Talk:Sayings of Jesus on the cross/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Rename

I presume this article is about the words Jesus Christ is recorded to have spoken on the cross before he died? How about: Last words of Jesus before his death? — Matt 01:33, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From a cryptographer (very nice edits, BTW) that doesnt seem like a very elegant solution. Think compact, easy to write. No need for caps here.-Stevertigo 02:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
PS. Also, (It just occured to me) generally when we say someone's "last words," we don't mean their "last words before they went out to lunch." SV
Yes, usually people say "last words" meaning "last words before they die", because death usually stops people from speaking; but the Christian point of view (and Wikipedia documents all relevant points of view) has it that these weren't the last words of Christ, despite his death (see also: Resurrection). So, to be NPOV with this title, this article would have to include (at least) the post-resurrection sayings recorded in the Gospels and the sayings in the book of Revelation...however, I don't think that's the point of this article; hence the need to rename. — Matt 03:33, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A very interesting and valid point. However people rarely ressurect themselves, and even in Jesus' case, many scholarly Christians would say that Jesus' "resurrection" was "not of the flesh" rather was a spiritual "resurrection;" hence, "Jesus lives" not because his flesh was preserved, but because he became more than flesh (as we all hope to become). Not to diminish any symbolism, but to be NPOV about it, we should consider that aspect also. Continued below: -Stevertigo
Indeed, we should consider all relevant aspects to be NPOV. However, there clearly exists an opinion that the words in this article were not the "Last words of Jesus" (e.g. the Bible narrates further words attributed to Jesus after his death) — hence the name is POV as it stands. Do you disagree that we need a more neutral name? — Matt 14:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Multiple Choice

I haven't been able to find an authoritative name for this collection of phrases -- everyone seems to give them a different title. In this small Google survey, half do not mention the word "last", but almost all mention " on/of/from the cross" -- this should be enough to define which quotes of Jesus the article is about. GUllman 16:59, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Jesus' last words
  • Jesus' final words on the cross (*MC)
  • Seven last sayings of Christ
  • Seven last sayings of the cross
  • Last sayings of Jesus on the cross
  • Seven last words of Christ on the cross
  • Seven words (of Christ) from the cross
  • Sayings of Christ on the cross
  • Seven statements on the cross
  • Seven things Jesus said on the cross
  • The Crucifixion and death of Jesus
Thanks for looking these up. If there's indeed no definitive name, then I'd suggest preferring "sayings" over "words" ("saying" is more precise, as there are many words in each); including "seven"; including "on the cross" — to be specific and avoid POV — hence something like Seven last sayings of Christ on the cross, or if brevity is desired, Sayings of Christ on the cross. — Matt 17:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Multiple Choice? :) Words of Jesus on the cross, or Sayings of Jesus on the cross, or maybe Statements attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, as reportedly spoken during the events of his execution by crucifiction seems to me to be OK. ;) (Note, we use Jesus, rather than Christ, because Christ is a title of divinity, given to him. I doubt the man went around and claimed that his last name was "M'shikah" aka messiah, but I digress...) Words of Jesus on the cross seems to be the simplest, while being encyclopedic and decriptive. -Stevertigo 17:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
OK, Words of Jesus on the cross is fine by me. — Matt 17:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, they're usually called the Seven Last Words of Jesus: this article seems to pick and choose amongst them:

  1. Luke 23:33-34 -- "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
  2. Luke 23:39-43 -- "Today thou shalt be with me in paradise."
  3. John 19:25-27 -- "Woman, behold your son. Behold your mother."
  4. Mark 15: 33-34 -- "Elo-i, elo-i, lama sabach-thani?"
  5. John 19:28 -- "I thirst."
  6. John 19:29-30 -- "It is finished."
  7. Luke 23:46 -- "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit!"

I think that's the traditional order; the Seven Last Words of Jesus have served as the text of various musical settings, notably Haydn's masterpiece. - Nunh-huh 01:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the move. I think some consensus should have been made first. I appreciate the Selection, but adding items without material is kind of beside the point. Besides, there seems to be just enough matter to justify an article on the basis of the "aEli aEli" quote... Rfy, Stevertigo 02:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I didn't realise there was a great risk of disagreement (be bold, etc). The "Seven Last Words of Jesus" seems to be a proper name referring to these sayings (hence the capitalisation); the current name is descriptive instead, and has the problem that the Bible narrates later words, so the accuracy of the title depends on your POV. — Matt 02:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well it would be if this was a Church outfit, but its not. And since NU made the article a kind of encyclopedic catch-all for a number of their various statements and sayings, it should remain encyclopedic. If someone wants to write an article on The Last Words of Jesus about the opera, or the official treatment of these quotes, then thats fine. Stevertigo 03:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, the article seemed to be about utterances of Christ on the cross recorded in the Bible; it seems (and it's the first time I've heard it) that these are normally referred to by the name, "The Seven Last Words of Jesus". If that is the topic of the article, then we should use the common name (by Wikipedia policy), regardless of whether this is a "Church outfit" or not. It would seem pointless to have an article about the "last words of Jesus"; there's no famous debate on that topic (as far as I'm aware). — Matt 03:10, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[1] If by NU you mean me, I haven't touched the article. [2] if not, what an NU? [3] it's not an opera. [4] the enumeration of the seven last words is not particular to any specific "Church". - Nunh-huh 03:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I added additional phrases to the original "Eloi Eloi" because these seven have a cultural significance as a set. (I just didn't have time to look them all up during my first edit.) To add the phrases Jesus spoke after the Resurrection, although it might be logical/grammatical/NPOV, it would not reflect the use. I vote for the succinct title Last words of Jesus, and find out if there is an authoritative title, and what order they should be in. GUllman 19:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Im glad to see some consensus. Perhaps, (as I said above) it would be better to deal with each of these as a separate article. This article could be named as it is, with a short introduction to the formal (capitals) reference (with a link and that new article if necessary) and links to each separate statement. Those references in turn should also be simple and efficient, i.e But to bring a sword, etc. -Stevertigo 01:27, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Major restructuring

I've rewritten the article to fit in with the structure of the 'seven words', as that is what it was covering. I rewrote the section on Eli Eli lema sabachthani as it was based on the dubious work of George Lamsa (minority POV should not stand alone) and a feature film. I've left the external links untouched, but I don't really think they do this article justice. I hope I haven't offended anyone. Please feel free to question my work, I can back up what I say as reasonable and balanced.

Gareth Hughes 21:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't like what you did with the parts about Lamsa. The translation he proposed isn't even included on this page or the page where the reader is referred for more details. The article with his name seems to favor those who believe in the Bible as an infallible document and honestly appears quite cruel and one-sided. I think that a lot of what used to be here should be restored into the appropriate articles -- and at least Lamsa's bare-bones proposed translation should be put back on this page. Does anybody disagree? Cookiecaper 08:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I found this article to be incomplete and full of mistakes (including a wrong Bible reference). Most of the words were not even commented on, and Eli, Eli was, I feel, heavily biased. Lamsa's views are included in the article, but are clearly indicated as a minority viewpoint. I admit that the comment about his methodology is terse, and could be expanded or deleted. None of the articles about this (George Lamsa and Lamsa Bible) give any reasoned support to his translation. Perhaps those articles should be filled out with more information. However, I think it is wholly reasonable for this article to discuss the accepted majority view before looking at minority views, and to give reasoning behind each of them. If anyone would like to edit the article with evidence supporting Lamsa's understanding of Syriac, it's a free Wikipedia. However, I think it would be inappropriate for the article to be as one-sided in support of a minority position as it was before. At present, the article presents the seven words clearly and in order, with concise and accurate commentary on each. I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer it as it was before. Gareth Hughes 11:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't prefer it the way it was before. I think you did a lot of good for it. I just think that the part that talks about Lamsa's research shouldn't be so "terse", as you put it, and should have more than one sentence dedicated to it in this article. I'll edit, and you can tell me what you think. :) Cookiecaper 04:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit. Do you have a book by Errico or Lamsa to draw on? I ask only because I'm not entirely sure what they are saying. Most people reading this article won't be able to read Aramaic, and would be unable to judge the veracity of their claim.

I think a good piece of supporting evidence would be the Peshitta text of Mt 27:46 & Mk 15:34 which reads 'Îl Îl lmânâ švaqtân(y)'. This version is not attested in any other ms, and differs by conflating the spoken word with the translation (assuming that things happened that way round).

There is little real difference between the interrogative 'lmâ' and 'lmânâ', 'for this' is 'lhânâ'. Apart from the translation of the verb 'švaq' (its basic meaning is 'to leave, go away'), the rest of that word suggests a 2nd person singular subject, and 1st person singular object (you ... me). So, the 'translation' offered by Lamsa/Errico makes no sense.

If you can find a copy of what either of them did say, I would love to hear it, because this just puzzles me. All that 'E-lee'-stuff just looks a bit amateur. The Greek text (attested nowhere) and 'later Aramaic' (what?) just seem like the kind of vagueries that pull the wool over people's eyes. I'm sure that Lamsa/Errico must have said something a bit more solid than this.

Gareth Hughes 13:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Komboucha

The latest edit added these words to the section on I thirst:

The "sour wine" or "vinegar" was likely a variant of the fermented tea komboucha, based in a cultured mushroom, and known among herbalists for its healing properties.

The article on komboucha does not support the idea of this being available in first-century Levant, and this seems like high fantasy. If there was a referrence to support this claim, it would be alright to include it. I'll comment it out until it can be properly supported. Gareth Hughes 15:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christian myth

Someone requested I explain my edits here. This is an event/quote from the major christian myth, the cruxifiction, which is itself part of the central christian myth (you cannot be christian and not follow the myth of jesus christ), ergo it is a christian myth. 134.161.138.166 23:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think these words are an important part of Christian mythos. Unfortunately, many people feel that myth is a loaded word, and that it is about destroying faith rather than seeking to understand it. Then there are structural issues about how we use catagories in Wikipedia. The other two catagories are Category:Jesus and Category:Gospel episodes. I think both of these are non-controversial. The question is whether another catagory is needed, and whether the subject of this article fits with other articles in Category:Christian mythology. This category has quite an eclectic mix of articles that mostly tend more towards superstition than religion (some would ask what's the difference!). Looking at it, I think that there's, perhaps, more of a call to rename the category. It already has an awkward rider about its name. Finally, I think you've had enough time to read and understand the 3 revert rule, and so I'm expecting you to desist from reverting the article for 24 hours from your last revert. Endlessly reverting back and forth between versions of an article is pretty pointless, and wastes time and resources. For this reason, users who revert the same article more than three times in a day can have their ability to edit suspended for a day. If your questions regarding Christian mythology cover a number of articles, it might be more appropriate to hold a debate at category talk:Christian mythology. --Gareth Hughes 00:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Even if this subject were "mythology", which is pretty obviously a POV that is not widely shared - it would be a superfluous cat, because "Gospel Episodes" is already included in the subcat tree. This was all discussed at length (3 pages worth) on Category talk:Christian mythology and the clear overwhelming consensus there is to use the subcat system and not push the POV that the Bible is mythology... Codex Sinaiticus 00:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move to "Sayings" of Jesus in the cross

Considering three facts, I feel that it makes sense to move this article to "Sayings of Jesus on the Cross":

  1. The word Sayings is more accurate in describing the phrases of Jesus while on the cross, as each of these things is a phrase, which is more accurately described as a Saying, than as a word.
  2. Doing a Google search on the two possible titles for this page, yields the following results: "Sayings of Jesus on the cross" = 399 hits. "Words of Jesus on the cross" = 706 hits. To me these results seem to indicate that both titles are used with almost the same frequency, and a decision to use the more accurate description should not create any significant difficulty for those who would study this.
  3. A redirect can be left under the title "Words of Jesus on the cross" to further assist those who might study this.

Please feel free to comment...

-Scott P. 18:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

As no comments made, proceeded with move.
-Scott P. 00:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Texts that omit the saying: "forgive them, for they know not what they do"

Dear Monkeysage,
I tried to follow some of the links you provided on why it is noted in the article that some manuscripts omit this saying. The only early manuscript that I was able to find that actually omitted this saying was the Codex Vaticanus, which is known to be a later, copied and corrected codex than the Codex Sinaiticus. The earlier Codex Sinaiticus does include this passage. Do you know of any other actual fourth century or earlier codices that omit this? It seems to me that unless there are other fourth century manuscripts that omit it, that it may not be a fair representation that 'manuscripts are evenly divided' on this, as much greater value is generally placed on earlier manuscripts than on later ones. Comments? Please check out the Majority Text Society's support of the authenticity of this passage at: The Majority Text Society's position on 'Father forgive them'.

-Scott P. 16:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi Scott. I gave the list in the footnote.
Exclude: P75 1א [first corrector of Sinaiticus] B [Vaticanus] D* [original hand of D] W Θ 070 579 1241 pc sys sa
Include: 2,*א [second corrector and original hand] (A) C D2 [second corrector of D] L Ψ 0250 f1,(13) 33 M [Majority text-type] lat syc,p,h
This list is partially given in the article you link:
"p75, a corrector of Aleph, B, D, W, Theta and 070"
"the original hand of the Uncials Aleph, C, L, and Psi, 0250"
The article also states:
"Both traditions have early support into the second and third centuries A.D., and of course the Majority Text would have far superior numerical support. The two major uncials of the Alexandrian texts a and B are split in their testimony. The Western tradition is split (D and Latin), while the Majority/Byzantine text is united."
Also, by "fairly evenly divided" is not meant in terms of number of manuscripts, but in terms of the weight given to the manuscripts by textual-critical scholars.
The NET Bible footnote from which the list was taken, states:
"It also fits a major Lukan theme of forgiving the enemies (6:27-36), and it has a parallel in Stephen’s response in Acts 7:60. The lack of parallels in the other Gospels argues also for inclusion here. On the other hand, the fact of the parallel in Acts 7:60 may well have prompted early scribes to insert the saying in Luke’s Gospel alone. Further, there is the great difficulty of explaining why early and diverse witnesses lack the saying. A decision is difficult, but even those who regard the verse as inauthentic literarily often consider it to be authentic historically. For this reason it has been placed in single brackets in the translation."[2]
So I think it is a generous representation of the scholarly consensus to say that the manuscripts are "fairly evenly divided," since most modern translations put the expression in brackets and many textual-critical scholars consider P75, because of its early date (c. 200), to trump all other manuscripts apart from very good internal evidence (the article you link notes that "under most circumstances a p75 alignment with B in the gospels is considered extremely strong evidence in Alexandrian priority theory and practice"). In other words, I think it is more than fair to the Majority text advocates to say "even," in that it acknowledges their view that the Majority text should have equal weight with the earlier Alexandrian texts, which is not the view of most modern textual-critical scholars (e.g., Nestle, Metzger, Wallace). --MonkeeSage 18:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Dear Monkeysage,
I apologize, but I can not find any Biblical scholars who would summarize the validity of Luke 23:34 using the words: "evenly divided". I have done several Google searches on the verse, contrasting it with the words "omit", and with the phrase "evenly divided". Nowhere could I find any Bible scholar who used the phrase "evenly divided" to describe the status of the verse, other than articles which were copies of the Wikipedia article. Doing a Google search contrasting the word "omit" with the verse, a clear majority of the relevant hits stated that the validity of the verse as original or accurate was "most probable". Could you please clarify for me which source you were quoting from when you used the term: "evenly divided" to describe the status of this verse?
It seems to me that the types of references and citations that work best in Wikipedia are references to sources for direct quotes that directly and unequivocably document the assertions made in an article, rather than references which may require the reader to have to step through some sort of a lengthy deductive reasoning process that may (or may not) be compatible with the most commonly held theories about the matter.
Thanks,
-Scott P. 13:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Scott: The phrase was already in the article, it is not mine, I only added the manuscript evidence footnote and did a minor copyedit to the sentence containing the phrase. But I do think that the phrase is factually verifiable.
Regarding the issue of whether the variant is generally regarded as "most probable" (which is a different issue than whether the manuscripts evidence is evenly divided), the UBS3/4 and NA26/27 texts place the reading in brackets, as do some modern translations (NET, NRSV), while others note that "some early manuscripts do not have this sentence" (NIV, ESV), and the NKJV points out that NA27 puts the sentence in brackets denoting that it is a later addition. The UBS gives it a rating of "C":
"C means that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus [a footnote where variant readings are listed] contains the superior reading. . .[C] indicates that the committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text" (K. D. Clarke and K. Bales, "The Construction of Biblical Certainty: Textual Optimism and the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament," in D. G. K. Taylor ed., Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts, Texts and Studies, 3rd Series, 1 [Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press, 1999], pp. 91, 92).
This matches the NET translator's note (Wallace, et. al.) cited above: "[a] decision is difficult." And Bruce Metzger, commenting on the UBS decision to put the text in brackets, says:
"The absence of these words from. . .early and diverse. . .witnesses is most impressive and can scarcely be explained as a deliberate excision by copyists who, considering the fall of Jerusalem to be proof that God had not forgiven the Jews, could not allow it to appear that the prayer of Jesus had remained unanswered. At the same time, the logion [saying], though probably not a part of the original Gospel of Luke, bears self-evident tokens of its dominical origin, and was retained, within double square brackets, in its traditional place where it had been incorporated by unknown copyists relatively early in the transmission of the Third Gospel." (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition [New York: United Bible Societies, 1994], p. 154).
Frederick W. Danker, an editor of the standard lexicon, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, wrote:
"The prayer in vs. 34 is in such harmony with the spirit of Luke's gospel and his picture of Jesus that it is difficult to question its authenticity. Yet is even more difficult to account for its omission in a number of manuscripts. It has indeed been argued that the prayer was omitted because of a conviction that the destruction of Jerusalem was God's judgment for the crucifixion, but a similar omission does not appear at Acts 2:38-39, where forgiveness is proclaimed to Israel. It is more probable that the prayer uttered by Stephen (Acts 7:60) suggested a parallel utterance for the passion account. Also, in its present position it interrupts Luke's sketch of the mockery and destroys the dramatic impact of the word addressed to the repentant outlaw (vs. 43)." (Jesus and the New Age according to St. Luke: A Commentary on the Third Gospel, [St. Louis: Clayton Publishing, 1972], p. 237).
So I think that saying the manuscript evidence is fairly evenly divided is factually correct, and that the implications regarding the modern scholarly consensus are accurate, and that it is very fair to the minority viewpoint (which holds the Majority textform above or in equal regard with the Alexandrian textform). » MonkeeSage « 15:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


A published analysis of what portion of the manuscripts incorporate Luke 23:34

Dear Monkey Sage,

Undoubtedly there is indeed some question as to the dominicality of the verse, but still, all published evaluations of the actual early manuscript presence of the verse, that I have come across directly state summaries of the early manuscript presence of the verse such as:

(e) Christ's Prayer for His Murderers
Luke 23:34a "Then said Jesus, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."
This disputed reading is found in the vast majority of the New Testament manuscripts, including Aleph, A, C, L, N. and also in certain manuscripts of the Old Latin version, in the Curetonian Syriac manuscript and in the Peshitta, Harclean, and Philoxenian versions. It is also cited or referred to by many of the Church Fathers, including the following: in the 2nd century, Tatian (60) Irenaeus; (61) in the 3rd century, Origen; in the 4th century, Basil, Eusebius, and others. The reading is omitted, on the other hand, by the following witnesses: Papyrus 75, B. D, W. Theta, 38, 435, certain manuscripts of the Old Latin version, the Sinaitic manuscript of the Old Syriac version, and the Coptic versions (with the exception of certain manuscripts). Cyril of Alexandria is also listed as omitting the reading, but, as Hort admitted, this is only an inference. fbinstitute.com textual analysis

I feel that a better summary of the known existent questions about this verse might read something like:

Some noteworthy Biblical scholars have expressed their beliefs that this verse may not have existed in the earliest (now lost) manuscripts.

Thanks, Scott

PS: My apologies for my mistaken assumption that you were the original author of this sentence about the evenly divided presence of this verse in early manuscripts.

-Scott P. 18:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Scott: I included the ms. information in the footnote, with a link to the source. What did I miss that Hills lists? AFAICT, the list I gave is more complete, not less. Regarding your proposal, I'm not sure what you mean — the mss. which lack the expression are still extant, they are not lost (for example, P75). It is a fact that many manuscripts exclude the passage. And it is also a fact that most textual-critical scholars of the NT believe that the expression is not original, though they believe it is very old and consistent with the theology of the NT. I think that the current form of the article is accurate on several levels: there are quite a few mss. and patristics which exclude the expression; several which exclude it are considered by the majority of textual-critical scholars to be the most ancient and weighty; calling the manuscript evidence "evenly divided" actually elevates the position of the minority position (scholarly Majority text advocates like Hills and Burgeon) by allowing that the Byzantine-type mss. are equally weighty. In all honesty, I see no reason to change article as it stands. » MonkeeSage « 19:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Dear Monkee Sage: I apologize if I have not yet made myself clear. The difference as I see it is that Hill's research speaks directly to the question at hand, namely the question of the ratio of the presence of the verse in the earliest manuscripts. From what I could read of the citations you have listed, none of them directly address the question at hand, namely the question of the ratio of the presence of the verse in the earliest manuscripts. From what I could read, all of the citations you have listed were summaries of the various positions of various Biblical scholars on their personal opinions of the dominicality of the verse, and not specifically their findings on the ratio of omissions in early manuscripts. If you might be able to provide a single published reference that directly refutes the Hill article and states clearly that the verse is omitted from roughly half or more of the early manuscripts, then I might be able to begin to justify the presence of this statement in the article. Until then, unless we can establish a published source that speaks specifically on this question and clearly refutes the published Hill article, it seems to me that we ought not to publish a conclusion that is contrary to known published sources on this specific question.
Also, if you could find a published and widely accepted source that states that most textual-critical scholars of the NT believe that the expression is not original, then that would be fine with me to include in the article too. But until more direct documentation can be found, I still feel that neither of these statements would be suitable for the article.
Regarding my reasoning for my proposed reference to the earliest (now lost) manuscripts... It seems to me that these very earliest (now lost) manuscripts are what this entire question revolves around, no? Do we not all operate under the twin assumptions that the very earliest manuscripts of the Gospels are now lost, and also that the texts of these very earliest manuscripts are what we are trying to reconstruct?
Thanks,
-Scott P. 20:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Scott: Again, the NET Bible translator's note[3]:
Many important mss (P75 1א B D* W Θ 070 579 1241 pc sys sa) lack v. 34a. It is included in א*,2 (A) C D2 L Ψ 0250 f1,(13) 33 M lat syc,p,h. It also fits a major Lukan theme of forgiving the enemies (6:27-36), and it has a parallel in Stephen’s response in Acts 7:60. The lack of parallels in the other Gospels argues also for inclusion here. On the other hand, the fact of the parallel in Acts 7:60 may well have prompted early scribes to insert the saying in Luke’s Gospel alone. Further, there is the great difficulty of explaining why early and diverse witnesses lack the saying. A decision is difficult, but even those who regard the verse as inauthentic literarily often consider it to be authentic historically. For this reason it has been placed in single brackets in the translation.
This is the same mss. list as appears in the apparatus of both the UBS4 and the NA27. This is the list in the article footnote right now (with a link to the NET Bible note) and which I mentioned in my first post to you above (did you miss it?).
Regarding the statement "most textual-critical scholars of the NT believe that the expression is not original" — I don't have to show a source that states that, if I can show that it is an accurate description. There are two ways of showing that: to survey all scholars and count noses, or to look at a representative sample from the highly regarded scholars who, by the fact that their works are standard references, show that they represent the most widely accepted view. I took the later tact above: Bruce Metzger represents both the committee of Greek NT scholars who have worked on the UBS edition GNT, and the scholars who have worked on the NRSV, both of which decided that the expression was not likely original and put it in brackets, with the UBS committee giving it a "C" rating (as explined above). The NET Bible (Daniel B. Wallace, senior NT editor) likewise brackets it. Kurt and Barbara Aland represent the committee of Greek NT scholars who have worked on the NA edition GNT, which also uses brackets to denote a later addition. But this is somewhat of a moot point, because I don't really want the sentence included in the article, because I don't want to end up with a big discussion about textual criticism and text-types and so on in the article, when all the reader really needs to know is that the ms. evidence can be interpreted either way, and what the ms. evidence is, and then they can make up their own mind or research the matter more fully if they want to. » MonkeeSage « 21:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How about if we report directly what is published?

Dear Monkee Sage,
What if we simply revised the sentence to read what is probably most closely representative of most In-Bible-Biblical-Commentaries, namely:

Many early manuscripts omit this saying.

rather than having to debate all of this?

-Scott P. 01:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me. :) Thanks for taking the time to work this out. » MonkeeSage « 04:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you too for working together with me on this one. I very much enjoyed working with you on this point. Your suggestions and observations here have significantly enhanced this article on this point of information. Small though the point may seem to be, I feel it is a very important piece of information as it does seem to me to summarize much about Jesus' teachings, and the more accurate the article is on this point, the better.
-Scott P. 12:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


Scott: Would you have any objections to:


Several important, early manuscripts omit this saying; most others, some of equal antiquity, include it.[1]

[. . .]

  1. ^ Omit: P75 1א B D* W Θ 070 579 1241 pc sys sa. Include: א*,2 (A) C D2 L Ψ 0250 f1,(13) 33 M lat syc,p,h [1]

This is still just reporting what the published materials say, but it also gives those who are interested access to the mss. evidence. » MonkeeSage « 16:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the POV template?

Dear Clinkophonist,
Could you please explain why the POV template?

Thanks, -Scott P. 17:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

As there seemed to be no objections or desire to discuss the reasoning for the POV template, I am now removing it from the article page.
-Scott P. 18:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Query on "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Is there no tradition of discussion of this saying that it might mean what it appears to on a plain reading -- that Jesus, in his suffering, has a moment of doubt and feels that he has been forsaken by God? I realize that this is at variance with probably most traditional Christian theology and Christology, and thus the elaborate interpretations of what it means in terms of echoes of Psalms, but to a bystander not pre-convinced about the divinity of Jesus, the meaning of this sentence coming out of a man being tortured to death would seem rather obvious. --Jfruh (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm no theologian and I can't speak definitively about this "moment of doubt" angle, which is an idea that has always troubled me a bit. An even more plain and simple reading would be that Jesus is simply asking a question, "Why have you you forsaken me?" Why indeed? What was God's purpose in this sacrifice? Why was it done? "Has it been done in vain?", he must have wondered as the soldiers gambled for his robes. Perhaps Jesus is simply wondering about the objective. Perhaps His question wasn't a lament at all; perhaps it was simply a query. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.59.9.52 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
Nope. Gospel notes that he Shouted this, and the fact that he is quoted in his native Aramaic language, and not to mention he was dying, nailed to a cross! I highly doubt anyone would be simply asking, "Hey Dad, what's up with no-show?" Cuvtixo (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


It is often described as revealing Jesus' human aspect, and it is very much part of traditional Christian theology. Jesus is defined to be one person with a fully human and a fully divine nature, a doctrine known as the Hypostatic union. Yes, of course "bystanders" did not become Christians, and the Bible documents loss of faith of the remaining 11 apostles after the crucifixion. This is also part of the reason why many Christians insist faith in the resurrection is primary to Christianity, and even a strict adherence to Jesus' teachings and philosophy without faith in the resurrection does not constitute a Christian life. Cuvtixo (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Cuvtixo, you seem knowledgable and keen. I too am keen to understand, so let us continue the above discussion regarding the 'moment of doubt.' How do we actually know what Jesus meant? How do we know the translation is not mistaken? Most importantly, what does the Vatican say about the meaning of His statement?--198.53.181.86 (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bible Verse Finder Jeol Nothman at php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/

Each of the sayings is presently linked to Joel Nothman's "Bible verse finder" on his student account at the University of Sydney. While it is a great tool for finding various translations, it is disconcerting to have these links to a temporary student account. It might also be more appropriate to give a single link instead of linking individual verses- especially without full disclosure of the site source beforehand. Is there some alternative that could be used? Cuvtixo (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This page uses a standard template. I suggest you raise your concerns at Template talk:Bibleverse. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references

I wonder what sense it makes to have a a saying similar to the last words in a song by Ozzy Osborne, etc. Not that I have ever listened to that person, but the applicability of that type of reference seems to be very weak to me. I suggest a vote that the section should be deleted. Please add votes/comments about the section to see if it should stay or go.

  • delete section. History2007 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep; many articles have similar sections. Wikipedia is not a devotional reference work, and it is encyclopedic to refer to cultural usage whether or not it is to everyone's taste. However, usage should only be referenced if it is somewhat notable. This section does have some weak references, and could probably be improved with an {{expand-section}} tag. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
In any case those without references can not stay there for long, like any other statement without references in Wikipedia. I will mark them as unreferenced and unless references are added, will delete them later. History2007 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
That was April 2009, now is June 2009. No references at all'. The material is fully unsourced and not verifiable. Has to go. History2007 (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"It is finished" standard/alternate reading

1 ; 2 .

I would question your comment that it is not very mainstream, particularly in Catholicism... Certainly Lewis' own commentary is influential in modern theology. However, I am willing to give up that point.

But even if it has not been much discussed outside of those two authors, the phrase simply could have had the meaning I cited, and indeed has not much more merit than the other interpretation (as I understand it -- but Lewis and Penelope had much better Greek than I). I feel sure that on a page dedicated specifically to 7 things Jesus said on the cross, we ought to mention a linguistic question that significantly affects 1 of the 7.

In short, we may even indicate its being further from the standard reading, but as it is a valid one, I think it should be reinstated. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Flipping Mackerel is offering two citations for the interpretation. One is weak, but the Lewis one is notable. History, there aren't any other citations in the section. Why delete the one assertion that someone can provide a reference for? It's not good WP editing to favor uncited assertions of cited ones. Leadwind (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Big revert

An IP editor just made 48 edits in a row. Which is a lot--more than I've ever seen done in such a short period of time by a single person. Many of those changes are not acceptable per Wikipedia policy--most notably, several of the additions were original research. Additionally, several of the other changes were acceptable, but reverted what appeared to be sourced content. At this point, I have invited the IP to come here and discuss the proposed changes (although, ideally, not all simultaneously). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A.J.K. pka IP Editor

Qwyrxian, you have inspired me to create an account :) Since the Sayings of Jesus on the cross are taken from the Bible. What precisely is needed beyond direct quotes from the bible for greater verifiability? Or is this not precisely the problem? I am not sure if anyone is going to respond to this - it would help if you emailed me because I may not check back frequently.

I am fairly new to Wikipedia, thanks for your patience.—Preceding unsigned comment added by A.J.K. pka IP Editor (talkcontribs) 18:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

First, I removed your email address--never ever give your address out on Wikipedia as it is an open site that can easily be mined by spambots and the like. Second, I will unfortunately not be emailing you, because I believe that in almost all circumstances, conversation should be on-wiki, so that others can participate.
As for the changes--the sayings themselves can come directly from and be cited to the Bible. The problem was your commentary--you were interpreting those Bible passages. For example, one thing you said is "It is also noteworthy that in Aramaic and Hebrew and even Arabic language the word day is not limited to mean a 24 hour time period but only a fixed time period which could even be many years in duration but a very distinct period of time. Given this fact, one could say as in Gen 2:4 That in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth included 6 days of labor." The interpretation of languages, and the claim that this is somehow related to the passage in question, is a matter of Biblical interpretation. If you have a reliable source that makes these claims, then you could, maybe, cite those claims (we would have to have a discussion about how much commentary is appropriate to the article), but you can't write them as your own words--that's original research.
As a side note, I realize now looking back on the article that I was worried because you took out material, but looking more carefully, much of that also appears to be unsourced. I'm going to go back through the article later and try to trim out as much original research as I can. Then, once we have a core, verified text, we can more easily consider adding referenced interpretations. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of OR/SYN

I have removed the following from the article, because they violate either the general prohibition on original research or the specific prohibition on synthesis to advance a point:

From Father forgive them, for they know not what they do: 'In Matthew 5:44, Jesus exhorts his followers to love their enemies and to pray for those who persecute them. This verse appears to reflect Jesus' teaching of unqualified love and forgiveness for all, including those who might seem to oppose or even attack them. While I see, as a reader, that there is a connection here, we would need a reliable source to draw the connection for us.

From Today you will be with me in paradise: As this is the word used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) for the garden of Eden, Jesus may have meant a return of humanity to the presence of God.[citation needed] However, it is traditionally interpreted as the abode of the blessed dead. Interpretation is always a form of research. We need a verified source on both of these statements. Note that the second will be especially difficult to cite, as the source will need to explicitly state that this is the "traditional" or "usual" interpretation.

From Today you will be with me in paradise: The punctuation of this verse has resulted in debate regarding the existence of purgatory.[citation needed] The original Greek, like the Latin Vulgate, has no comma before or after "today". Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe in an interval of complete unconsciousness between dying and awakening in paradise translate the phrase as: "Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise." Most translators, from the Protestants Wycliff and Luther to the authors of the Catholic Douay-Rheims version, place the comma before "today", without requiring any intervening period for the three days in the tomb (cf. Ac 10:40; 1Co 15:20; Col 1:18) or the 40 day delay before the Jesus' ascension into heaven. (Joh 20:17; Ac 1:1-3, 9). This looks much easier to source, as it mentions specific writers. I don't have easy access to paper books, which is where I think we'd find support, but hopefuly others do and we can re-add at least some of this point.

From Behold your son: behold your mother: Traditionally, this is thought to be John the Evangelist, but he is only referred to as the beloved disciple. The Catholic Church interprets this phrase beyond just the disciple, saying that Jesus was giving his mother to all of the church, and consequently all of the church to her. The Catholic Church also uses this saying as a proof that Mary did not have any other children, because if she did have other sons who could have taken care of her, Jesus would not have needed to give her over to his beloved disciple — indeed, had Mary had other sons, such a transfer would have been incredibly insulting to them in the context of 1st-century Jewish culture. Many Protestants and Evangelicals reject both interpretations, usually saying that Jesus found it necessary to take this step only because Mary's other children were not yet believers in him as the Messiah.John 7:5

Another view on this saying is that Jesus, on the verge of giving up his life, and having had given up everything else in his life, was now giving up his only last "attachment," who was his mother. Thus, he would be dying in absolute poverty, without the benefit of a mother. This is all original research. I'm assuming the Catholic interpretation can be easily sourced; I have no idea where the rest of it comes from.

From My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?:Before scripture was divided into chapters and verses, Psalms were known by their first lines. Thus, when Jesus says "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" he is referencing Psalm 22. Many Christians believe that the quotation presents Psalm 22 as a prophecy of Christ's suffering (verses 14-18), of his message (25 f.), and, as a whole, of his exaltation (v 24).[citation needed] Some theologians claim the Father seems to have deserted the Son (v 1-2, and the contrast between v 5 and v 6) but saves him ultimately and with him those who seek him in all the nations.[citation needed] Thus some Christians argue that by uttering this single question Jesus was in a way announcing the whole gospel at the moment of its decisive event (cf. Luke 4:21).[citation needed] This "gulf of separation" that occurs between God the Father and God the Son, in the death of the latter, has been described by the theologian Jürgen Moltmann as 'death in God'.[citation needed]: All unsourced, and quite unclear where it comes from. The preceding part, about the dialect worries me a little, as I'm not sure if the citation to Jeffrey covers everything before that, or just the final sentence. I'll leave it for now, and hopefully someone with the book can verify that all of that is properly sourced

From My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?: This saying perhaps represents the total humanity of Jesus, and the thirst for God of those who are put far from him.[citation needed] As he is given sour wine to drink, soaked in a sponge on a hyssop stem, this may be a reference to Psalm 69:21, where sour wine is offered. It may allude to Jesus' statement about drinking the cup that the Father gives him (John 18:11). All OR. Unfortunately, it leaves us with a blank section, so I left an "Expand Section" tag.

From It is finished:Jesus announces that his work, atonement, is completed.[citation needed] Sometimes the meaning, 'the debt is written off', is read into this verse.[citation needed] Although this is often seen as a theological statement (that the debt of humanity to God is canceled, that Jesus had finished his mission, and so on), the Greek (τετέλεσται) is best translated by a simple English word: "completed", or "finished". Same as Previous.

From Father, into your hands I commit my spirit : This saying is based on Psalm 31:5. Because of this, it is unlikely that 'my spirit' refers to a disembodied soul, but simply to one's self: I put myself in your hands now.. Same as Previous.

Okay, I know I just cut out a ton of text from the article. But, per WP:V, everything we say needs to be verified in reliable sources. Anything else, especially interpretations of text, is original research. I'm sure that a lot of that information can be sourced, although we have to be very careful about making sure the sources are clearly identified and from prominent scholars. We may also need to provide more than one source and interpretation, as all of these verses can be interpreted in a myriad of ways.

I don't have time to look at the rest of the article right now, so I haven't vetted it for OR, but I'll try to do so in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the "Okay, I know I just cut out a ton of text from the article." part. I agree that some of it was unverified and even incorrect, but I think you threw out the baby with the bath water. Generally, execution is not the best way of rehabilitating content, so I suggest you fix and put some of it back. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:V, I cannot add any unsourced information. Unfortunately, based on my circumstances, I only have access to internet based information (there are no libraries near me with significant English resources). The sources we need are going to be print books or academic journals, primarily. I will try to look for some info online in the next few days, but I can't guarantee anything. But I cannot and will not add unsourced material that could be challenged, and since everything above to me is an interpretation, then I can't see what I can add without sources. However, if you think that some specific things I took out meet the "sky is blue" test for info that can be included unsourced, please let me know and we can discuss. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I will add back the correct parts with sources as time permits, I was just trying to get you to do the work for free. On that note, how about using Google books? History2007 (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
A good place to check. I'm happy to help, although no promises on how fast the help will come. I also don't like the article as it is now, especially the bare sections. But, I figure, no info is better than OR. I'll add this to my queue of projects. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
maybe I can email you an image of a $100 bill. Will that help? Just kidding. History2007 (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Q, you were right to delete that material and not to restore it. This page has bothered me for a while, but there's so little scholarly material on it that I haven't known where to start. Deleting bad text is an excellent place to start. Leadwind (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


Quoting "Then Jesus said, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".

This first saying of Jesus upon the cross was Jesus' prayer for forgiveness for those who were crucifying him: the Roman soldiers, and apparently for all others who were involved in his crucifixion."

How can we possibly know this? We know who Jesus believed he was talking TO, but where does the interpretation that he was only speaking about his tormentors and executioners come from? It is just as likely that he was asking the father to not vent his wrath on the entire human race. The god described in the old testament was no stranger to collective punishment. p.s. Any word back on whether he did forgive them/us? If not; it might explain a few things :-)86.146.226.18 (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. I removed the unsubstantiated interpretation. Leadwind (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The ISBE reference.

There is a reference to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia page 426. In my search, this page have nothing related to the saying of Jesus. Please correct it. http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=Zkla5Gl_66oC&lpg=PP1&ots=o23hGL1cw3&dq=ISBN%200802837859&pg=PA426#v=onepage&q&f=false 116.49.48.83 (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it seems right. Your has Kanji, but the ref is right. I now used the shorter isbn that usually works better. History2007 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Eli vs. Eloi

There's a real problem with possible religious bias and understanding the difference between interpretation and translation in this section of the article. Clearly, "Eli" and "Eloi" are NOT the same thing. In fact, saying that Eli "is" God and then saying Eloi translates to the same thing is both misleading and false. In fact, neither are translations and both are interpretations; and even if they are regarded by compromise as transliterations, it fails to make the basic distinction that Eli is singular while Eloi is plural. Failing to make that simple distinction is nothing more than an attempt to gloss over inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible.

Fact is, questions whether Jesus was referring to God or the prophet Elijah are raised on all sides of the debate. Nothing in or outside the Bible establishes Eli as necessarily meaning God. In Hebrew, it simply means "high" (and not "most" high, which is another misinterpretation). But while Eli was also a proper name, it was never a proper name for God since to give God a proper name, let alone to even speak his name, was a Jewish taboo. That is why "YWHY", transliterated as "Yahweh", is a tetragrammaton that only refers to God's name. In refering to God in any spoken way, the Jews refered to him as "Lord". Eli does NOT come close to a translation or transliteration of the word Lord and to say it "is" God, is at best, ignorant.

Since there were no witnesses to the crucifixion who lived to write about it and since both sources in the bible fail to corroborate each other, it is not the responsibility of Wikipedia to collaborate in the deception that the bible is inherently consistent by equating Eli with Eloi. Consequently, there is nothing to contradict the view from ANY source that Jesus was, in fact, referring to the prophet Elijah in the singular or to his followers in the plural.

Now, in order to make sense of why Jesus would, in fact, be referring to Elijah or his followers, one need only read the relevant texts where Jesus asserts that John the Baptist spoke with Elijah's authority with the strong suggestion that John was the re-incarnation of Elijah. Consequently, if consistency is the objective, then it is far more consistent, if not accurate, to say "Eloi" is referring to the Baptist's followers while "Eli" is referring, directly, to John himself. In which case, Jesus' remark concerns either his abandonment by some of his own followers, many of whom had been followers of The Baptist; or, that he considered John's own death or his failure to live up to the Baptist's legacy as abandonment by the spirit of John (and anyone who doesn't think Jesus was not obligated to John, in this way, fails to account for his invocations of the Baptist to justify his own actions, and to understand the full, prophetic nature of their relationship). Anyway, it is nothing more than a practical and very down to earth meaning of what Jesus is alleged to have said even if it results in lowering the saying's significance and impact by removing his despair away from God.

Nevertheless, the interpretation is valid, and just as valid as any interpretation that Eli or Eloi are both referring to the same thing, i.e. God. Wikipedia is under no obligation to negate the contradictions and inconsistencies presented in The Bible and think that consistency is achieved through sleight of hand. Furthermore, regardless of what the consensus might be, Wikipedia is not obligated to give a consensus view since consensus does not constitute truth. Wikipedia is obligated to be as objective, rational, impartial and intelligent in it's articles, as it is possible to do so.

Pvsalsedo (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I was following along with what you said, until you got to the last paragraph. In fact, Wikipedia is required to provide the consensus view. Under no circumstances are we ever allowed to substitute our own analysis for that of reliable sources. In fact, one of Wikipedia's core policies, Verifiability, explicitly states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Now, if you have reliable sources that support what you're saying, we can certainly include their analysis as well. When there are multiple reliable opinions, and they disagree, standard policy (per WP:NPOV) is to include discussion of all of those opinions, being sure not to give opinions/interpretations more weight than they have in the real world.
So, if you have some sources that show what we need to change, please post them here so we can discuss what should be done with the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
That post was pretty long so I did not read it, but I would like to note that Pvsalsedo may be using the Chrome browser, given that there are blank lines his system does not display. Therefore, Pvsalsedo if you are to edit articles elsewhere in Wikipedia please use another browser to double check the format, and always delete all last lines, else you will leave many blank lines that you can not see in your own browser and others will have to remove. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

On the behold your mother behold your son part...

At the end it makes it seem as if Protestants and Evangelicals belive Jesus had siblings, which is obviously not necessarily true. I mean they could believe that but it's not something they belive as part of their religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.66.28 (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Many Protestants believe the Bible teaches that Jesus had brothers. See James the Just#Relationship to Jesus. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because there's no reason why he wouldn't have brothers unless you believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is a Catholic teaching. 87.246.103.137 (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)