Talk:Crucifixion of Jesus/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

The crucifixion of Jesus is an event that occurred during the 1st century AD, fact or apologetic opinion?

Really? So now this has somehow become a historical fact? So, where are the historical sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.156.231.63 (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see the section that specifically deals with the historical sources. There are literally dozens of references in this article. An event cannot "somehow become a historical fact". It has always been a historical fact. HokieRNB 14:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Except there are three sources, one that MAYBE is a source, and two that are stories written a century after the supposed fact, or even later. And a religious text, that MAYBE is talking about the same person or maybe not. This page is a disgrace for a serious encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.156.231.63 (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Not sure where you are seeing only three sources. Here are some references for the statement "Jesus was crucified":
  • Blomberg, Craig L. (2009). Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey ISBN 0-8054-4482-3 pages 211–214
  • Bockmuehl, Markus N. A. (2001). The Cambridge Companion to Jesus ISBN 0-521-79678-4 page 136
  • Bond, Helen K. (2004). Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation ISBN 0-521-61620-4 page xi
  • Chilton, Bruce and Craig A. Evans, ed (1998). Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research ISBN 90-04-11142-5 pages 455–457
  • Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography HarperOne ISBN 0-06-061662-8 page 145 "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
  • Dunn, James D. G. (2003). Jesus Remembered by 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339
  • Dunstan, William E. (2010). Ancient Rome ISBN 0-7425-6833-4 page 293
  • Eddy & Boyd (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127 states that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus
  • Ehrman, Bart D. (2008). A Brief Introduction to the New Testament ISBN 0-19-536934-3 page 136
  • Evans, Craig A. (2001). Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies ISBN 978-0-391-04118-9 page 41
  • Funk, Robert W.; Jesus Seminar (1998). The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus San Francisco: Harper.
  • Green, Joel B. (1997). The Gospel of Luke : new international commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. p. 168. ISBN 0-8028-2315-7.
  • Köstenberger, Andreas J. and L. Scott Kellum (2009). The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 page 110
  • Meier, John P. (2006). "How do we decide what comes from Jesus" in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight ISBN 1-57506-100-7 pages 126–128
  • Nicholson, Ernest (2004). A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain, 1902–2007 ISBN 0-19-726305-4 pages 125–126
  • Possekel, Ute (1999). Evidence of Greek Philosophical Concepts in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian ISBN 90-429-0759-2 pages 29–30
  • Powell, Mark Allan (1998). Jesus as a figure in history: how modern historians view the man from Galilee ISBN 0-664-25703-8 page 33
  • Schäfer, Peter (2009). Jesus in the Talmud ISBN 0-691-14318-8 page 141 and 9
  • Tuckett, Christopher M. (2001). The Cambridge companion to Jesus edited by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl Cambridge Univ Press ISBN 978-0-521-79678-1 pages 123–124
  • Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 pages 53–55
  • Verhoeven, Paul (2010). Jesus of Nazareth ISBN 1-58322-905-1 page 39
  • Wansbrough, Henry (2004). Jesus and the oral Gospel tradition ISBN 0-567-04090-9 page 185

Ἀλήθεια 20:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with the poster casting doubt on the actuality of crucifiction. There are no primary sources for the existence of Jesus, and the supposedly best secondary sources either don't reference Jesus at all (Tacitus' Chrestus is not a reference to Jesus) or completely faked (Josephus' one is obviously a later insertion to bolster the "evidence" for Jesus, a common christian tactic). And everything else is 3rd century or later with no reference to earlier works. And your list is chock full of biblical "scholars" and quite short on actual historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.102 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I take exception to your "quotes" above. There are multiple primary sources for the existence of Jesus, and they happen to be among the most well-attested documents of antiquity. There is far more textual evidence for the authenticity of the gospels and other New Testament writings than for any other work of the period. And who better to weigh in on those texts than biblical scholars who have devoted years of their lives to studying and understanding them? HokieRNB 11:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with those who consider that the event is not historical , but is considered as such according to certain religious traditions and religious writings, as well as by certain modern historians who clearly have an apologetic attitude when analyzing certain religions, resulting in books which have a semi "hagiographic" undertone if not worse. The sentence in the wikipedia article Jesus' crucifixion is described in all four Canonical gospels, attested to by other ancient sources, and is firmly established as an historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources. is more than subject to debate. All "references" placed in the article after that bold claim are --apologetic-- books written by people who are either firm believers(in one of many abrahamic religions) or have a clear "pro-authenticity" attitude in anything relating to Jesus and other prophets in abrahamic faiths for the simple reason that we are living in a world culturally dominated by three abrahamic monotheistic religions . All historical writings supposedly viewed by theologians and other apologetic authors as "proof" (Josephus, Bar-Serapion, Tacitus etc ) were either not written at the time the event supposedly happened or describe someone not clearly being the person in question and in some cases are clearly third hand accounts of an urban rumor which is interpreted by some historians as the opinion expressed by non-christian people of the beliefs and traditions of early christian people in ancient times (some "pagan" romans believed that christians commited human sacrifices and drank human blood, the same way some people in the middle ages spread false rumors about jews kidnapping and killing babies during bloddy kabalistic "sabbaths" or muslims praying a demonic antichrist: these wild claims found in writings by some authors living at these given historical periods do not represent the truth in any form, only a pesronal opinion and an account of what some people thought of other cults and religions in those EXACT HISTORICAL CONTEXTS) . How many people were executed at the time for being heretics withing the jewish community? Sticking only to the problem presented in this discussion and not being a quesiton of opionon, the wikipedia article on the "crucifixion of Jesus" is in complete contradiction with the related wikipedia articles about the said "sources" (Tacitus' mention of Chrestos and the christian religion, Bar Serapion mentioning a heretical self-proclaimed "king of the Jews" etc). Historically, many self-proclaimed "machiahs" (the awaited savior in jewish religion) have been executed and or rejected by the jewish community (some had a brief moment of credibility though and had followers), a partial list of these people even has its own dedicated page on wikipedia! So let's not pretend these sources "prove" that Jesus was indeed crucified or "certainly existed" and hand out the references to Tacitus and BarSerapion for what they really are instead of transforming these historical writings into something - an extrrapolated truth- that pleases either the christians, the jews or the muslims who each have their own conflicting views on Jesus : muslims believe a double was executed instead and the "real" Jesus, jews believe either Jesus didn't exist or simply was a heretic while christians think the account of the gospels need no verification and should be accepted without questioning. What all these "views" are in reality are religious opinions based on FAITH , not history. We'll see in a couple hundred years from now if future literature will still considzer "Moses", "Jesus", "Muhammad", "Siddartah", "Zoroaster" and other legendary prophets as "historical figures" or a blend of one or many historical people whose lives and true stories were alterated by religious faiths pertaining to their cult resulting in the loss of the real events while some others, after being subject to more serious studies will be considered simply mythological characters that correspond to a given local tradition. Take a guess, wikipedia's tendency to go all soft on apologetic commentaries will one day change. But first, wikipedia needs to stay in line with the various articles connected: if the page on Tacitus says that Tacitus never saw the crucifixion nor Jesus nor if he witnessed any event described in the gospels, this account is then certainly not a "proof" of anything concerning Jesus' historicity and his supposed deeds but an important account on how early christianity and its first followers were perceived and dealt with in Tacitus' time by the sill dominating polytheistic roman people and the roman government, as written by Tacitus (who mentions "Chrestos" as the Jesus we are speaking of)..and nothing else . Implying anything else than this is simply fabricating a truth that never diverges severly from one's religious beliefs , which is a wrong attitude, especially when writing articles for a "neutral" encyclopedia. What should be written instead is: what written material of the said studied period do we have, what seems today credible or conflicting and what does the religious tradition consider in contrast to this. Instead we have so called "historians" who have a clearly biased attitude who blabber on and on with historical writings presented in a way to be considered as "proof" in order to convince the skeptical public that remains to be converted : a form of underlying proselytism. This problem remains to be solved on all pages related to prophets of various religions (and other cults) that still exist today. Let's hope this article and many others similar to it will be completely rewritten in a more NEUTRAL, REALISTIC and RATIONAL manner one day, seperating tradition from actual facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The above IP editor is making the exact same mistake as so many others who believe there is not sufficient evidence regarding the historical Jesus. They completely ignore the multiple eye-witness accounts that are documented in the books of the New Testament. Since they were written within the same generation as when Jesus lived, it would have been fairly easy to debunk any number of claims at that time, but instead, they were accepted as true and they have been preserved with an overwhelming amount of textual evidence. HokieRNB 13:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

YOU are, on the other hand, mistaking the new testament or more precisely the gospels for a reliable historical source -which it isn't in any shape or form, it is only a religious book loosely based on a particular historical period- , even going as far as indirectly tagging the authors ( who were allegedly Jesus' apostles according to religious TRADITION ).. "multiple eye-witnesses" . If your faith makes you say so, you should understand that faith has nothing to do with analyzing written accounts from a neutral and non biaised point of view. Faith imposes a point of view that MUST be accepted by the follower, by definition, and that is in your case to accept without condition all events, characters and descriptions presented in the gospels. "They were accepted as true"..by you, various apologetics and other firm believers who happen to be christian. Others refute categorically and at very best accept the existence of only a limited number of characters , and that still being in a tongue in cheek apologetic perspective.Your argument is the exact same one used by every other apologetic follower affiliated to one of the many religions and cults that are being observed today, mistaking religious myths with historical events. Instead of blabbering, please indicate the supposedly "overwhelwing number of textual evidence" ..and if this consists in citing Josephus, Tacitus and Bar Serapion , just avoid, that is third hand account quality material that has been discussed billions of time over and over, not mentioning that ill intentioned poeple falsified some of it by adding apologetic comments in Josephus' writings, that amongst other cheap apologetic revisionism gimmicks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, right. Now we now how you think and you can probably write a book about it, have it peer reviewed and then we would be able to quote you as an authority on the issue at hand. But up until then, could you please stick to reliable sources? You ask people who did showed you some to indicate more while flatly denying the sources presented without indicating your own, as if you were a judge or something. And the list include lots of well respected scholars, present and past, about Jesus' life and not only "cheap apologetic revisionism gimmicks". I guess then that the ball is your court because bold statements like "that is third hand account quality material" or "ill intentioned poeple falsified some of it by adding apologetic comments" do need very, very good sources. But then again, as you said, this has been discussed ad nauseam and I have little hope that further advancement can be done here, as we cannot endeavor in original research nor apologetics in Wikipedia. And Merry Christmas to you by the way. José Luiz talk 10:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm torn between leaving the anonymous IP editor's comment to hang out there swaying in the breeze and let it die a slow painful death, or to respond. For starters, if you're going to try to quote me, the least you could do is get the quote correct. It's not (as you said) "overwhelwing number of textual evidence" but rather an "overwhelming amount of textual evidence". However, if you'd care to talk numbers, let's compare Homer's Iliad: there were about 500 years between the date written and earliest extant manuscript, and there are a little more than 600 copies that are about 95% consistent with each other. Virtually all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament was written in the first century, within a few decades of the span of Jesus' life. There would have been plenty of people surviving who could have contested the accuracy of the writings, yet absolutely no first century documents do. There are more than 5000 manuscripts, dating to less than 100 years from the time of writing, with 99.5% consistency. If critics dismiss the historicity of the New Testament writings, they must also dismiss those of Pliny, Plato, Lucretius, Aristotle, Caesar, Tacitus, and Homer, for whom there is far less textual evidence. HokieRNB 03:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Time Line of Mark is Commonly Misconstrued Based on the Modern Concept of Zero

" the third hour, at approximately 9 am," thus says the article. But if 9 AM were 3rd hour, then 8 AM would be 2nd Hour, & 7 AM would be the 1st hour. But 6 AM is the first hour. Thus the 3rd hour would be 8 AM, not 9 AM. In the Bible one does not count with zero, as if 6 AM were zero hour. The first year of a child's life after birth (when by our reckoning the child would be zero years and [for example] three months old) would be the time when the child was 1 year old. Similarly on counting 3 days in the tomb, the first day would be Friday (though only for a few hours before 6 PM), Saturday 2nd day; Sunday 3rd day (even if just a few hours). (EnochBethany (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC))

This edit

here I changed a few sentences in the article; I've been twice reverted (for two similar edits) and so it's probably tile to discuss each change.

  1. First: changed "The crucifixion of Jesus is an event that occurred" to "The crucifixion of Jesus occurred" -- this is more concise and straightforward. Look at, say, Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. See that first sentence? "The assassination of Robert Francis "Bobby" Kennedy, a United States Senator and brother of assassinated President John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy, took place..." (emphasis mine) ... I mean, how weird would it be if it read The assassination of Robert Francis "Bobby" Kennedy, a United States Senator and brother of assassinated President John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy, was an event that took place..." It just seems simpler like this and does not change the meaning at all.
I agree.--Rbreen (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I am okay with this change, but we need to then address the hidden comment to make sure that this doesn't allow editors to slip in the "alleged" or "supposed" or other such nonsense. If this is an attempt to open the door to questioning the historicity of the event, then I am completely opposed. As far as mainstream scholarship goes, that matter is settled. HokieRNB 22:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. "The Luke Gospel omits the cry of Jesus, playing down the suffering of Jesus and replacing a cry of desperation with one of hope and confidence, in keeping with the message of the Gospel as a whole, presenting Jesus as dying confident that he would be vindicated as God's righteous prophet." Says who? One guy that wrote a book once upon a time? Saying that the "Luke Gospel" (what an unnatural way to refer to it, by the way) "plays down the suffering of Jesus... in keeping with the message of the Gospel as a whole" - really? We're going to take one scholar's word for it that this was Luke's intent - really? Much less presumptuous to just say "The Gospel of Luke does not include the cry of Jesus found within Matthew and Mark. One scholar has claimed that this amounts to playing down the suffering of Jesus and replacing a cry of desperation with one of hope and confidence, in keeping with the message of the Gospel as a whole, presenting Jesus as dying confident that he would be vindicated as God's righteous prophet" or something of the sort.
Well, the anonymous author of the Luke Gospel was working from the Mark Gospel, and therefore must have made a decision not to include the cry of Jesus, so it's reasonable to speculate why. "claimed", in this context, appears to imply that this is not reasonable.
Luke is in no way anonymous. It was written by Luke, the author of Acts. It's also a pretty huge leap to make conjecture about his reasons for including or not including. I think it's better to state the fact, and then provide the sourced claim. HokieRNB 22:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. "However, since the statements of the last words differ between the four canonical Gospels, James Dunn has expressed doubts about their historicity." This is perhaps a little misleading; what are "last words"? No Gospel explicitly claims to actually be saying Jesus' explicit last words. (Matthew and Mark explicitly say that Jesus' quote from the Psalm is not his last words [1] [2]; Luke [3] could reasonably be interpreted either way. John seems to be claiming that "It is finished" was Jesus' last phrase; honestly, though, even John's could be viewed as not explicitly being Jesus' last words--[4].) Using the clearer and more precise phrase "last recorded words" would solve that problem. (And regardless, who is this James Dunn character to have his views so prominently included in this part of the article?)
That's an interpretation of the sources, not one cited from scholarship; the section is about what are traditionally considered as the last words of Jesus, and it cites from three leading New Testament scholars (and reflects their disagreements): Vermes, Brown and Dunn. Since part of the argument is about whether the words were 'recorded' or simply invented, it's POV to use that phrase.
No strong opinion on this. HokieRNB 22:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. "In John, there are no such miraculous signs." This made it sound to me like the author of John actively disavowed there being any miraculous or supernatural wonders, when his Gospel simply remains silent with regard to them. I thought saying "John mentions no such miraculous signs." was clearer and better.
Yes, but 'mentions' suggests he knows of them but chooses not to mention. To say there are no signs in John is simply factual. --Rbreen (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, it is clearer and better to say "John [mentions/records] no such miraculous signs." HokieRNB 22:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Red Slash 01:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

NO SIGNS IN JOHN? -- ROFL! John is the Gospel of the Signs! At the end he says the purpose of the book was to present signs so you would believe. The Greatest Sign in John is Christ raising himself from the dead after the crucifixion. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC))

I altered the bit on the Talmud containing a reference to Yeshu, because when I read it, I was stunned that Jesus was mentioned anywhere. When I looked at Sanhedrin 43a, I saw that it was quite clearly a Jewish hatchet job on Christianity. The wiki text gave me the impression that it was a Jewish reference to a real Jesus, written at the time. So, I added text from the article the ref points to Bipedia (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding recent changes to the introduction

The article is "Crucifixion of Jesus," not "Theology concerning the Crucifixion of Jesus." The introductory sentence should establish the event in itself, not any religious thoughts about it, but merely the historical concerns first. The theology is covered in this article, even mentioned in the introduction, so it is beyond pointless to try and make the first sentence about the theology first, with the actual event being a footnote to the beliefs about it.

If this continues, especially without discussion, I'm quite willing to bet someone's going to get blocked, and it's not going to be me. At the very least, we need page protection. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We already mention the relevancy of the crucifixion for Christian theology in the lead; emphasizing it this much in the very first sentence, before describing what exactly the event was, is undue emphasis. Huon (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There was far too much change that happened without any discussion whatsoever, and the timing was especially questionable. To completely change the tenor of the opening of such a conspicuous article in Christian theology in the midst of what is arguably the most holy weekend for Christians was either poor timing, poor taste, or both. I have for the moment restored at least the opening few sentences. I agree that the theology does not need to be in the very first sentence. However, without any theological context whatsoever, this event becomes a simple execution of a first century rabble-rouser and is hardly worthy of a Wikipedia article. In fact, the paucity of secular historical references bears witness to the fact that this event is primarily a theological one. Granted, for those who believe it has ultimate historical significance, but (as Scripture notes in 1 Cor 1:18-31) this significance is utterly lost on non-believers. HokieRNB 12:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • The lead is now ridiculously short, having probably been too long before. These changes, mainly moving stuff lower down, were much too drastic. Equally to have in the lead only "The crucifixion of Jesus occurred during the 1st century AD" is pathetic. I'm inclined to suggest reverting to this version of 16th April and tidying up afterwards. Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Phenomena during the crucifixion

phe·nom·e·non (fəˈnäməˌnän,-nən) noun - a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question. There is nothing about this word making it inappropriate for the heading. These events/occurrences were observed to have happened, attested to by the gospel writers (and two of the three are also mentioned in extra-biblical sources), and their cause/explanation is in question. I'm not saying this alone makes them incontrovertibly historical fact, but they were phenomenal. Why change the section heading? HokieRNB 15:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between what has been observed and what could've been observed but wasn't, though both fall under phenomena. I'd suggest "claimed phenomena during the crucifixion" as a middle ground, if the editor in question didn't appear to be on some sort of Christ-myth binge. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no good reason to remove the word from the article. It serves a good purpose, defines accurately what is described in the gospels (and elsewhere), and is used as an anchor link from other articles. Removing it on the basis that the events described only "could have happened" is totally unnecessary. I could understand better if the term were "miracles that happened during the crucifixion" or "supernatural events that happened during the crucifixion" but leaving them as "unexplained events" (which is what the word means) is completely in line with WP:NPOV. Ἀλήθεια 04:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
"'Signs and symbols' carries no implication of verisimilitude", says Alexbrn. But doesn't it imply lack of verisimilitude? What was wrong with my tentative proposal, "Phenomena described in the accounts", or "Phenomena in the accounts"? The accounts do mention these phenomena, that is a non-controversial fact. Evaluation of what is in the accounts, either as factual or merely signs and symbols, is controversial. So which is the NPOV wording? Esoglou (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
"Phenomenon" is a problem because it so strongly implies "a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen". Signs and symbols is nicely equivocal. I am sure there are other good wordings too. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
"Phenomena" is more suggestive of a scientific context. I thought "signs and symbols" was a better description of that particular part of the "crucifixion narrative" and places it more in a theological/scriptural context. Sudden darkness, earthquakes, supernatural ripping of curtains, the dead coming to life, etc. are not presented in the narrative as interesting isolated incidents. They are presented as signs and symbols that have meaning to the faithful, so are probably best summarized that way.- LuckyLouie (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Aren't there such things as reported phenomena, phenomena reported to be "facts or situations observed to exist or happen" but that in fact aren't "facts or situations observed to exist or happen"? Whether the reports were intended to record actual events or were intended only as signs and symbols is not uncontroversial and should not be presented as if it were. It is not NPOV to say either that the reports were of actual phenomena or that they were only expressions of mere signs and symbols. Esoglou (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


orry for not being able to understand either the idea that reported phenomena must be realities and cannot be mere reports (and so it is POV to speak of them as reported phenomena), nor the idea that "signs and symbols" can be more than signs and symbols but perhaps actual realities (and so it is NPOV to speak just signs and symbols). Esoglou (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think "Reported phenomena" is appropriate for a UFO article found on the Internet, but not for this one. Dead people rising from their graves getting categorized as "facts or situations that might or might not have happened" isn't objective or neutral in this context. So what do reliable sources call this group of things (sudden darkness, earthquakes, rending of the temple veil, resurrection of dead saints)? So far I have not seen any calling them "phenomena" but I have seen a number of religious and theological sources that refer to them collectively as "miracles" of the crucifixion. So maybe Alleged Miracles is closer to the mark, as those views can actually be attributed and sourced. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Where is the citation that identifies these events as "phenomena"? jps (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "that are interpreted by Christians as signs and symbols" is unsourced and seems POV-pushing. The context requires it no more than "that some consider to have been actual occurrences" or "that some interpret as not having really occurred" or similar phrases. The synoptics report them. Wikipedia reports their reporting. It would be helpful if any editor who wants to discuss interpretations would do so in a separate paragraph.
Will those who object to the phrase "reported phenomena" please accept "reported event"? Esoglou (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could point out that these events were not reported by people without agendas and may not have occurred (in contrast to the crucifixion itself which is very likely to have occurred). Not sure how to indicate that succinctly, though the current wording does an admirable job with the word "extraordinary" which I quite like. jps (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Herein lies the problem with changing "phenomena" to "events" or "miracles":

Event Phenomenon Miracle
Darkness falls ...in the middle of the day ...because God darkened the sun
Temple veil torn ...from top to bottom ...because God tore the veil
Earthquakes happen ...and tombs are opened ...and dead saints rise
Jesus speaks ...and a voice is heard from heaven ...of God responding to him
Spear thrust into Jesus side ...and yet nothing comes out ...because the wound is healed
Drink offered to Jesus ...and changes color ...because it is turned to wine
People mock ...and fall down and die ...because God smites them

Only the green is specifically reported. And this section deals not with the "events" (which are many) but with the "phenomena", which are three. It should be noted that the only "miracle" reported in this section was reported to happen not in concurrence with the crucifixion, but rather with the resurrection. Ἀλήθεια 11:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That is your own personal interpretation, which you cannot force on others. Reliable sources treat "event" as a possible synonym of "phenomenon". For Wikipedia, what counts is not so much ἀλήθεια as a clear basis in reliable sources.
There are reports of three, and only three, extraordinary events/phenomena/miraculous happenings. The other examples you give are unrelated. Why not accept a neutral term to refer to the reported occurrences and, if you really have to, delve into interpretations in a distinct paragraph? Esoglou (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Seems like WP:OR to me. jps (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It amuses me to no end that "extraordinary occurrences" is acceptable where "phenomena" is not. But whatever. As long as the section header doesn't leave it at mere "Events" (which are many more than three) or "Miracles" (which is subject to interpretation). I'm OK with "extraordinary occurrences" (which, by the way, is just a longer way of saying "phenomena"). By the way, I'm not sure which part of this would be WP:OR. Per WP:BLUE, it should be obvious that the bottom four "events" in the chart wouldn't be listed under "phenomena", whereas the top three, by virtue of the extraordinary circumstances in column two should be. Ἀλήθεια 13:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with jps that the Bible isn't an independent or objective source of historical information. Why are bible passages the only citations "Temple veil, earthquake and resurrection of dead saints" section? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia isn't claiming that these events/phenomena actually occurred: only that three gospels said they did, and what better source for that than the statements in the three gospels themselves? Whether the events/phenomena actually occurred is another question and has no relevance to the question whether the three gospels did or did not say that they did occur. If you want to discuss that other question, go ahead, citing reliable sources. There is plenty room here for such other questions. Esoglou (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I might argue that inclusion of statements made in primary sources are wholly dependent on their being notable by secondary sources, with attention given to who says they're notable and why they say they're notable. However, I'm fine with "Reported extraordinary occurrences" as a section header so as to prevent it being confused with the "observable events" definition of phenomena. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Christian defacing

"Jesus' crucifixion is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament Epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and is established as a historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources,[1] though there is no consensus on the precise details of what exactly occurred.[2][3][4][not in citation given][5]"

This does not belong in an encyclopedia. This quote is the equal of saying "the errors of Einstein's theory of relativity is established as a scientific fact, because some atheist scientists say Einstein is wrong."

A historical Jesus is hotly debated, but his crucifixion is to be taken as fact?

I used to be a fan of Wikipedia. But the entries related to Christianity are 100% worthless. They are nearly all Christian apologia. If this continuous, Wikipedia and Conservapedia can merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

content on suffering added today

Copying this here for discussion. Not sure this sources are RS for use to generate content in WP's voice. Also language is not neutral, in my view

Jesus suffered extremely during the process of crucifixion and the preceding circumstances. He suffered one of the worst pains that man could experience due to injuries to the nerves of both hands and feet. The pain was so extreme that profound shock was a possibility. The agonizing experience is similar to lightning bolts traversing the arms and legs.[1]

In addition to the extreme pain suffered by Jesus during the crucifixion process, he had to undergo humiliation by being taunted by the Roman soldiers as they made fun of him for proclaiming that he was a king. To mock his claim to kingship, they dressed him in purple and made a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They saluted him as they jokingly called him the King of the Jews. This caused emotional suffering to someone that was so highly regarded by many in the Jewish population. In addition to the taunting, Jesus was given a severe flogging with a type of whip that cut into his flesh producing excruciating pain. The flogging preceded the nailing to the cross. Jesus suffered greatly during his crucifixion until he finally died on the cross.[2]

References

  1. ^ Zugibe, Frederick T. (January 1, 2005). The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 63. ISBN 1-59077-070-6.
  2. ^ Schulz, William F. (May 15, 2007). The Phenomenon of Torture: Readings and Commentary. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 16–17. ISBN 978-0-8122-1982-1.

thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Well reading this on wikipedia is kinda funny but yh, kinda ridiculous imo. BeefDaeRoastLXG praat 08:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"Wine mixed with gall"

The article recounts the Biblical event in which Jesus was offered wine mixed with gall, and links the word "gall" to Citrullus colocynthis. I read this linked article, and it's great, only problems are that while it mentions religion, it doesn't mention this incident, nor does it describe the juice so made as being called "gall". So is this a good link that needs better sourcing, or a bad link that should be deleted? Elizium23 (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

More detail needed on who crucified Christ

There seems to be a severe lack of detail on precisely who crucified Christ. One section in the article states that He:

"stood trial before the Sanhedrin (a Jewish judicial body), Pontius Pilate (a Roman authority in Judaea), and Herod Antipas (a Roman authority in Galilee), before being handed over for crucifixion"

Handed over to whom? Other sections imply that Pilate had him crucified, yet while it is clear from both biblical and extra biblical sources that Pilate authorized his crucifixion, biblical sources are more specific and they also state that it was the chief priests who actually crucified Christ, with the permission of Pilate. I quote the specific verses below within their proper context below:

"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! 15 "But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. 16 ¶ "Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. 17 "And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: 18 "Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst." - - - John 19:14-18

- - - To give more context, I therefore request permission from an admin for these verses to inserted, or quoted indirectly with citations to the specific verses above. I will insert them into "Gospel narratives" section alongside existing references to other gospel narratives if approved. Admins, please provide reasons if you disagree.

Paul, in his letter to the Thessalonians, confirms this:

"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: "15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:" - 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15--197.229.126.177 (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I see the section called "Gospel narratives" has been renamed "Gospel harmony".
Since nobody has responded yet, may I continue with my edit proposed above? (regarding this section in :question).--41.145.91.97 (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, here goes - adding the above anywhere in the article that's appropriate.--197.229.0.187 (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Location section missed a vital bit

I came to find where it happened as I assumed it was somewhere in palestine, then got the odd impression it might have been Italy, which I couldn't believe so I came here to actually find out. The Location section says "...but the biblical accounts indicate that it was outside the city walls..." but doesn't say which city! Sometimes people can know a thing so well they fail to recognise others don't know it at all, which may have been what happened here. No criticism, just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.39.55 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Jerusalem is mentioned 10 times in the article, but I'll add that bit in the opening line of "location" to make it more clear. Ἀλήθεια 15:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Jesus son of Joseph was crucified on Friday April 7, 30 AD

Y'shua ben Yosef was born on Saturday April 17, 6 BC / 17.4.748 AUC / 29 Nisan 3755; see astronomer http://MichaelMolnar.com . He was an Aries the Ram/Lamb. This has been reported on the BBC, Discovery Channel, History Channel, CNN, FOX, the CBS Christmas Special, and elsewhere. The Jewish Messiah was 34-years-old when he was crucified on the first day of Passover Friday April 7, 30 AD / 7.4.783 AUC / 14 Nisan 3790 HC. Again, this was under Aries the Ram/Lamb and Jesus was considered the "Lamb of GOD". 2601:589:4705:C7C0:ED9A:68C3:1902:C16F (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

References to Broad Consensus

I am not very familiar with the standards by which Wikipedia is written, but throughout this article there are many claims along the lines of: "The general consensus is...," "Most biblical scholars believe...," "The commonly accepted...," etc. To my layman's understanding of the subject, there is much debate but little consensus. I do not have access to many of the references, but from their titles, they do not appear to be the meta-analyses that are required to claim to speak for the majority of scholars in the field. I vote for having this language toned down. I can accept that the consensus is for a Friday crucifixion, but suggestions of a majority belief among experts regarding an exact date seem outlandish. 69.205.242.71 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

New sections go at the bottom. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The standards on WP are very low. The presumed popularity of a source is put above the evidence the source actually provides. And because WP is dominated by religionist editors, all articles about anything the bible narrates are fundamentalist pamphlets. E.g. the "Historicity" section does not present any evidence but only cites individual beliefs. Heck, it even allows theologians as historians. Frustratingly ridiculous. ♆ CUSH ♆ 15:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
and this is exactly why the POV rules were put in place; to supposedly remedy situations just like this, and of course, have entirely failed to do so. Which is also why, as an educator, I have never recommended Wiki as anything but a starting point for students to use as a place to look for actual primary references. It will not at all sadden me to see Wiki die the death of a thousand cuts due to lack of funding. Something else WILL take its place; and one can hope it will be better. Suffice it to say that the entire argument made for the historicity of Jesus is little more than argumentum ad populum and arguments from authority at this point. The actual evidence is tremendously underwhelming. (unsigned)
See Historicity of Jesus for far more on all this. But you won't find many historians of any stripe who don't believe that the evidence suggests that a Jesus existed, and was probably crucified. Few purely secular historians take a view on the day of the week, I would imagine. Johnbod (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
You won't find many historians who support all the early "evidence" and would not lose their job if they told otherwise, especially in continental Europe. Most people who are interested in the matter are professionals in a Christian church, which lies in the nature of this matter. The more important it would be to differentiate when making assumptions to majority opinions, e.g. 'most Christian scholars think that ... while secular scholars agree that...'. The term 'most scholars agree' does not provide any information and can be left out, if there is nothing more to say. If there is, it should be said clearly.

94.223.160.154 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Crucifixion of Jesus

Crucifixion of Jesus is not a historical event but a fictional one and this whole article has been written with a very biased and Christian point of view. Even though it is well known that Wikipedia is very biased in favour of Christianity but if it wants to retain any credibility it has left its editors should refrain from using biased language. And the main point to note here is two sources say Jesus was not crucified, one the Koran and another one by Irenaeus, the 2nd-century Alexandrian Gnostic Basilides as this article mentions. Now point here is either Koran and Irenaeus are lying or these Christian authors are. And we have no way to ascertain who is lying and who is not. And it has simply been assumed that Bible is a factual and historical document which in itself puts Wikipedia articles' reliability in doubt. And if Jesus crucifixion is considered to be a historical event then the question which arises is why are there no contemporary documents and records to verify this? All of them come from many years to centuries later.

And the most important point to notice here is why were those second hand sources writing about this man named Jesus several years after his supposed death? Was he really that important and if yes then why because there were many other preachers preaching about God in that region. Then we come to the conclusion that the only possibility is supernatural claims about Jesus were true and he was son of God. If he was really the son of God as Bible teaches then we can also agree that he was resurrected and this should be accepted as scientific and historical fact as well and new theories, criterion etc should be created by Christian biased scientists and historians to somehow prove that as true. You can't just start by assuming something to be true and then creating theories and nonsense criterion to prove it to be true. And In case of Jesus exactly that is happening. And if all the sources about his life are second hand and from many years to centuries later then there is no reason to doubt the very historicity of the person named Jesus and that a fictional narrative was created by some people to keep the Jews from revolting against the Roman empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.251.94.13 (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crucifixion of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake during crucifixion

The page accurately notes that the Gospels record an earthquake took place during the crucifixion. Something I wanted to note is that in 2012, a paper was published to the International Geology Review and found that in an analysis of the strata of the Dead Sea, two major earthquakes had taken place in ancient Palestine, one in 31 BC, and a 6.3 magnitude earthquake in 26-36 AD, paralleling the crucifixion of Jesus (which took place either 30 AD or 33 AD). Should we add this paper in noting that it has been confirmed that an earthquake was confirmed to have taken place during the general time of the crucifixion of Jesus? The paper I'm talking about does in fact also offer that the 26-36 AD earthquake was in fact the earthquake recorded in the Gospels, so it's not as if I'm violating WP:NOR. Here is the paper I'm talking about if anyone is interested -- http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00206814.2011.639996 --- I recommend making the edit around where the earthquake is talked about in the Wiki page to say that "a 6.3 magnitude earthquake has been confirmed to have taken place during the time of the crucifixion of Jesus".Korvex (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The 3 plausible candidates should have been mentioned. I've done that. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I believe in the overall story of Jesus, including the core religious ideas, but unlike US Fundamentalists, I do not believe in their non-traditional doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible, nor their literal interpretation of every verse. It was a common literary convention, in ancient Greece, to introduce great acts of nature - thunderbolts, minor earthquakes, etc. - into descriptions of important events by great people, such as Alexander the Great, and perhaps this carried over into the writings of the Greeks who founded European Christianity. All four Gospels were first written in Greek, by Greeks, decades after the Crucifixion. I have deep respect, and am not ruling out the possibility that there was an earthquake, but I am pointing out that predicating the date of the Crucifixion on seismological data requires accepting the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible, which is a matter of faith. It is interesting to match up real earthquakes with the Passover dates, but overlaying seismological science on top of a scriptural passage does not make the date more credible. The chronology suggests that Jesus was in his 30s at the time, i.e. neither a callow youth nor an established wise man, but I think that the article should note that the earthquake premise is based on the inerrancy doctrine.77Mike77 (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@77Mike77: while I generally agree, we would also need such statement to be reliably sourced. The current quote includes: "crucifixion and was in effect ‘borrowed’ by the author of the Gospel of Matthew". Which seems to already suggest that it would have been used as a device rather than being the effect of a supernatural miracle. But I'm not sure if this represents enough your suggestion. Of course, earth quakes occur frequently enough that it would also not be difficult for a pre-scientific-era author to cherry pick a recent one and link it to another unrelated event. Although such miraculously claimed coincidences have also been linked to other important traditional events, this is not an isolated case (plausible natural event involved or not in the claimed time period). —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 08:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I merged this section into the already existing section because I think it continues previous concerns. I'm sure a scholarly source can be found that marries the earthquake science with the gospel testimony, pointing to the inerrancy doctrine. Perhaps there is also something published that would point out the concern (and balance the article) of what is being mentioned. -- HafizHanif (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Crucifixion of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Jesus's vs Jesus'

Apparently according to the Chicago Manual of Style, both are valid, with Jesus' being the most common modern variant (with texts generally chosing consistency depending on the NT translation they use, i.e. NIV uses Jesus')... — PaleoNeonate — 05:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to submit that the overwhelming majority of people who pray aloud in English would close with the phrase "...in Jesus' name, amen" and not "... in Jesus's name, amen". I know this needs better sourcing before it can be made policy, but common sense would tell you which form to use. According to dailywritingtips.com, while style manuals differ, no one argues that Jesus' is wrong. I believe since both are correct, Wikipedia standard is to continue with whatever usage was common when first introduced to the article. Ἀλήθεια 14:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Evidence for continued use of Jesus' as the possessive form: 4 of the most widely used Bible translations use it that way, NONE add the extra 's. The majority prefer (at least in this one example) to either stick with the original Greek pronoun "his" or go the long way around to say "name of Jesus". Ἀλήθεια 14:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I think we have a small consensus to use the most common modern Jesus' form then. Thanks for the revert. This is also what the main Jesus article uses and consistency is good. — PaleoNeonate — 14:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Same thing for Moses. The possessive is Moses'.77Mike77 (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Jesus was born on Saturday April 17, 6 BC and crucified on Friday April 7, 30 AD

Jesus was 34-years-old when he was crucified. The Messiah/Christ was born on Saturday April 17, 6 BC (http://MichaelMolnar.com ) and was crucified on Friday April 7, 30 AD. 73.46.49.164 (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting speculation, but not academically valid. The true dates are impossible to establish with certainty, because there are no existing records from that era, no birth certificates, no Roman log sheet of executions.77Mike77 (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Original research

“Combining statements in the canonical Gospels” seems to be classical OR. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It may sound like it, but WP:OR states, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (emphasis mine.) Everything in that section is explicitly stated in at least one source. Using multiple sources to summarize a narrative is fine. AdA&D 20:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The governing thing for the NT narrative is WP:PLOT with respect to each gospel. And no we cannot combine elements from four books to make one story. We need secondary sources for that. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you please provide a specific example within the article of a statement that you believe constitutes "original research"? Ἀλήθεια 13:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

The sentence that reads, "However, in John 19:14 Jesus is still before Pilate at the sixth hour", is implying that John 19:14 is taking place on the same day as Mark 15:25. I see why it would seem that way as Johns account simply says "it was a day of preparation for the Passover. However if you look at the original instructions of the Passover (Exodus 12:2-10 and Exodus 12:15-20) 'day of preparation' could have been any of the 4 or 6 days prior to the day of Passover. Also, just thinking logically, it would be extremely hard to 1) sentence 2) beat and mock (Mark 15:16-20, Matt. 27:27-31) 3) have Jesus carry his cross out side of town to the place he was to be crucified 4) wait for him and the others to die 4) get him down AND 5) prepare him for burial and cover the tomb, before Sabbath started (evening Lev. 23:32). If all of that happened in one day as this page imply's, that would mean (according to how you're reading John 19:14) it only took 5 to 7 hours. <-- not logically possible. Therefor I think it needs to go first His sentencing, then Jesus being crucified, then death, and explain the possibility of it being on different days. 2600:100C:B013:8C5C:3449:F949:8159:9A9 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Personal interpretations/criticisms/etc. of Bible verses are not usually accepted as sources for changes to articles, no matter how well-thought-out. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2018

Most scholars propose either AD 30 or 33 for the death of Jesus, but no one proposes 31 or 32, as Nisan 14 was not on or near a Friday on those days. See Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, n. 620. So the text should be amended to say 30 or 33, not 30 to 33. Also, there is significant, minority scholarship in favor of other dates, and this should be mentioned: E.J. Vardaman for 21 A.D. Nikos Kokkinos for 36 A.D. Also, AD 34 is often mentioned as a possibility, but only if the date for Passover was delayed a calendar month (by adding Adar II) due to weather causing the wheat crop to be delayed.

Please change "Scholars have provided estimates for the year of crucifixion in the range 30–33 AD" to "Most modern-day scholars consider AD 30 or AD 33 to be the most likely years for the Crucifixion. In the years AD 31 and 32, Nisan 14 did not fall on or near a Friday." [reference: Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical chronology, n. 620.]

Please add "Dr. E.J. Vardaman proposed AD 21 as the date for the Crucifixion." [reference: Chronos, Kairos, Christos I, edited by Vardaman and Yamauchi, p. 55ff.] "Dr. Nikos Kokkinos proposed AD 36 as the date for the Crucifixion." [reference: Chronos, Kairos, Christos I, edited by Vardaman and Yamauchi, p. 133ff.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:8200:ECA6:2C2C:F4D8:27A9:C35B (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please use reliable sources. Also, references should be openly accessible for all Wikipedians and readers. -- Waddie96 (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Which Jesus???

"Jesus" is an ordinary given name in many languages, including Spanish.

Some Good Friday observances (notably in the Philippines) involve literal reinactments of the Crucifixion.

Thus, as a matter of encyclopaedic neutrality and clarity, the title of this article should be revised to "Crucifixion of Jesus Christ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:C1C:D180:3295:19F9:13ED (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the article clearly identifies that the Crucifixion in question occurred in Judea in the first century AD; which is far removed in distance and time from any Good Friday observances in the Philippines. I do not think there is any realistic possibility of confusion on that point. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. If "Jesus" is sufficiently unambiguous for the article Jesus, it's certainly sufficiently unambiguous for this one. In addition "Christ" is a title meaning "Messiah" and is too POV-laden to be used as the primary name for either article. TJRC (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Theology

Why there is a notice: The theology concerning the event is discussed later in the article; the introductory sentence introduces the event, not the theology? Theology should be included in the lead because the crucifixion of Jesus is important primarily for its crucial theological significance. Propositum (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-chritian sources?

From the intro: 

> ...referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and is established as a historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources,[1]

That reference is to the book: Eddy, Paul Rhodes and Gregory A. Boyd (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition

Both authors are Pastors at Christian schools. And the quote "...if there is any fact of Jesus' life that has been established by a broad consensus, it is the fact of Jesus' crucifixion" is used to attack the Quran (and isn't sourced).

That doesn't really sound like "confirmed by non-Christian sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdav5 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Darkness/Lunar Eclipse

This https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/0001-0100/LE0033-04-03P.gif link from this (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LE0001-0100.html) list of lunar eclipses on a NASA webpage confirm the lunar eclipse referenced by the BBC Source. Not sure how to properly cite the source, and didn't want it immediately undone, as I assume Jesus' wikis are closely watched.

2600:6C5D:4F00:B4D9:0:0:0:9A9 (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Either find a Muslim historian accepting that Jesus was crucified, or stop claiming his alleged crucifixion is a historical fact

Of course you can't find any, because there aren't any. If a historian claims to be a Muslim but also claims that Jesus is crucified, there are almost nobody to do though, they are simply not muslim, if any exists. Therefore, it's impossible to have a consensus on Jesus' death. So why we should've say this alleged event was occurred? Religion is not a name tag or a joke, people are REALLY believing their religions are facts and truthful, historians or other scholars does so. A Muslim couldn't read this and agree that this is happened, but will have doubt on Wikipedia's reliablity. Even if the entire world except one person believes that a relative event hapened, narratting it as a neutral fact is incorrect and indecent. Penjogjoposioćio (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Penjogjoposioćio, neither Wikipedia nor this talkpage is a forum to evangelize religious doctrine. Please take those sorts of discussions elsewhere, off-Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sectarian theological work. If you continue in this vein of utilizing this talkpage as a forum to argue your personal beliefs, this thread will likely be quickly closed. And if you perpetuate the discussion on other parts of Wikipedia, you will likely be topic-banned on this subject, or blocked from editing as not being here to build an encyclopedia. At this point, your contributions on Wikipedia have the tenor of a troll, and possibly a returning one. Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

::I'm just trying to tell why this page in this state is not neutral. Not talking about my religion. Penjogjoposioćio (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Islamic contradiction

"All Islamic traditions,categorically deny that Jesus physically died, either on a cross or another manner."

Surah 19:33 states otherwise, baby Jesus speaking in the cradle:

Sahih International: "And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive."

https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=19&verse=33

Even the Quran agrees with the christian notion that Jesus has died. How come that Muslims then claim that Jesus rose to heaven alive?

80.131.54.235 (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses, and "woman, behold your son"

It is curious and confusing that this account should ignore the fact that the disciple whom Jesus loved was present at the Crucifixion (he is commonly identified by Tradition as John the Apostle) and Jesus entrusts His mother to this disciple (and vice versa) as He is dying. Why are these facts elided from this article? Elizium23 (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Lunar eclispses

Using the windows program Kalendis to view Gregorian, Julian, and Hebrew calendar dates and Stellarium to view the lunar eclipses. Here's what I have learned. Starting with 33 AD and working to 30 AD. The eclipse in April 33 AD did occur on April 3rd. However it was on the 3rd in the Gregorian calendar rather than the Julian calendar. Stellarium uses Gregorian dates. This makes the event happen two days later on Sunday instead of Friday. This would have been April 5th on the Julian calendar and the 16th of Nisan 3793 on the Hebrew calendar. It was a partial eclipse and most of the eclipse was not visible in Jerusalem. Only the tail end of the eclipse was visible from Jerusalem when the moon rose. In April 32 AD a full lunar eclipse did occur. It happened on the 14th on the Gregorian calendar. It was not visible in Jerusalem at all as it happened during the daytime. The western hemisphere would've had a good view of it though. In April 31 AD another partial eclipse occurred on the 25th on the Gregorian calendar. It started around 3 hours and 10 minutes after the moon rose in Jerusalem. No lunar eclipse occurred anywhere in April 30 AD. Going from 34 AD to 39 AD. From 34 AD to 39 AD no lunar eclipse occurred in April. Based on these observations, I'd say that it is safe to say that Jesus' death date can't be determined by any lunar eclipse during the month of April for the whole 30's decade AD. Since the lunar cycle isn't perfect and does drift during the months, I'll check the solar eclipses for this decade later and see what turns up. 2600:8800:1380:86:643C:48E7:4EF5:C435 (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? You're doing WP:OR. I'm glad to hear of your experiment but it's been performed and documented by experts. Elizium23 (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Straight out of the article:In an edition of the BBC Radio 4 programme In Our Time entitled Eclipses, Frank Close, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, stated that certain historical sources say that on the night of the Crucifixion "the moon had risen blood red," which indicates a lunar eclipse. He went on to confirm that as Passover takes place on the full moon calculating back shows that a lunar eclipse did in fact take place on the night of Passover on Friday 3 April 33AD which would have been visible in the area of modern Israel, ancient Judea, just after sunset. Clearly they are wrong as my observations show. 70.162.181.156 (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Solar eclipse

After viewing Stellarium, I found only one solar eclipse in April for the 30's AD decade. It occurred on April 28, 32 AD Gregorian date. With only about 3 percent of the sun covered, I doubt it would have been noticed. Anyway it would be too late in the month to have anything to do with Jesus' crucifixion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus 2600:8800:1380:86:643C:48E7:4EF5:C435 (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Language in Advertising

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ddarco (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ddarco (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"Established historical event" and the Muslim view

It's my understanding that "established historical event" is intended to debunk the fringe view of Jesus mythicism, but it seems to go too far by contradicting the Muslim view which is not fringe. This might be addressed by following "no agreement on the details" with "and Muslims widely believe that the crucifixion happened in appearance only." 67.180.143.89 (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

What evidence do you have to support the claim that the Muslim view is not fringe? Vedisassanti (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Images used within the article

I have reservations regarding the historical accuracy of this particular Wikipedia article, as a significant number of the images featured within depict Jesus as being of Caucasian descent, despite the well-known fact that he hailed from the Middle East. While it is true that artistic and cultural influences have played a role in shaping the visual representation of Jesus over time, it is important to acknowledge the need for accurate and culturally sensitive depictions of historical figures. Therefore, it is crucial to critically evaluate and analyze the images presented within the article, while also considering the historical and cultural context in which they were created. 1keyhole (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should recognise these very dubious racial sterotypes. What exactly should those who "hail from the Middle East" look like, in your opinion? In any case, "historical accuracy" is far from the only criterion for choosing images. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
It is a well-established historical fact that Jesus Christ was born and raised in the Middle East, and it is imperative that Wikipedia strives to ensure that its articles maintain a high level of historical accuracy. While opinions may differ regarding the interpretation of historical events or figures, the goal of Wikipedia is to provide reliable and verifiable information based on scholarly research and primary sources. Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge and uphold the importance of factual accuracy and cultural sensitivity in the representation of historical figures and events on the platform. 1keyhole (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
That is what the Depiction of Jesus article is for, which is linked from this article in the "see also" section. StAnselm (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
While I certainly don't agree with the OP (talking about "historical accuracy" is of course an exercise in futility) I do think it would add interrest to the article if the images were a little less reliant on the usual suspects of the Renaissance etc. I don't know that this edit today is helpful. Maybe there isn't much on Commons, but more of a smattering of images from, say, east Asian Christian sources or Latin American folk art would add interest. I suppose I should do some searching before putting that out there! DeCausa (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes the gallery definitely needs a broader variety of images. SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Actually the article and gallery (only 7 images I think) has surprisingly few of "the usual suspects of the Renaissance", but a good deal of Baroque. There are some rather odd crops though. Long stretches of the article are un-illustrated. Very early images are missing. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Velázquez was added as the lead image here. There doesn't seem to have been any discussion about it. Do you have an image to propose? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
If there hasn't been any discussion about it in five years, it probably means that the image is appropriate. You can propose alternative images from c:Category:Crucifixion of Christ. Is there a reason why you would change it? SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Middle Eastern people are ”Caucasian” though, and range from tan to olive skinned to quite pale. Levantine people are often quite pale. Think Marlo Thomas, Queen Rania of Jordan, Amal Clooney, Shakira, etc. Livius Plinius (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
BLACK_JESUS_IN_PORTOBELO_CHURCH_-_panoramio
The images are faith-based, not geography-based. And although Christianity started as a Mediterranean religion, it's strongest cultural impact was in the west. So, if you object to this Eurocentrism, you should request a broader selection of images from various Christian cultures, say a black Jeses, or a Chinese Maria. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Where was "alleged event" discussed?

I edited what I considered an ambiguous sentence in the hidden comment at the top of this article, but I became curious about it. The sentence said "The use of 'event' instead of 'alleged event' has been discussed many times on the talk page of this article and on the Good Friday page, and the result was not to use it." But I cannot find any discussion of the term "alleged event", either here or on the Good Friday talk page. Can anybody link me to the discussion? The author of the comment has vanished, so I can't ask them. Scolaire (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a diff of it being added? DeCausa (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Here, on 19 February 2011. Scolaire (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it's referring more generally to discussions on its historicity rather the specific phrase event/alleged event. see for example this thread. There are a few more sporadic ones like that. DeCausa (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I've now found out that there are three archive pages: Archive 1, Archive 3 and Archive 4 (there is no Archive 2). But any discussion on historicity is, as you say, sporadic, and seems to have been closed each time by the same user, whom I won't name because I'm pretty sure it's the vanished user. It's more than a bit of a stretch to say "the result was not to use it." I'm partially reverting my own edit to take the word "consensus" back out, but the whole hidden comment (you can see it here), seems over the top. Scolaire (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree - I found the same. It could be said to be WP:EDITCONSENSUS but not talk page consensus. DeCausa (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I've zapped it (forgot to log on). I imagine its deterrent effect was minimal anyway. Scolaire (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crucifixion_of_Jesus/Archive_4&oldid=1192119963"