- please check that I haven't introduced any inadvertent heresy. Also, there's a bit at the end of the Art section which overlaps the earlier text on Pr. vs Cath. interpretation -- can those be better integrated? EEng (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC) P.S. We now have two articles in common (User talk:Johnbod#EEng), so I guess I really am stalking you now.

Well one certainly gets one's money's worth with you, I must say. [1] EEng (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Money, there's money?!  :) Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Not anymore [2]. Your reward shall be in heaven. EEng (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

Great DYK for Easter.

I would like the positions of the Duccio and the Lutheran pic reversed, both for visual reasons and because the Lutheran pic would fit the text. Amandajm (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pleasantly surprised by this DYK. Why exactly do most paintings position Thomas to Jesus' left? I saw a comment to this effect in the article, but to my knowledge it wasn't elaborated. Again, nice work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.1.228 (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The wound was normally traditionally shown in Jesus's right side, so Thomas stand on that side to examine it, although from the late Middle Ages some started to show in on his left side, below his heart. Gurewich covers this issue. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Tense?

Which is proper:

Jesus offers to allow Thomas to etc etc

or

Jesus offered to allow Thomas to etc etc

The closest-to-relevant guideline I can find is at WP:INUNIVERSE:

The same exemptions might apply to other special forms of literature where the fiction/non-fiction categorization is disputed, such as the possibly historical elements of religious scripture.

First, I'm having trouble understanding what the last part of INUNIVERSE means in the first place (see this). But that aside... OK, great. Let disputation on the possible historicity of this or that passage from this or that religious text begin! I just couldn't face posting this issue at MOS -- too much drama. EEng (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The section is headed "Gospel account; I can't see an issue here. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The question is: should Bible narratives be discussed in the present tense (like fiction) or the past tense (like history)? EEng (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Always past I would say, in direct narrative. Describing paintings etc can be different. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of the KJV / Authorised Version for the Bible passage

Johnbod: First off, nice work on the article. I also have been in the position of doing some work on an article and having my own internal system and being annoyed when someone else drops by to change the naming.... but I'm doing it anyway, sorry. I see that you reverted me (I was the IP) almost immediately after this change, which I missed. First off, if we're using the KJV, we should name it as such. WP:ENGVAR is pretty clear about this, actually - "King James Version" is clear and everyone everywhere knows what it means, and is inherently more specific anyway ("authorized by whom?"). The "Authorised" in front probably isn't even needed. I'm willing to believe you that "Authorised Version" might also be clear to British readers, but it certainly is not clear to Americans, who never hear it called any such thing. So why not use the version everyone can understand? That's what WP:ENGVAR says...

...however, the above point is moot if a more modern translation is used, anyway. Would you object to replacing the text with the NIV or NRSV? Is there some reason to use the KJV here over versions modern scholars think are more accurate? SnowFire (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it is NOT what ENGVAR says! And yes I would object. Unless you can point to any particular "inaccuracy" in the version used. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? I'm referring to "Opportunities for commonality." Do you dispute that British readers will be confused if they read "King James Version"? (Because I think we can both agree that "Authorised Version" is not in common use in the States. I don't know about other English-speaking countries.)

As for choice of version at all, I'm sure you're familiar with the arguments for & against various translations. I'd have used a different translation, but I'm sure every editor has their favorite, since you wrote most of the article, it's fine if you prefer KJV. SnowFire (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

OK now, let's remember to adhere to the spirit of WP:ECUMENICAL, and ask ourselves WWJD? (what would Jimbo do?). I want to point out that, while later versions may be more true to sources, it might be that the narrative found in of some earlier version (such as KJ) is a better point of reference for the origin and meaning of the phrase DT, and the episode's depiction in art and so on. EEng (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, EEng, I said I'm not really contesting the choice of translation. I am contesting calling it only "Authorised Version" with no further explanation, a phrase that many readers will be confused by, when there's an alternative that far more will understand. SnowFire (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeing no reply from Johnbod to my last comment but lots of edits... I've restored my phrasing. I'm happy to discuss, but you have to do better than "that is not what ENGVAR says." ENGVAR in fact notes very prominently under "Opportunities for commonality" that a universal term, or both terms, is preferred to just one term that may not be understood, even when there are strong national ties to a topic, which there aren't here. I don't think I'm asking a lot - the article title is at Authorized King James Version (and was at just King James Version for a long time), and I'm not changing your wording anywhere else; this is a straightforward change for general understanding of what is being talked about on the first introduction. SnowFire (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

But this is NOT a universal term! But I really can't be boithered arguing with people like you. What's to discuss? We disagree and you insist on having things your way. Do you ever write any actual articles? Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I write articles, if you bother to check my edit history, which is why I am explaining myself and discussing rather than simply edit warring, so why you're annoyed at the fact I'm discussing is beyond me. Why do you say it's not a universal term? It combines both versions of the term. Would you prefer "Authorised Version (King James Version)" which separates them? That would also be fine by me.

To quote again from WP:ENGVAR: "Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia." The KJV article itself says "In the United States, the "1611 translation" (actually the standard text of 1769, see below) is generally known as the King James Version or King James Bible today." And that if you really think the "Authorised King James Version" is bad, then "Terms that are uncommon in some varieties of English, or that have divergent meanings, may be glossed to prevent confusion, for example, the trunk (boot) of the car was ..." This is really straightforward. KJV is how it's known in the United States, it should be mentioned so that it reads clearly. SnowFire (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas (Salviati)

To be linked. Xx236 (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Like hell

I have yet to see one shred of proof that Thomas ever existed. I bet he wasn't real at all. I totally don't believe that anybody like that could ever have existed at all. That is completely absurd. Show me your proof that Thomas existed. You Can't. Know why? Because he totally wasn't a real person!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:C00:3550:42AA:BED1:64AA (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

"Peace be unto you," a Thomas said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7D2D:6000:B1C4:7CAF:C5B2:F8C7 (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Why did Thomas doubt?

I would have to ask my pastor where she got this, but I never heard this interpretation before today. The disciples believed, and yet they remained in hiding. To Thomas, that was proof that their faith wasn't strong enough, so he did not take their words as proof that Jesus had risen.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)