Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forget it[edit]

Just what it says. No idea what possessed me thinking Wikipedia is interested in true accuracy. I'm retracting my suggestions. Have a nice day.

Vine[edit]

@Bealtainemí: You were right that it was now duplicated, something I had not noticed. It's also only after I moved the new material out of the lead that I noticed that the editor who added it was soapboxing elsewhere, so I also have no problem to revert to the last stable version as an alternative. Thanks for the improvements, —PaleoNeonate – 14:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Early Christian descriptions of the execution cross[edit]

Shouldn't Early Christian descriptions of the execution cross be merged into this page? Editor2020 (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think they shouldn't. The other is about the normal, typical execution cross in Ancient Roman times. This one is about the cross used in one particular execution. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

Merge Proposal and / or Redirect. Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of multiple articles into this talk page's article was:

Consensus Reached–No Merge
— — — — —

Formal request has been received to merge: Stauros, Crux simplex, and Descriptions in antiquity of the execution cross into Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion; dated: February 14, 2020. Proposer's rationale: Merge Stauros, Crux simplex, and Descriptions in antiquity of the execution cross, all into Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion, or all the aforementioned into crucifixion of Jesus or even just crucifixion. The material and primary source citations are repeated multiple times, often with conflicting interpretations, across numerous articles, some of which appear to have been written or even created to push various POVs and non-reliable sources in different directions. Descriptions in antiquity of the execution cross should be a leading section in the main article of Crucifixion and is in any case unstable as a title, having been Early Christian descriptions of the execution cross until just now. Most of the material is also already covered at saltire, staurogram, Tau cross, crux ansata, Christian cross, cross, and so on. Pinging proposer @GPinkerton: discuss below. Richard3120 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Where material cannot go into Crucifixion, all the rest should go to Crucifixion of Jesus or Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion. I doubt that there is any need to have separate pages for these topics at all; all should be included under the general main article Crucifixion. As above: material is duplicated (and from often poor POV sources) and most evidence from primary textual sources in any case discusses the Crucifixion, from which we glean evidence for the practice of crucifixion generally or vice versa. Separate articles lead to contradictions and unnecessary duplication of very limited real information. GPinkerton (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @Bealtainemí: and @Editor2020:, since earlier discussion touched on these same questions. GPinkerton (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as the proposal stands. The suggested two omnibus articles would be too unwieldy. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bealtainemí: Unwieldy how? All the duplicate, sourced, and unreliably sourced material can be deleted anyway. The articles would merely consider what is already considered several times, with mutually contradictory POV claims and conclusions, across several spurious articles. All that's required is some detail on the practices of crucifixion as evidenced in the scant primary sources and the singular archaeological dataset. Everything else is soap-boxing. What is the justification for this acreted mass of contradictory POVs? GPinkerton (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for now. Yuk, this is a messy nom! As Bealtainemí suggests, this would I think bust article length policies - certainly crucifixion of Jesus should not be added to, & it would be inappropriate to add to the general crucifixion. As nominator, it's your job to present the case - please set out your stall, including article sizes & how you think it can meet policy. Johnbod (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: So: There's nothing at Crux simplex that isn't amply covered at Impalement or simply repeats material from elsewhere. There's nothing in Stauros not directly relevant to crucifixion; all citations concern discussion of the crucifixion or crucifixion in Mediterranean Antiquity, so article length is not a problem for merging these. Where material is specifically relevant to Christianity (especially post-antique discussion and sources like the Church Fathers) it should go into Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion which itself should be a section in Crucifixion of Jesus; where dealing with crucifixion in Antiquity more generally the discussion can be moved to Cross Shape under Details of the main Crucifixion article. Descriptions in antiquity of the execution cross is just more expansive discussion of what is lacking under Crucifixion.
An alternative proposal might be to to do away with Crux simplex, Stauros, and Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion and merge the information (where not already duplicated) into Descriptions in antiquity of the execution cross and rename this terrible title to Crucifixion in the Roman Empire or Crucifixion in Antiquity or similar. That way the methods and sources for the phenomenon of crucifixion in ancient Roman Palestine can be discussed alongside the rest of the Graeco-Roman world without swamping the main worldwide Crucifixion article - whose Details section already focuses overly on Roman crucifixion/the Crucifixion in Roman times - since the primary sources are basically the same and fairly limited but the discussion extensive, and without having to add (but rather take away) from Crucifixion of Jesus, which is I agree already long, diverse, and covering theology, art history, devotions, and so on. Certainly there is no need for separate Stauros and Crux simplex articles! GPinkerton (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: From you notice on my talk page I gather that you have not taken the time to read any of the articles involved, which, had you done so, might have revealed the sense of my suggestion. Instead, you chose to do otherwise and ignore the content of the articles and simply attack my proposal as one you personally don't like the idea of. I have to say this is a poor method for reasoning. GPinkerton (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that at all - and you are rather proving my other point. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: You're right; your exact words were "to reply to that properly would involve reading three long & very boring articles". Now the implication, clearly, is that you have either not read the articles and choose not to respond "properly" or else you have read the articles, decided they were "very boring", and choose to not respond "properly" because you want the articles to remain "long & very boring" for reasons of your own. Either way, it's the opposite of helpful. GPinkerton (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I haven't read them, how do I know how boring they are? Answer me that. As I said this proposal is currently going nowhere, so I won't devote more time to it. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: By reading the titles and making assumptions, I presume. Certainly that's how your initial response is worded, which appears based on imagined length rather than content. GPinkerton (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco: If you look at the articles, Stauros only deals with the term as an implement of Crucifixion or Impalement, which is obvious from the inclusion of crux and the fact it does not discuss any of the other ways a stick might be used. In any case, this is not Wiktionary, and the terms crux [simplex] and stauros are really only notable as relating to crucifixion/impalement in Greek or Roman sources. The words, references, and images all appear either at Crucifxion or at Impalement. Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion does not only consider how Jesus died, but produces an exegesis of crucifixion in the the Graeco-Roman world, both before and after the first century. Similarly, Descriptions in antiquity of the execution cross mainly deals with evidence (or lack of same) dealing with crucifixion (and impalement) in the Graeco-Roman world, and nearly all the textual references from the remote past are those that deal with exegesis of the NT or with other matters pertaining to early Christianity. It really does not cover "different instruments of torture in which wood is used to lift the person who is executed from the ground and hold it to the wood"; it just covers Graeco-Roman crucifixion in all its ways. As it should be needless to point out "crucifixion" in both Latin and Greek (and Hebrew) means nothing more than "execution with a stick", and covers both impalement and the Christian cross-shaped exercise. There really just needs to be one article on Crucifixion in Antiquity which can cover all the material relating to actual history of the execution method in the Roman Empire, of which speculation of Jesus is surely just a subset. Naturally, the general Crucifixion and Impalement articles, and all the articles that cover Crucifixion of Jesus in art, theology, and whatever should remain as they are. GPinkerton (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of this template can be found here.


Recent additions by Bealtainemí to Section on Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

Much of this seems out of place and directed against Jehovah's Witnesses and not aim at NPOV. This section is about their understanding not their misunderstanding (let the reader decide- encyclopedias present facts not necessarily lead people to their personal conclusions). There is no reason to repeat the same information that has already been present before. So this needs some qualified help.

In addition, twice now Bealtainemi is asking for information that was already provided in the reference at the end of the sentence. (phrase at stake :-) "the cross was promoted") I will once again delete it since there is no reason to have it. However, the sentence could be rotated to make it clear that Witnesses of Jehovah teach that it was Constantine that "promoted" the use of the cross. Please note that the word "promote" appears twice in the article, that is referenced at the end of the sentence.

In addition, now a reference is added that has nothing to do with Lipsius and Jehovah's Witnesses appendix that is in question in the paragraph, but with William Wood Seymour rendition that is in a different article. It appears that Bealtainemi may be confused and now he/she has added the phrase "in spite of the context" but did not even discuss the right picture, person, or article and for sure is not any where near themselves to the correct context!!!! (hard to add accurate information when one misunderstands the issues themselves) The issue in question deals directly with the appendix and Lipsius not another article that shows a picture in the book The Cross in Tradition, History, and Art.

These are but two points as there are many others that could be provided to cry out "help". Could we get some help to make this NPOV and accurate? Johanneum (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is uncited editorializing and should be removed or moved to a more pertinent section. GPinkerton (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let us examine the first paragraph. Do you think it correct to present without counterbalance the linking with Constantine of the notion that an execution cross had a transom? Bealtainemí (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout the section dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, all material cited to citations not mentioning Jehovah's Witnesses should be removed, and all citations not dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses should themselves be removed. Otherwise it's pure SYNTH. GPinkerton (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bealtainemi, Not really sure where you get the idea of trying to counterbalance an article about a religion's teachings. Right or wrong that is their teachings. This section is to present it in a balanced NPOV way. This is not the section to explore what was the actual shape was (that is in the parts above this section). In addition, the JW's are not saying that a cross was not used before Constantine, but that at that time it was "promoted." So again, not sure what you are trying to counterbalance. In the article they are saying the same thing that the Encyclopedia Britannica says here: "It was not till the time of Constantine that the cross was publicly used as the symbol of the Christian religion. Till then its employment had been restricted, and private among the Christians themselves. Under Constantine it became the acknowledged symbol of Christianity"- [1] If you wish to attack that then you can do that in the other sections or if you need a reference for their belief then this one could be used. Johanneum (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From a RCC perspective we find this: "‘It may be safely asserted that only after the edict of Milan, A.D. 312, was the cross used as the permanent sign of our Redemption. De Rossi positively states that no monogram of Christ, discovered in the catacombs or other places, can be traced to a period anterior to the year 312. Even after that epoch-making year, the church, then free and triumphant, contented herself with having a simple monogram of Christ." [2]Johanneum (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johanneum: As ever, the RCC perspective is preserved in aspic from centuries ago. The De Rossi referred to died in 1894. Unsurprisingly, the field has rather moved on since the first credulous scramblings conducted by the papal archaeologists of the Vatican Library. There are "monograms of Christ" on Alexandrian coins from the 3rd century BC, and in numerous other contexts subsequently chi-rho was short for, among other things, χρόνος, χρυσός‎, and χιλιάρχης‎ - known from an inscription of 138 AD, as well as appearing on early Christian engraved gems from the early 3rd century AD. GPinkerton (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though this article inarguably began as a JW POV fork, the purpose of this article is not to argue for or against the JW view, and it is only necessary to simply state their belief. As such, I have pared back the section to only what is required without assigning undue weight for or against their views. Detail about, for example, whether Christians actually used the cross form prior to Constantine would belong, if anywhere, in a more general section of the article, rather than the section specific to JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is this a fork, but the subject of the article Descriptions in antiquity of the execution cross is also exactly like this one, and the same can be said for stauros, although I've cleared that one up a bit in the past.
I wasn't aware of that other article. 🤦‍♂️ I don't have time currently for a merge proposal, but this is ridiculous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Instrument_of_Jesus%27_crucifixion&oldid=1213283167"