Talk:Passion of Jesus

Removed

I have removed the following from the article:

Once associated with sin and crime, the concept of passion as wholehearted devotion to an idea or to an ideology has become part of the stock-in-trade of New Agers wishing to gush about their fashionable fads. Business managers, defining a mythical ideal employee, now demand passionate commitment. The emotional intensity-level of teenagers has replaced the detached realism of sober rational adults as a societal aspiration in some such circles.

(Compare fandom in popular culture.)

To me, this looks like yet another anti-new age rant - do New Age-ists really use the word in a way any different to anybody else - combined with a bit of social misanthropy. Charming, but not for the wikipedia, methinks. --Camembert

OK, now I see why crime was added. Should have read the talk before I edited the article. I will remove both love and crime.

Meaning

If I understand Etymonline correctly, already in Late Latin there were two different meanings of "passio":

• suffering, enduring; from Latin pati
• intense emotion; from rendering Greek pathos. Attested usage of "passion" meaning emotion in English from 1374.

In short: not all meanings derive from the former. --Nikai

"Late Latin" means 4th century and later Latin, the Latin of the Christianized Empire of Late Antiquity. I am restoring the accurate information that was deleted by Nikai. On the whole, the better sort of Wikipedians delete with a cautious hand. --Wetman 14:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. You apparently don't accept the fact that there is more than one source (one Latin, one Greek), but you didn't care to explain why. The point, by the way, is only that there is more than one source. If you did accept this, we would agree that the last sentence of the first paragraph, which you just restored, is plain wrong.

You've misread Etymonline, which explicitly states that passio is a Late Latin rendering of Greek pathos. Pathos is just not part of the etymology of passio in the sense that this article discusses. No real need to reach for possible proto-Indo-European roots either. (Wetman 20:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC))

1. I object to the language used in the first paragraph. I feel offended by the term "informal or colloquial context". This sentence gives the impression that the use of "passion" in any other context than the suffering of Jesus would be somehow incorrect.

It's just a clarifying remark that would send a reader who's looking for other meanings back to Passion (disambiguation), which makes it all plain and clear. (Wetman 20:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC))

1. I object to the naming of the article. In my opinion "passion" should be a disambiguation page, primarily because of people who unsuspectingly link to "passion" in another context than the suffering of Jesus.
2. I disagree with you in respect to editing style. I remove information which I consider wrong, one time, and will continue to do so. However, I don't fight. You reverted me twice. I didn't revert you. If I feel offended by your content, others may feel similarly. Maybe one of them is more passionate about it. No need to waste any more of my time. Have a nice day.--Nikai

The better sort of Wikipedians realize that sometimes what one "considers wrong" might possibly be misinformed. When one realizes that, one does what one can to set things right. (Wetman 20:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Nikai is right that there's no need to double-disambiguate the word. This article only describes the passion of Jesus, and once the dab notice is there, there's no reason to mention it again in the opening paragraph. —Wahoofive | Talk 06:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Passion of Christ

Just found this article and have worked on it.

Sorry guys! but I must say that the English expression here was clumsy. please remember that people with limited English also read these pages.

• highly abreviated language like "Thorn coronation" doesn't work because it is neither a common expression, a biblical expression or clear. It's merely short. "Crown of Thorns" is far more meaningful.I removed several of these, reversed things (with the addition of a little word here and there like "of". Another example is "metal studded whip" instead of "whip with metal studs" It's about clarity.

• there is a lot of interesting information inserted in the wrong places. The paragraph that relates the Passion as it is written in the gospels is not the right place for lengthy dissertations on every aspect of the passion, including archeological details. These interesting asides all have a place under a different heading, and I have put them there, but unfortunately lost some of the references, which I will endeavour to fix.

• Unless you are writing a novel, its best to dispense with descriptive words like "stated" and "argued" when what is really called for is "said", even if it is boring and repetetive. I removed a few of these, including one "Jesus argued" when, in fact, Jesus wasn't making an argument in any sense of the word. He made a statement of fact, followed by another statement which may be considered prophetic.

Now, what I REALLY need to know is, why on earth is this page called Passion (Christianity) instead of the name that it is actually known by - The "Passion of Christ"? I would not let the fact that there has been a movie of that name put me off. It seems like a really strange and clumsy decision. I suppose there is a reason. I won't change it, without feedback.

My spelling is hopeless! So are my typos. Could someone please correct them?

--Amandajm 04:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Because Christ is a title applied to Jesus ONLY by Christians, and thus is hugely biased to include that in an article title. To call something ..... of The Christ presumes that the person in question actually is a Christ, and is the only Christ, both of which are biased pro-mainstream-Christianity positions. Wikipedia has a policy of Neutral point of view, and so such article titles are not permitted unless they are actual published names of documents etc. (e.g. the title of a book). Clinkophonist 12:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

'Christianity, Astrology And Myth', Wright, L.M. 'See also'

The book in question is essentially the text of my MA thesis entitled, 'Pagan Ritual And Myth, In The Early Christian Church'. It does indeed cover many aspects of the Jesus Myth, Christian festival et al...As an example, the first eight chapters are headed: (1)Rebirth of a Myth, (2)Christianity And The Sun God, (3)The Dying And Resurrected Saviour God,(4)Stars And Their Portents, (5)The Virgin Mother Of The World, (6)The Cave And Stable Myth, (7)Slaughter Of The Innocents, (8)Miracles...................etc. There are 16 chapters, 230pp, inc' Bibliography, and Index.The work is therefore accademically sound, and relevant to many diverse aspects of Christianity. Larry Wright, 28/03/07

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. I have also left you a comment on your most recent IP address's talk page because this matter affects a number of pages you have been visiting.-Andrew c 15:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Treatment under the Four Gospels

The article here currently reads, "The narratives of the Passion are found in the four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Three of these, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels, give very similar accounts. The Gospel of John includes additional details." While in general this is somewhat true, it's not true for this topic. A word for word comparison between Matthew 26:30-57, Mark 14:26-53, Luke 22:39-54, and John 18:1-13 shows that only Matthew and Mark have wording in common. They are very similar, altho not identical (for instance, Matt. 26:34 v. Mark 14:30). Luke is only similar enough that one can recognize that this is an account of the same events. Same for John. After an appropriate time, say 3 months, for discussion here, I will modify the article's wording a little to indicate this.Friendly Person (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence seems misleading. It implies that "passion" is somehow related to the English euphemism "passing" for "dying". But passio, as discussed above, refers to suffering. Surely the Passion of the Christ refers to his suffering, not the point of transition (in human terms, "death") per se? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it did - wasn't it just the modern coy American euphemism? But corrected anyway, along with other mistakes. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I meant "English-language" euphemism—for some reason, I find the verbal form "he passed" nauseating (what did he pass?), whereas "he passed away" at least sounds like a gentle intransitive euphemism. Is this only an American barbarism? That's good to hear, though worse for the article. Anyway, a "passion" without suffering would seem to vitiate the theology of the ordeal. Cynwolfe (talk)

Since passio redirects here, and since some martyr accounts are called a passio, should we also take the Latin into account in the intro? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Can't read a good consensus that supports this particular move as proposed. Consider a separate request if alternate titles seem to be on the table. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

IAR amendment by closer: BarrelProof noted no opposition to "Passion of Jesus", so will move to the suggestion. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Passion (Christianity) → The Passion – per WP:NATURAL and WP:THE, which states If a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article, the word with article can be used as the name of a page about that meaning, and the word without article can be used as the name of a separate page. For example, "crown" means the headgear worn by a monarch or other high dignitaries, while "The Crown" is a term used to indicate the government authority and the property of that government in a monarchy. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 19:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support, this one makes sense historically and as a common name. Will come back to see if anyone has good cause to keep the present title. Randy Kryn 14:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NATURAL Red Slash 16:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support: This article is not about how the emotion of passion is dealt with in Christianity – it is about "The Passion", which is something different, and the proposed title helps make that clear, as well as providing WP:NATURAL disambiguation. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this I'd prefer Passion of Jesus, which redirects here (as does Passion of Jesus Christ). It's far clearer for non-Christians, and won't constantly have to be defended against MOS fanatics, as this would. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I would support Passion of Jesus as an alternative name and per consistency with Death of Jesus, Resurrection of Jesus, etc. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 19:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:THE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, please explain. The quoted language from WP:THE is used in the nom itself to justify the RM, and its language seems to lean to the side of changing the title to 'The Passion' which, compared with the word 'passion', has a different and well-used common meaning. Why do you see WP:THE as something which would oppose this move and not support it. Thanks. Randy Kryn 11:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

As so often, there is what a WP policy actually says, and then there is the meaning that WP regulars carry around in their heads. As I pointed out above, if "The" begins the title, there will be an endless stream of such complaints. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Your idea of renaming the page 'Passion of Jesus' makes sense in that context, although 'The Passion' is likely the common name. I still don't see why the word 'The' in this type of common usage wouldn't satisfy the regulars. Randy Kryn 12:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose/Comment: I believe Passion of Jesus would be more quickly clarified by most non-Christians and I'd reckon even some Christians. If this is disagreed with, then the original title is still preferable for the clarification of a general audience. Wolfdog (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I support Passion of Jesus as an alternative. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 23:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Passion 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040814055505/http://slate.msn.com/id/2096041/ to http://slate.msn.com/id/2096041

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Portent grievance of the Blessed Virgin Mary

What is the "portent grievance of the Blessed Virgin Mary"? Is it in scripture or is there some other reference for it? And does it belong in this article about the Passion of Jesus? Can some explanation be provided, please? Thanks --- --Frans Fowler (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Special Catholic terminology I suppose, but obscure even as that. No, it certainly doesn't belong in the lead, & I've removed it. It's been there an amazingly long time, since these edits, the rest of which might be worth checking over. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnbod. I've done a little gardening in the lead section.---Frans Fowler (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"Final period in the life of Jesus"

This wording is POV. Jesus, according to the Christian faith, lives today. He rose from the tomb and appeared to disciples, so should the Ascension be counted as the final period in his life? What about his earthly life? I believe "Final period in the public ministry of Jesus" is more descriptive. Elizium23 (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Narrow or inclusive definition first?

Propose this for the lead:

is the short final period in the life of Jesus after the Last Supper: his agony in the Garden, his arrest, his Sanhedrin trial, his trial before Pontius Pilate, his crucifixion and his death on Good Friday and burial. Those parts of the four canonical Gospels that describe these events are known as the "Passion narratives". In some Christian communities, commemoration of the Passion also includes remembrance of the sorrow of Mary, the mother of Jesus, on the Friday of Sorrows. Some take a more inclusive approach, and include all of Holy Week, including ...

I think a narrow enumeration of events should be first and central, with the inclusive definition given as a minority opinion, which is what it seems to be. Otherwise we risk misrepresenting the "mainstream opinion", and making a WP:CONTENTFORK from the Holy Week article. But as this is merely a matter of defining liturgical terms, and not of remembering history, I don't really care that much. DMacks and BobKilcoyne may have an opinion about this. The only thing that offends me is having to edit two wikipedia articles instead of only one. :-)Jaredscribe (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for enquiring about my thoughts on this, Jaredscribe. My preference for the Passion of Jesus would be to lead on the narrower interpretation (last supper to death of Jesus), and add that "some others ...." or similar grant it a wider interpretation. John is slightly harder to deal with and I would be torn between John 13:30 (night had fallen) and 18:1 (crossing the Kidron Valley). I do think that the Passion of Jesus article should be about remembering what happened, veiled as this is via the Gospel accounts, whereas the Holy Week article is about how those events have been and are commemorated, and this can extend from Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem to his death, burial and resurrection. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The whole narrative starting with the entry into Jerusalem should be included, as at present. We're short of references to solid RS here..... I agree this page should cover the gospel accounts, and Holy Week the commemorations, which is also currently the case. I'm dubious about extending to after the burial - who actually does this? Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)