Talk:Good Friday/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Zola

How does Zola explain the three days and three nights? The question constantly arises: If the Lord was really crucified on Friday and rose again on Sunday, how could that have encompassed three days and three nights? The Gospel accounts indicate that the Lord was crucified on Friday at 9:00 a.m. and taken off the cross at 3:00 p.m. His body was prepared for burial and interred at sundown the same day, which was the beginning of the Festival of Unleavened Bread. The Lord then arose on Sunday morning after sunup. According to the modern way of counting, this spans barely two days. Yet that time period seems to disagree with Jesus’ earlier prediction: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40).

The prophecy can be understood when we examine the Jewish way of counting days and nights. We must recall that the Jewish day always starts at sunset, so that Friday really begins on Thursday evening (a fact that is reflected in the language of Genesis – “the evening and the morning” are the first day). The second day then begins at sundown on Friday and continues through the daytime on Saturday. Finally, Sunday begins at sundown on Saturday and stretches through Saturday night and the daylight hours of Sunday, making the third day. And since the Jews counted any portion of daylight as a full day, then Friday morning through Sunday morning would have been seen as three complete days.

People have sometimes struggled to move Passover (the “Last Supper”) back one day in order to get three days and three nights the way we would count them in the Western world, but that would be inaccurate. Even in the Western world we begin each day on the night before at midnight, so the concept is not strange to us. And supporting this understanding of the Lord’s crucifixion on a Friday (against those who claim it happened on a different day) is the centuries-long history of Christians celebrating Good Friday, not “Good Thursday” or “Good Wednesday.” So this is one more evidence that we can trust in the accuracy of the Biblical account, as well as further confirmation that knowledge of the Jewish roots of Christianity can open up a deeper understanding of God’s Word — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.48.103 (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I have been told about the oldest translation of the Bible which is in Greek. The holiday should be on Wednesday due to the fact that in the year of the crucifixion was a year of the High Sabbath which is celebrated 2 days earlier. This accounts for the fact that he may have been alive at sunset on Wednesday when the spear was used to kill him because all individuals that are killed in this manner must be dead before the Sabbath can be celebrated. This leaves Wednesday night, Thursday night and Friday night as the three nights and Thursday, Friday and Saturday as the three days; Saturday night is not counted because he was already raised before dawn on Sunday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.172.98.137 (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand

It may be true in New Zealand that TV and radio do not have ad breaks on Good Friday, but it certainly is not true in Australia. Was this ever the case in Australia, and if so, when did the practice cease? Cheers JackofOz 04:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Why it's called Good Friday

This is my first edit! All I want to say at this point is Jesus Christ was not crucified on a Friday, although the bible does state that he rose "before dawn" on the "first day of the week". We can know, therefore, that He was risen before Sunday began - if we're counting the beginning of the day at 6am. We can also know that He was dead "in the belly of the earth" for 3 days and 3 nights. I believe some of the confusion is mention of holy day or sabbath. The holy day/sabbath was Passover, not the every-week, last-day-of-the-week Saturday sabbath. So when we read that He was crucified the day before the sabbath, that does not mean Friday. That's all for now. Ddt2318 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Does someone have a citation or more explanation for this line: In Early Modern English, Good had a meaning of "holy"

Looking around, I find explanations like this "The name Good Friday is generally believed to be a corruption of God\u2019s Friday" (from Funk and Wagnall's New World Encyclopedia)

This was always my understanding. Does the statement that bad had a meaning of Holy conflict with this, or does it mean the same way, good=God=holy?

On various webpages, I find people writing things about how it really was GOOD Friday because of the outcome, even though it was a very BAD day at the time. But I think those are just attempts to fit an explanation to the facts, with no etymological significance.

In French, it is "Vendredi Saint", thereby "Holy Friday" is possibly most likely the original meaning. --Ramdrake 16:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oxford puts the reference under "good":

• 8. a. Pious, devout; worthy of approbation from the religious point of view. b. of books, etc.: Tending to spiritual edification. the good book: spec. the Bible. c. of a day or season observed as holy by the church. good tide: (a) Christmas; (b) Shrove Tuesday. Cf. GOOD FRIDAY.

"Good Friday" in caps links to a separate entry, which under the etymology refers back to "good 8c" which I just listed above.

Merriam-Webster says under etymology: "from its special sanctity"

American-Heritage gives "[From good, pious, holy (obsolete).]"

So "good" as used here is just an archaic form of "holy", as opposed to a Martha-ism. SigPig 04:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

in my experience, many older generation in England also call it 'Passion Friday'?

I love jesus Mythri G (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Why two dates?

Why are there 2 dates listed for many of the Good Fridays. There should be some explanation on the different dates. I was looking for the date of Good Friday of 2005, but I don't know which one it was. -- 21:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

________________________________

You are probably looking for the Western Date - it's the most common.

For the purpose of simplification, the Western world adopted a method of calculating Easter using what they called the "Ecclesiastical Moon" - a 19 year cycle of moons that is not always accurate. It had the advantage of enabling them to calculate the Date of Easter using math, (algorithm available upon request) without having to actually figure out the precise day of the full moon (which was not easy to do in the Middle Ages in the Western World).

The Eastern world was more scientifically advanced, and they used the REAL moon. In the Eastern World, Easter (Pascha) always follows the Jewish Passover.

As stated above, the Eastern and Western Christian churches have different methods of calculating the date of Easter (or Pascha as it is called by Eastern Christians)--see the article Computus for details. Most years, the Eastern Christian celebration of Easter falls a week or more after the Western celebration (it can be as much as an entire month later). Occasionally, as is the case this year (2010), the two observances fall on the same date. The most important factor in the different calculations is that Eastern Christians continue to follow the ancient Canon (enacted by the First Ecumenical Council) that Easter may not fall on or before [the first day of] the Jewish Passover. This Canon is no longer observed in the West. MishaPan (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Most probable date"

I don't know that it's appropriate to call 3 Apr 33 the "most probable date" of Jesus' death -- the chronology is highly, highly debated amongst Historical Jesus / NT Scholars. JP Meier, I believe, offers either 3 Apr 33 or 7 Apr 30; EP Sanders has another chronology. It's a hot topic, in any event. Makrina 06:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The 3 April 33 / 7 April 30 dates come from astronomical calculations of the phases of the moon, intended to determine the years during which the Crucifixion could have taken place on a Friday. As best I've been able to tell from studying the subject, either of these two dates are equally plausible based on the moon phase data alone. Richwales 03:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

External links

I removed these as not offering any obvious authoritative insight over and above that of the article itself, which is nicely encyclopaedic. There doesn't appear to be any pressing need to cover the traditions of individual denominations, let alone subgroups of denominations, and the photo gallery is 404 amyway.

• The Eastern Orthodox commemoration of Holy Friday
• Episcopal Good Friday Service
• Good Friday hymns at http://St-Takla.org
• Baena (Spain) Good Friday Photo Gallery

Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why?

Why would you remove external links to the actual rituals that characterize the day? I thought the wikipedia's idea was to expand knowledge and legitimate information. Are things now to be included only on the basis of "pressing need"? And do you actually think that the rites associated with a religious day are irrelevant to the day? And "subgroups of denominations"? The Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans are "subgroups of denominations"? They are probably the three largest Christian bodies in the world (the first two are certainly the two largest). And they are the groups who are most associated with observance of the day - many Protestants ignore it entirely.

Honestly, I read a comment like this, and I have to wonder if you know enough about religious matters to be deciding what is and is not relevant.

Vandalism

Did anyone notice how in the Table it has Gay Month 14 and Haveing it the 69 way. Also somewhere in one of the first paragraphs about how catholics treat the holiday there is an error about having only have a one thousand meal or having two thousands small meals. I'll take out that stuff but I don't know the dates for the table.

3rd day?

If Jesus died on Friday and rose on Sunday, then that is only the 2nd day. Why isnt it "on the second day he rose again"? Has this been overlooked for 2000 years?

It's "On the third day." They regarded any part of a day as a full day.

That idea makes Jesus out to be a liar! Jesus asked the question (John 11:9), "Are there not 12 hours in a day?" So part of a day cannot be considered a full day, because he said not only 3 days, but also "3 nights"! There have to be 12 hours in a night also. That makes it look like Jesus didn't really know what he was talking about. As Jonah, so Jesus (Mat. 12:40) Bible says Jonah was in the fish's belly three nights (Jonah 1:17) - So shall we say the Bible is inkorrekt? --63.25.0.247 02:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"inkorrekt"...WTH?--C.Logan 20:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding a Jewish idiom. A "day and a night" meant any part of day and/or any part of the night (the day and night are part of an "Onah", or "period of time," and any part of the Onah is the whole of it). In other words, Jesus wasn't lying or incorrect, he was using a Jewish idiom and was understood perfectly in his time. We have other examples of similar idioms being used elsewhere in the Bible (Gen. 42:16, 1Kings 20:29, Esth. 4:16, Matt. 27:63).Vincent Valentine 05:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• First day is Friday, second day is Saturday, third day is Sunday - it hasn't confused anyone else for 2000 years!--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's more than a little unfair, AYArktos. It certainly used to confuse me and the other kids in my school religion class. Using our system of reckoning days, the third day after Friday would be Monday. We naturally wondered why Easter Sunday was not called the second day after Good Friday rather than the third, and I remember my teachers more than once having to explain the Hebrew system. JackofOz 11:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• The part that confused me was the part about the folks who mark the crucifixion on wednesday -- to coincide with the Jewish Passover and to fulfill the "three days and three nights" prophsey. First of all: Passover can start on any day of the week -- "wednesday" has no significance to the timing or celebration of passover. And it looks to me, whether you're reckoning time by the Jewish calendar or in the western method, that this results in FOUR nights. PurpleChez 2:07PM, 15 April 2006

• Hey, what if I were to tell ya'll that Jesus was actually crucified on a Thursday? It has always been assumed that the day of the Crucifixion was on a Friday because the Bible states that it was the day before the Sabbath. In reality, it was most likely to be Thursday, since Jesus describes Himself being dead for three days and three nights -the sign of Jonah. The Sabbath the Bible is refering to is probally one of those special Jewish Seventh Sabbaths that can fall on any particular day. Since the Bible states clearly that He rose on the first day of the week, Sunday, He must have been crucified Thursday afternoon in order for Him to be dead for three days and three nights.

I've heard this theory before. However, I'm not entirely sure how it is necessary when the idiom which Christ used is essentially explained above. I've found that a lot of the problems people encounter with scripture is based mostly on a lack of understanding of the culture, idioms, and most importantly, the meaning of the original languages- for example, many people forget that the Hebrew word for 'day' in Genesis also means 'age/time period', and therefore adhere to a rather unrealistic seven-day creation theory. Additionally, many people who cannot understand the original Greek phrasing and work exclusively from the English translations come to strange conclusions, such as the misled understanding that St. Paul was a misogynist- an idea which can make sense from the English, but not from the Greek.--C.Logan 20:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a theory that Jesus died on Thursday. It was dark during the day time. It became light again later. This could explain the first "day" on the Thursday afternoon. Friday and Saturday would be the second and third days. Thursday night, Friday night and Saturday night would then be the three nights. It is recorded in John that he died before a special (high) Sabbath. The most obvious Sabbath at this time of year according to Jewish tradition would be the 1st day of the week of unleavened bread. No work was allowed on this day, which would then be the Friday. Saturday is a normal Sabbath. The third day of the feast of unleavened bread on which Jesus rose would then be the Sunday. It has generally been accepted that the day on which Jesus died was the Friday because this is the day before the weekly Sabbath. This is my theory, but I could be wrong.--User:196.207.40.212 11:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from the above discussion, there are many theories and explanations. Some hold to Wednesday, some hold to Thursday, and others, like myself, hold to Friday (although honestly, it doesn't really matter- it's just tradition, like the placement of Christmas; as long as we're commemorating it, who cares when it is?). There are plenty of sites with individual theories as well as apologetic sites from which you can draw your conclusions.--C.Logan 15:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is the third day on Sunday because at the time, Roman inclusive numbering was dominant. The day Jesus died was also the first day of the three; the Sabbath was the second, and Sunday was the third day, when He arose. GBC (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Residual Customs in English-speaking World

It should be included that in Ireland Catholics abstain from meat on Good Friday also, but I can't find a decent reference for it. Anyone got a religious education textbook they could reference from? Maeve 14:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's there - "Catholic and Orthodox Christians treat this day as a fast day. Orthodox Christians spend all this day in fasting from all food, to the extent that their health permits. Catholics also refrain from more than one normal meal, though they may add up to two small meals as required for good health. The Book of Common Prayer designates Good Friday as a day of fasting, but the contemporary worship books make no such reference. As Good Friday is the most holy day in Holy Week, most Catholics do not eat meat." I see no reason to mention Ireland, specifically. Carlo 03:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hot Cross Buns are not eaten on Friday traditionally but on Sunday - I will need to find a citation for this--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's right. Lent with its fasting and self-denial lasted right up till the morning of Easter Sunday. Only then would HCBs and easter eggs appear. But tradition has changed hugely of recent years. Hot cross buns now start appearing on supermarket shelves in late December (!!) and are sold for the next 3 months. People who buy them don't put them in the freezer till Easter, they eat them straight away. JackofOz 11:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In Newfoundland and Labrador, traditionally seal meat was permitted on Fridays; it was classed as a liturgical fish, if you will. I believe both seal and whale were permitted in Scandinavia. SigPig 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution of Crucifixion date to John's Gospel

It is correct that the synoptic gospels have Jesus dying on the afternoon of Friday. However, for the Gospel of John, Jesus dies in the late afternoon or evening of Thursday. This still accords with the 19:31 citing the "Day of Preparation" since Jewish days start at sundown the evening before (thus he could have been crucified on Thursday and still taken down from the cross on the "day of Preparation). This distinction is important for the theology of the Gospel of John, as John names Jesus as the "Lamb of God", and the paschal lamb for passover would have been sacrificed on the evening of Thursday. Emerymat 20:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If the day started at sundown, why are you saying that it started in the late afternoon.

The "late afternoon or evening" of the Day of Preparation is Friday.

\u2014The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cfortunato (talk \u2022 contribs) 16:42, 14 April 2006.

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus' last supper with the disciples is the Passover meal. (Mt 26:17-19; Mk 14:12-16; Lk 22:7-13). However, in John, Jesus appears before Pilate around noon on the day before the Passover (Jn 18:28-39, 19:13-16). Emerymat 21:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC) well this is what i av about Good Friday On Good Friday Jesus was crucified on the cross (anniversary of Jesus' death). The main service on Good Friday takes place between midday and 3pm because at 3pm is when he died. In many churches it takes the form of a meditation based on the seven last words of Jesus on the cross, with hymns and prayers. You would think its called bad Friday because Jesus died, however it\u2019s Good Friday because that was the day that Jesus took upon himself all of the sins of the world and saved the entire world from eternal damnation.

Good Friday in Latin America

In the article, it says, "All Catholics have work abstention on Good Friday (as well as Holy Thursday, the day of the last supper)." This is incorrect. Actually, we only have work abstention on Good Friday, and some work anyway because of economic reasons. Boricuaeddie 16:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI - The link http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=74 is not working as of 06Apr2007 -- it reaches the site but an error (at www.oca.org) prevents the page from displaying. CRM384 17:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Original events

Jesus of Nazareth, had died so they made good friday and there is no school so we could remember him. having been arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane by the Temple Guards [...]

The opening here doesn't make a lot of sense, major WTF? 125.236.153.15 02:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph removal (February 27)

User:216.68.158.254 removed a large section from the article [1] which I reverted as an "unexplained deletion". However, looking at the paragraph I reinstated, my view is that it is totally unformatted, and very difficult to read, not even being split into paragraphs of reasonable length. Therefore, I removed it again.

I am worried that the removal may have cut out important information, and knowing nothing about the subject, I will delegate the responsibility of determining the significance of the text to someone more knowledgeable than me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Terminology for Roman Catholics

An editor persists in altering the language "Roman Catholic", first to "Catholic", and then to "Latin Rite" Catholic. (The same editor insisted on the same thing in Liturgical Colours, where it was clearly incorrect.) This is an old issue on Wikipedia; the use of "Catholic" to refer only to those in union with Rome is POV. Moreover, the same editor insists on saying "Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox", reversing the order this page has had them before, despite my suggestion that they should be in order of numerical predominance, as they generally are. My efforts to communicate with the editor on his talk page have been ignored. What say you all? Tb (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not the words that matter, but the intent in the heart of those who read, write or think about the topic. The words are secondary. There are those who can hardly read, yet have more faith than all the spell-masters around. I say let the spell-master do what he wants and say a prayer for him instead. History2007 (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC).

Nonsense. InfernoXV (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tb, all such POV nonsense edits should be reverted on sight. Also, 'Eastern Orthodox' should certainly come before 'Eastern Catholic'. InfernoXV (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

InfornoXV: I think you were offended by my general suggestion about levels of faith. If so, my apologies. I am not even sure if you were that editor or not. However, I have noticed that you have systematically traced all pages that I have edited today and made changes to them. Your main issue seems to be Roman Catholic themes. And on this page you reverted my work with respect to Roman Catholic prayers. It is necessary to discuss on the talk page prior to deletion of a large section not prior to its addition. I think if examples of prayers in Malta and Matins on Thursday nights are relevant, so are Roman Catholic issues, else all those need to be deleted as well - clearly reducing the quality of the whole article. I am not prepared to compromise on the deletion and will insist on its inclusion - however many keystrokes it takes, else the page will tilt away from Roman items all the way to Eastern. I think all groups should learn to live in peace and not fight. Is that not the basis of Christian teachings? Thank you and Happy Easter! History2007 (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "levels of faith" are a part of the Wikipedia policies. Tb (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

From time to time, I go through pages that refer specifically to the Roman Church as the 'Catholic Church' and specifically Roman devotions, practices etc as 'Catholic' and clarify them as being 'Roman Catholic'. I apologise if it appeared as if I was virtually tailing you - I tend to start on one article and follow a trail- often contributions by specific editors, and I realise it was bad timing on my part this time. I'm not offended by the 'levels of faith' bit, merely that I fail to see how it's relevant - the atonement section already has its own article, so surely a link to that article, with a short summary in perhaps a few lines might suffice? May Easter be profitable for you - I celebrate mine next month :) InfernoXV (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Items

A few items important to Roman Catholics e.g. examples in Malta and Phillipines, and reparations to Jesus have been deleted a few times at will and with no notice, while many Eastern Catholic items seem to stay intact on this page. Those Roman Catholic items are "fully sourced" and very important to Roman Catholics. If it takes 1,000 reverts, I intend to keep them there, unless there is a rational Roman Catholic approved argument against them. Thank you for not starting a never-ending cycle of reverts. History2007 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they have been deleted: I think obviously discussion is needed if the folks doing the deleting insist on continuing. But also, discussion requires some willingness of both sides to re-evaluate. An attitude that you will keep them, no matter what, for a thousand reverts, until there is some official Roman Catholic approved whatever, is not reasonable either. Both of y'all need to sort it out, and not adopt the "I will do what I want no matter what" attitude. Tb (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tb: I did say that "unless there is a rational Roman Catholic argument" against them. As is, I have seen none. First, please note that the examples from Phillipines etc. were not originally my edits, but I did find them interesting and informative with respect to Roman Catholic issues and I saw no reason why they were deleted at will with no warning. They are very interesting, in fact. Secondly, please look at the larger context: we are dealing with a page on religion where a photo of food items eaten on Good Friday has stayed intact for months and items related to key Roman Catholic religious beliefs are repeatedly deleted at will with no explanation or with a one sentence edit that deletes a whole pile of other items that makes a simple revert difficult to do. Do I have to assume good faith on Good Friday? Those Roman Catholic issues are directly relevant to Roman Catholic practices and are fully sourced. History2007 (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to the text; I'm saying that all text is provisional, and if there is controversy, needs to be discussed, whatever day it is. Yes, you must always assume good faith. Tb (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Friday - holiday status (commercial, retail, banking, etc) status

Can some mention of the holiday status be made for Good Friday in various countries (G-8, others, etc)?

With specific mention of which sector is closed on that day? (commercial, educational, institutional, retail, gov't, financial, etc) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.12.91 (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tomb of Christ as opposed to Church of the Holy Sepulchre

In this section [2] there's a reference to a symbolic Tomb of Christ, which is widespread custom in Poland. I don't know if it's known in other Catholic communities. The link in the paragraph points to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is something completely different. I guess this deserves a separate article as in Polish Wikipedia. Llewelyn MT (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of "Catholic" v. "Roman Catholic"

An editor has persistently made a change, over objections, altering "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic". This expresses of course the POV that only the church in communion with Rome is entitled to the claim "Catholic", and the editor expressed here that this was exactly his goal in making the change. This is well-travelled ground for wikipedia, and it's annoying, but understandable, that we must travel it yet again. I rather suspect we need a clear policy about the question, or it will have to be refought here over and over again. Regardless, I'm not willing to be steamrolled by a dogged editor who has determined that because his POV is "a matter of history" the existing consensus is to be discarded. Tb (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Greek Catholic?

Are we really saying that only the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church uses this terminology? There are loads of other Byzantine sui juris churches (Romanian, Melkite, Slovak, and the most numerically notable Ukrainians). Using "Greek" as synonymous for Byzantine is definitely something I have not seen in any text written after, say, the sixties. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, the only jurisdiction that uses 'Byzantine Catholic' is the Ruthenian Metropolia of the USA. Everyone else uses 'Greek-Catholic'. The name of the Greek-Catholic Church in Greece is a bit of a problem, as 'Greek Greek-Catholic Church' simply sounds strange and redundant. I've seen 'Hellenic Greek-Catholic Church' from time to time. I'm Greek-Catholic, and engaged in academia, and my experience has been that most scholars use 'Greek-Catholic' to indicate those sui juris churches of the Constantinopolitan tradition, never 'Byzantine Catholic'. In fact, the organisation described on Wikipedia as 'Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church' objects strongly to being called either 'Byzantine' or 'Greek', for historical and cultural reasons, preferring instead 'Bulgarian Orthodox Catholic Church'. If you haven't seen 'Greek' used in texts, perhaps you might read material from the Ukrainians, who merrily call themselves 'Ukrainian Greek-Catholics', or the Melkites, to name but two. InfernoXV (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So what exactly is "Greek" meant to denote here? Carolynparrishfan (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

'Greek' here means 'of the Constantinopolitan Rite'. InfernoXV (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the Melkites are clealry Eastern Catholic, and not Greek in liturgical form, it is quite inappropriate to say Eastern Catholic as if the Melkites did not exist. Tb (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, to their being clearly Eastern Catholic, but they *are* Greek in liturgical form. Their Typicon follows the Constantinopolitan use, and there is almost no differenct, liturgically speaking, between them and the Greeks, as opposed to, say, the Ukrainians and Russians. InfernoXV (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Inferno is correct. The Melkites are Greek (ie, Constantinopolitan tradition) in their liturgical practices. Majoreditor (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Celebrated by whom

The infobox says this is celebrated by "most Christians". The question is, then, which Christians don't celebrate it? And do these only include Jehova's Witnesses and LDS members? 216.169.164.70 (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Calculating the Date of Good Friday" section...

had little practical use, so I added a paragraph, based entirely on the "Date of Easter" section of the Easter page. If anyone wants to add proper footnotes, feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.149.191 (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Another Alternate Name

I know that Good Friday is also called Black Friday, in Australia at least. In reference to "From noon on, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon" Matthew 27.45 Is there a reason that this is not mentioned in the article? (Luthen) 01:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Myth

The word "myth" has been deleted from the lead by several users and an anonymous IP several times tonight. I can't reverse it back, because of WP:3R, but I think that it is clearly people with a POV agenda, and consequently vandalism. The crucifixion of Jesus is a myth, scientifically speaking, regardless of whether it happened or not. Removing this content is clearly an attempt at censorship, because some people find the material offensive or objectionable. It should be re-added. -Duribald (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've reached my 3R on this as well. Those reverting would do well to look at the article myth. The bible clearly falls into this category. CapitalElll (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is a myth, but I am happy it be kept at "commemorates the Crucifixion of Jesus" to avoid an edit war, as Crucifixion of Jesus states it is "an event described in all four gospels" which is factually correct. Pontificalibus (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Factually correct but bias through omission. The phrase commemorates the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ by itself implies that the event occurred. The event is a story from the bible, this is not expressed. Qualifying the statement as mythology neutrally captures the idea. We wish to differentiate between the crucifixion and say Battle of the Boyne, arguably both religious stories. CapitalElll (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The crucifixion will be treated as a myth by anyone who objectively studies religions; just like the battle of Kuruksetra, the Hadiths of Islam or the story in Rúnatal of how Odin discovered the runes. This is standard practice in the study of religions and is in no way meant to be offensive. We should use the standard vocabulary of the field of research to which the article belongs. The word "myth" is linked in the lead. You can simply click on the word and see what it means in this context. Anyone who still thinks it's the wrong word can bring it up here, instead of removing good content. After all - an encyclopedia is meant to educate people. That is the point of the whole thing. And it's the point of hyperlinking terms. -Duribald (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me put it this way: no, no and no. I think the basis of M-theory is a myth, and a few other key myths are: statistical independence, quantitative easing and the direct impact of Cholesterol on cardiovascular failure. It would take too long to list all the other myths that I could mention. But Wikipedia is not the place to debate these issues. It is an encyclopedia that follows the general norms of other encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica in treating religious issues. And most encyclopedias do not label a large number of religious items as a myths because some percent of the population do not believe in them. In any case, there is a page called Historical Jesus specifically there for addressing these issues in a historical context. If you have serious historical "material" with solid references (rather than a discussion of personal views) you can present it there. However, Wikipedia can not, and does not, work based on what you and I think from our personal viewpoints, but relies on solid third party references based on well documented Wiki-policies. Hence the reverts were correct based on the norms and policies. History2007 (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to suffer from the misunderstanding that I believe the crucifixion to be a lie. I don't. Please read at least the lead to the article on mythology. Myth does not mean lie in a scientific context. -Duribald (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, no suffering. Key point: Wikipedia is not about what is true based on debates, but about what can be referenced. But we will let it be. Cheers History2007 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that the article on Christian mythology isn't referenced? Or that the mythology article isn't referenced? To say that the crucifixion is not part of a christian mythology is as absurd as saying it's not part of Christian theology. I can buy, to some extent, the argument about simply calling the crucifixion a "myth". That can easily be misunderstood, if you don't bother to check the hyperlink, but mythology is a legitimate, and a well know, field of research. Wikipedia is based on verifiabilty, correct, and to say that you can't verify this is absurd. -Duribald (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that. What I do say is that if you want to debate please join a university debating society. What is not true is your statement that: "The crucifixion will be treated as a myth by anyone who objectively studies religions" and that statement is NOT referenced either. Neither is it true. I, as a scientist, am a counter example to that statement, which is just your personal opinion. There is really no debate left. Period. By the way, how do you say: "you just went past your 3 revert limit?" Is that a myth? Or should you get blocked? Cheers History2007 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I did exactly three reverts in 24h. That's allowed. Now I have requested an RfC (see below). -Duribald (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. As an editor uninvolved in this dispute, can I recommend a time out for a minute? I seem to recall from some months ago, probably the latter half of 2008, a discussion about whether and when to call a religious story/convention/etc. a "myth." However, I cannot seem to find where this discussion took place. It may have been on WP:RFC but I am not certain. Can I make the suggestion that rather than arguing whether the crucifixion story is a "myth" or not by linking internally to articles like mythology that the interested parties either, A) find the previous discussion and determine what, if any consensus was reached and apply that consensus to this discussion or B) start a new RFC to determine the community's opinion on calling the story a myth? I think this would be the best way forward as both sides at this point seem to be at an impasse, and a wider discussion would be needed to make any progress. Thanks for your time. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC on crucifixion as part of Christian mythology in Good Friday article

Question: Should the crucifixion of Jesus be referred to as part of Christian mythology, as the concept is defined scientifically (see articles on Christian mythology and mythology) in the article lead (see talk page discussion above).

My point of view: The article originally talked of "the myth of the crucifixion", which in scientific terminology it is - it is a story that creates meaning to it's believers, in the lead. A few editors, some of which were IP:s, started systematically removing this contents, apparently because they found it offensive; they identified the word "myth" as meaning an erroneous idea. A couple of us started re-adding the deleted material, because Wikipedia should not be censored and because this is an article based in the scientific study of religion (in which the term myth is systematically applied to religious stories). Edit war broke out. Hence the RfC. As a compromise it was suggested that the crucifixion should not be called a myth, but rather a "part of Christian mythology" - an expression that lends itself less to misinterpretation. I can live with that solution, but some seem to differ. Comments? -Duribald (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Responding to RfC. I find the "part of Christian mythology" option preferable. There is, and probably always will be, some question regarding the objective historicity of the crufixion of Jesus, but it seems to me that the wide consensus is that it did happen. That doesn't mean mythic elements might be involved, however, and this phrase seems to me to convey that idea better. John Carter (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Question 1: Should Moses be viewed as part of theology or mythology? How about all other religious figures? This is a much larger topic. Not just on Christ but on all religious issues. History2007 (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Moses is part of both! The stories about Moses are myths, stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity and they are USED in theology. If they weren't myths they wouldn't really be usable for theology. As I have pointed out, a myth is not by definition untrue. Moses could be real and the stories aboout him still be myths. -Duribald (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW:"Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception. However, except in rare cases (e.g., urban myth), informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed. Avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean "something that is commonly believed but untrue". When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use the utmost care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology or mythology." Wikipedia:WTA#Myth_and_legend It is, with other words, the formal meaning that should be used and assumed. -Duribald (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Does Britannica call Jesus a myth? Does the page on Moses call him a myth? 17:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You cannot call Jesus a myth because Jesus is not a narrative. The stories of Jesus and Moses are myths. I'm having trouble identifying your objections.

• Are you disagreeing with the definition of Myth as stated out in the article of the same name?
• Do you believe that the stories of the bible are not myths? If not, why not?
• Do you disagree that myth is the term used by scholarly works?

CapitalElll (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your use of the verb "are" in bold. This is somewhat of a circular debate now. I will type more later. But I see no obvious end to this circle. History2007 (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC response. There is some question regarding the historicity of Moses, as there are, to the best of my awareness, no external reliable historical documents to verify his existence. Having said that, I think the best option to discuss Moses would be basically the same way I indicated we should discuss the crufixion above. He can be described as a potentially real person about whom a large corpus of mythology seems to have accumulated. John Carter (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is no question that there are aspects of the Bible (as well as other religious works) which could fall within the scientific definition of "Mythology", but there are also significant portions which do not, since they are primarily didactic and not narrative. Additionally, the common use of the the word myth carries implication that the veracity of the story can be independent of its value to create meaning. Therefore, identifying the crucifixion primarily as "myth" is misleading, since it is also a pivotal and significant historical event. I also think that while the crucifixion could be discussed in an article about "Christian mythology", the article on the crucifixion should lead with the historical event, and perhaps include a brief mention of its place within Christian theology and Christian mythology, if those mentions are well-sourced. HokieRNB 18:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should be more clear. A sentence about the crucifixion as myth should state so only as referenced by a reliable third-party source. In the article, there is a referenced section on "Death of Jesus: Theological significance". I would not be opposed to a similar section titled "Crucifixion: Mythological significance" (or something conveying the same meaning). HokieRNB 18:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

since it is also a pivotal and significant historical event. You're saying that Jesus existed? To take such a position would be to introduce bias into the article. Characterization of the event as mythology captures the notion that the event is told within a story, independent of the event actually occurring. CapitalElll (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you just said it. You just said it. You want to argue against the historicity of Jesus himself, and that debate should take place within Historical Jesus, not here. Is saying that Abraham Lincoln existed introducing bias into that article? No. It does not here either. If you have "real" material, please just add to Historical Jesus. Hello: this is an article about religion. And how do you/I measure bias? Do we use the page I started on Bias ratio some time ago? The norm in religious articles is to educate those who want to learn about religion, and there are channels such as Historical Jesus for presenting alternate views. Is that hard to understand? Is it really that hard to understand? History2007 (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing bias that Jesus existed is not the same as adding bias that Jesus did not. If I wanted to introduce bias against Jesus having existed I would use the word fiction as opposed to the neutral mythology. Let us please get back on topic. CapitalElll (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus existed according to almost every historian and scholar in the field. Giving equal weight to the silliness of a handful of conspiracy theorists is not "neutral." Carlo (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a fair assertion and if this were an article on the existence of Jesus you would have a point. Since it's about Good Friday, your argument belongs in a different page. Namely Historicity of Jesus. Padillah (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't even agree on the topic. History2007 (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to set the topic. I would suggest Is the crucifixion a myth (by definition and according to scholars), and should this be included in the article. CapitalElll (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong place for this discussion. History2007 is correct, in an article titled "Good Friday", the historical event of the crucifixion is presupposed, and need not be debated. In the article titled Crucifixion of Jesus, the connection to Christian mythology is perhaps appropriate, but is secondary to content regarding the historical event. However, it would be entirely appropriate to introduce well-sourced edits to Historical Jesus regarding the topic. It is no more biased to assume that Jesus existed than it is to assume that crucifixion was used as a method of execution. HokieRNB 19:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

CapitalElll, think of the article, for example, as being about a TV show. Do you go to great lengths to make sure you don't insinuate the characters of the show are real? Do we make sure any and all references to the characters are in the context of being "not known to exist"? We make sure we maintain that the context of the article is one that the reader can't confuse with reality (we try to stay "out-universe"). In a religious article it's going to be pretty hard for the reader to not know they are reading about a religious belief. As the others have mentioned, there is a place for this discussion. But this is not it. This article is about the holiday "Good Friday" and it needs to stay as on-topic as it can. Padillah (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

great lengths no, but it should be mentioned in the lead whether we are dealing with fact, fiction, or mythology.

Example: The Smurfs (Les Schtroumpfs) are a fictional group...

and COPS (TV series) is an American documentary television series CapitalElll (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point, this fits right along with my example. When talking about the Smurfs the reader is notified that the characters are fictional. But when the article is about a TV show the show is referred to, not the characters. Padillah (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Having spoken as a neutral voice calling for this RFC in the section above, I thought I would wait until a few new voices weighed in before commenting. I have to agree with Hokie and Padillah above, that this article is about a religious holiday so no special lengths need to be gone to to state/imply that Jesus was not real. The word "myth" is not necessary, especially in the lead, as the subject itself is obviously a religious belief. While myth may be a proper scholarly word, this is an article about a religous holiday, not a scholarly discussion of whether Jesus is a real historical person. For that reason, there is no need to "clarify" that the crucifixion is a myth, at least not in this article. Forcing that statement in here would seem to be more of a statement of bias than leaving it to other, more relevant articles. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that this is mythology. Consider Battle of the Boyne and The Twelfth. These is religious commemoration for an event not based in mythology. It should be clarified which are history and which are mythology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CapitalElll (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

CapitalElll does have a point inasmuch as we should be identifying the holiday "Good Friday" as a holiday observed in the Christian faith. We should be addressing the topic of the article. Padillah (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The debate was called on to settle whether the crucifixion should be mentioned as part of Christian mythology. The people who have reverted this phrasing have done so mostly (see for example the "confession" of History2007 below) for religious reasons. I don't bother about whether the crucifixion is a true story or not. The point is that the story is used as a myth, both by theologians and by laymen. If you ask any Christian if he crucifixion gives meaning to his/her life, they will say "yes". That's the definition. Pointing out that the crucifixion is part of Christian mythology is, consequently, asserting the notability of the event. If it weren't considered meaningful to people, then nobody would give a crap about a guy who was executed by the Romans 2000 years ago, and there would be no sources on the subject - and, more importantly, the Good Friday wouldn't exist. -Duribald (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Real Debate

Actually J.delanoy already said that to CapitalElll quite clearly on his talk page when he reverted CapitalElll on Crucifixion of Jesus:

"All articles regarding topics such as this are written from the standpoint that the event did occur."

And is it just "statistical coincidence" that this debate takes place today? Just before the date of Crucifixion?

But CapitalElll, perhaps I should also answer your question about the "real topic" here. All these paragraphs with sequences of logical deductions etc. are really beside the point. If there is a topic between your view and mine it is: "Does God exist?" The rest of the sentences are all window dressing for that. I think God exists and I think you have not yet received the Divine Grace to believe that He exists. Today I prayed that you will one day receive that Grace. That may be the only real way to end this cyclic debate. History2007 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I take exception to reducing a valid argument to one of piety in an effort to dismiss it. You have no right making declarative statements about anyone else' belief system and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. It's not conducive to good faith editing. Padillah (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just about to weigh in on this issue when I read that. I just remembered where I put my 10-foot pole, so... --Kbdank71 19:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

@History2007, you do realize that by removing the warning you acknowledge that you've read it so the goal is accomplished, right? Padillah (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course I read it. But do I believe that my mind has changed? Of course not. Most arguments are really dismissing the real topic. I still think if this discussion had been between a group of Cardinals it would have been resolved by now. Period. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No,no. It's not that. It's just that I've seen plenty of editors try to get out of warnings by asserting they never saw them. It doesn't look like that's where you're headed though. As for the group of Cardinals, I don't think common belief negates respectful discussion. It's not so much who is writing as it should be who we are writing for. This article may very well be read by some agnostic who's looking to see what his friend was babbling about yesterday. In that context I'd hope the cardinals were as open-minded as I'd like to be. Padillah (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if that comment were edited, it creates a negative atmosphere.

I'm asking that it be reflected that this is a commemoration of a mythological event. Once context is established, the article should be written as though from the standpoint that the event did occur. CapitalElll (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I too would appreciate if this were removed. It's poisoning the well, if nothing else. Padillah (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Another way

Again, thisis going in a circle, but why has ths not been tried:

"Good Friday, also called Holy Friday, Great Friday or Black Friday, is the Friday preceding Easter Sunday ("Pascha"). This religious holiday commemorates the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and his death at Golgotha, a belief central to Christian theology."

It is certainly a belief and it is a holiday. Matters not if it is an event. That debate does not belong on this page. End of debate. History2007 (talk)

I don't think it needs to have "belief" added. Treating it as an event in Christian Theology, as a recent edit had it, covers it nicely. If you think Christian Theology is actually mythology, you're validated, and if you think it isn't, you're also validated. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to have "event" but the word "belief" will educate Wiki-readers about the holiday as much and avoids all this debate and wasted effort that could go into the repair of 10,000 Wikipedia pages with "needs better references" tags on top of them. History2007 (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I got no issue with this. (aside from the obvious grammatical ones). Padillah (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, please correct the grammar and let us be done. And SarekOfVulcan, no I would never drop it, but see no major difference between the two versions when it comes to educating the 90% of users who just click on the page the first time. History2007 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Padillah, I noticed you corrected the typo, thanks. But I suggested adding that sentence to the article, and since you are a somewhat neutral party, it is best that you do it, rather than me. That may end this wasted effort. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the lead sentences to make it abundantly clear that the topic of the article is focused on a religious holiday, and that the religion is Christianity. HokieRNB 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is much better now. But believe me that exactly 364 days ago there was a major discussion on this very page about various issues. If you want to avoid that in 2010, can we just say belief and save ourselves the headaches in 2010? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not be inclined to arbitrarily reclassify an historical event as a "belief" just to avoid the potential of a future headache. I think the adjustments to the thrust of the lead paragraph should be satisfactory. HokieRNB 20:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally think it is an event more certain than most scientific theories about various topics. But having belief there, does not say it was not an event, or not an event. Leaves it open. Anyway, if you want to leave it is ok. I will mark the date on my calendar for 2010, and set time aside for it anyway. I bet there will be another long discussion here in 364 to 365 days from now anyway. Time will tell. History2007 (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just weighing in since I commented above, I agree with the current wording of the lead. I think event or belief is better than "myth" and think either one would work in the lead. Glad this could be resolved to everyone's, if not satisfaction at least to a version everyone is willing to let stand. The Seeker 4 Talk 21:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not resolved. There is still nothing to differentiate this article from The Twelfth. The Twelfth is a commemoration of a historical event. Good Friday is a commemoration of a mythological event. This should be made clear in the introduction. CapitalElll (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(brought in by the RfC) I don't understand the distinction being made here; it seems like by adding 'myth' to the intro, a discussion over historicity is being injected in a too-prominent place. A commemoration commemorates an event, not the myth of an event. Other articles on major holidays across religious traditions- Christmas, Vesak, Hanukkah, etc.- do not say they commemorate a myth. They say: the birth of Jesus, the birth, enlightenment, and death of the Buddha, the re-dedication of the Temple, etc. 'Commemorates the crucifixion of Jesus' implies no value judgment about historicity. 'Commemorates the mythical crucifixion of Jesus' implies that it is not a historical event, in the popular understanding. It's just not necessary in the introduction; the article is about the holiday observance, not the historical facts of the life of Jesus. If someone wants to learn about what is being commemorated, they can click the link and read the article- in which case they would see that the Battle of Boyne is a historical event, and the crucifixion of Jesus an event whose historical status is up for discussion among scholars. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to believe that mythology=fiction. This is no the case, please familiarize yourself with the definition. Further, I am in favour of mentioning mythology in Christmas, Vesak, Hanukkah where they celebrate mythological events. I don't see what is wrong with Commemorates the crucifixion of Jesus, an important part of Christian mythology. It accurately and precisely states the facts without a bias as to the factuality of these events. CapitalElll (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't personally believe that; I do, however, believe that when the average reader sees an event specifically referred to in the intro as mythology that they will conclude that the article is saying it is a less than historical event. My point is that I don't see what the compelling need for that addition is: first, the fact that the crucifixion is significant to Christians is evidenced by the fact that there is a holiday to commemorate it. For instance, the Independence Day (United States) article states: "commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on 4 July, 1776, declaring independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain." without adding 'an important event for Americans'. We know it's important- there's a holiday to commemorate it. Now, the signing of the Declaration of Independence is an important event in American mythology, just as Good Friday is for Christians. Happens to be one that is historically well documented as well. But using the argument that is being made here, we should also add that the signing of the DOI is 'an important part of American mythology', just as we should add 'an important part of blank mythology' for hundreds of commemorative holidays, whether they commemorate historically well-attested events or events of questionable historicity. If 'myth' is not being used to indicate the historicity of an event, then there should be no difference between, as you mentioned, The Twelfth and Good Friday; both articles should say 'crucifixion/battle of boyne' is an important day in Christian/Ulster protestant mythology'. If it's obvious to the reader that myths encompass both clearly factual and legendary (but possibly non-factual) events, and if events are important for their contribution to a national or religious mythology, then all of these events should be called part of mythology. What shouldn't be done is to tack 'myth' or 'mythology' onto only events of questionable historic fact as a way to distinguish them from other such events. --Clay Collier (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just try calling Muhammad part of "Islamic mythology" and see how long it lasts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

they will conclude that the article is saying it is a less than historical event. Yes, exactly. I believe referring to it as mythology captures this notion. CapitalElll (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's always helpful when a POV-pusher admits it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the article on mythology. This is not my point of view this is what is used in scholarly works. CapitalElll (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's POV-pushing. You know very well that the average reader will see "myth" as a synonym for "fairy tale". You could use a neutral synonym like "narrative" or "story", but that just wouldn't be as much fun, now would it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and this is what is used in scholarly works, so this is what should be used here. CapitalElll (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

No, it's POV-pushing masquerading as "scholarliness". And if you're so concerned about it, why don't you go to the Muhammad page and label that as "mythology" also? Or is it because it's the wrong time of year? You know very well that the number of wikipedia hits will increase on Easter-related articles this weekend. Your agenda appears to be to (1) denigrate Christianity and (2) make wikipedia look stupid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in islam. I'm willing to leave things as they are until good friday is well over. Let's get back on topic. CapitalElll (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

To put it another way, you're only interested in denigrating Christianity, especially at a time when you know there will be a lot of hits on the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets steer clear of discussing the motivations of editors. Again: what is the specific reason why this event has to be characterized as mythology, when no other article about a commemorative day sees the need to provide a comparable characterization in the intro? Saint Patrick's Day doesn't mention the ambiguity of dating the life of Saint Patrick. Columbus Day isn't characterized in the intro as an important event in history. I'm sure that some scholars would characterize the crucifixion as being also historical; July 4th is certainly mythical in terms of its meaning for ideas of American nationhood. Again, this seems to be an unnecessary insertion of a discussion of historicity into the intro of an article that is not primarily about the crucifixion, but about the holiday. The significance of the crucifixion is its role in Christian belief; the significance of Good Friday is that it's observed by Christians all over the world. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I would support the addition of the term mythology to anywhere where it adds clarity. CapitalElll (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is "nowhere". This is not a "scholarly" encyclopedia, it's an encylopedia for the masses. Using "mythology" is nothing more than an in-your-face slam at the reading public, as you well know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly not an encyclopedia of the masses: 0.999.... We do not shy away from the truth just because it conflicts with the false intuition of the masses. CapitalElll (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Truth"? Don't get me started. You're a Grade-A POV-pusher, nothing more. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, thank you for clear comments. As for your mention of the timing issue, please see: [3] vs [4]. This article receives anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 views per day when it is not close to Easter. Yesterday it received about 100,000 hits. Again, is it pure statistical coincidence that the debate fires rage on this page just 3 days before Easter every year? Does the mythical need for clarity "on this page only" hit some editors every year just by chance? I am just grinning, but I should not. It is Good Friday.History2007 (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What an amazing coincidence. Speaking of which, it's also Passover, which is fittingly overlapping the Christian holidays this year. I wonder why he's not over there labeling that one a myth too? Here's something I'll bet you didn't know: The real reason the women found the tomb empty that Sunday morning is that Jesus had set His alarm clock early. He didn't want to miss Easter Services. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What would Fred Brooks say?

On a more general note, all this talk about mythical motives, mythical coincidences and mythical arguments etc. made me think of Fred Brooks' classic discussion of The Mythical Man-Month, which still remains true today, years after he wrote it. I wonder how one would measure all the wasted efforts here and if they are real. Will adding 9 more valid arguments in favor of the use of "event" here make the debate end any sooner? Maybe we should ask Brooks. And we may have discovered a new, and similar effect within Wikipedia: "Adding more valid arguments to a circular debate only makes the debate run longer". I wonder who will write the book on that...... History2007 (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't mind the current lead but if it must be changed then I suggest simply removing the declarative "an event central to Christian theology." per Clay Collier above. We needn't even mention it's importance in the lead so if that's what you need CapitalElll, then we can remove that and get on with the rest of the article. I would take Bugs intent to heart (if not his words). If you have a POV and want it represented then you are, by definition, POV-pushing. It is declared, in no uncertain terms, that Good Friday is "a religious holiday", if the reader still wishes to insist on it's historicity then no other adjective you add will change their mind anyway. Padillah (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for prematurely stating that the above-discussed lead was satisfactory to all, I mistakenly thought you had commented in support of that version above CapitalElll. That said, I agree with Padillah above. Going out of your way to insist that the word myth is included can be seen as nothing other than POV pushing. I can't imagine anyone coming to this article, reading it and because of the lack of the word myth thinking "this must be historical fact." I can see a lot of people coming to the article and reading "myth" and thinking "Wikipedia is labeling Christianity as a myth while treating other religions as if they are true, Wikipedia is biased" as evidenced by this thread. I see no need for the word myth to be included here in this article, certainly not in the lead. When a significant number of people read "myth" and think "untruth," and there is no compelling need to label the story as such, insisting on its inclusion is nothing other than POV pushing. Sorry. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you come up with word other than myth which expresses the fact that good friday commemorates a mythological event? CapitalElll (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the current version would satisfy everyone. CapitalElll (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That works too. Thanks for meeting in the "middle". Padillah (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you just say Thank you? Well, we should all learn to be as charitable as you are, I guess, given that it is close to Easter. History2007 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I did put middle in Scare quotes if that's any consolation. :) That's why it's a compromise, he gave, we gave. And, for what it's worth, thank you for accepting his compromise. Padillah (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the so called compromise was even closer to my desired goal than my initial suggestion at the top of this section, before all the keyboards got worn out. So I did not really accept it, for it was better than my first offer. In any case, let it be on this case. However, let me note for the sake of future debates that:

The end result of the debate was that Wikipedia pages on religious topics do not need to have the word myth as a qualifier.

Since you know your way around here, is there a way to mark this, so it can be recalled later, say 363 days from now? Thanks History2007 (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. Grab a diff (like this one for instance) and save it in a comment on your user page or someplace convenient (<no wiki></nowiki> in tags like this). I wouldn't recommend here since there's every liklyhood that this page will get archived between now and then and the diff will get lost as well as the discussion. Make sure you make notes so you can remember what it is and why. Then next time you need it you can cite the diff and, hopfully, skip some of the more obvious arguments. Some editor may very well suggest that "WP has changed since then" but it'll be of use nonetheless. See you in 360 days. Padillah (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks. Based on that I made a "record of the last part of the discussion and the conclusion that myth does not belong on the page" for the future. Others interested in preserving the life of their keyboards can save it too. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Along with that, keep this page on your watch list so you can see it start to happen again next year - and not just this page, but the several other pages where Capital L tried to insert the "mythology" stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the page has been on my watch list for over a year. But Capital was here just this year, next year there will probably be another player.... Until then... History2007 (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment there is a myth of Woody Guthrie - that doesn't mean that Woody Guthrie didn't exist. Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

~== Shouldn't there be some discussion about why it's called "Good" Friday"? ==

This should be discussed in the article, but isn't, or at least I couldn't find any mention of it upon skimming the TOC and the article itself. (If it is in fact in there, it should be made more obvious.) Seems like a pretty grave omission, as the first question that comes to most people's minds upon learning that "Good" Friday celebrates Christ's death is "Why is called "good" Friday then?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.56.104 (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's called Good friday as it relieved man from sin. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for God. A greater sacrifice than sheep or cows. 86.21.189.243 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Observed primarily...

..."observed primarily by adherents to Christianity". Oh. Who are those others we were thinking of? Or perhaps this was "primarily" inserted just in case... of what?--Wetman (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know of atheists in Germany who stick to traditions like eating fish on Good Friday. It isn't as secularized a holiday as Christmas, but you don't have to be a practicing Christian to observe Good Friday in little ways. —Angr 07:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Public schools in many states in the U.S. have traditionally been closed on Good Friday and the week after Easter. This form of "observation" would be an example of non-adherents. HokieRNB 12:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Adherence can be, at an extreme, extended to those who adhere only involuntarily, like Jews or Muslims who adhere to the holiday because the school they work at or attend is closed because of the holiday. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above on myth and Crucifixion of Jesus

Please see Capital L's debate and its end above. Then please revert similar edits on Crucifixion of Jesus which have started by him again today. Based on the precedence above they need to be reverted. I have just reverted him once. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to call Noah's Ark a myth. Calling the Crucifixion a myth is deliberate POV-pushing. And I doubt he would have the guts to call Islam a myth. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Friday is approaching

A prediction that I hope will not come true. About 10 days before Easter some debate or sudden edits with agitating consequences may flare up either on this page or Crucifixion of Jesus. It may be advisable for these two pages to be semiprotected for 20 days around Good Friday just to minimize that issue. History2007 (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ireland

87% of Ireland is Roman Catholic. This qualifies as "predominantly." Rklawton (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC) It is worth noting that it is illegal to sell alcohol in ireland on Good Friday

Does that mean in the Republic of Ireland, in Northern Ireland which is part of the UK, or in the entire island of Ireland? 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Biblical Account

The account states that "Pilate has Jesus flogged and then brings him out to the crowd to release him." Most Roman Catholics know this as "The Scourging at the Pillar", one of the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Holy Rosary. Scourging implies either metal hooks or sharp stones were affixed to the ends of the straps in order to tear the skin. Flogging implies merely whipping (if there is such a thing as merely whipping). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.166.38.40 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a wikilink to Flagellation of Christ. StAnselm (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Passion according to John

In my Roman Catholic Church, the roles are divided as follows:

• The presiding priest takes on the role of Jesus
• The reader takes on the role of the narrator, and
• Everyone else, including the congregation, takes on the roles of the other speakers.

That's right. The laity are encouraged to participate in the Passion by reading out the lines attributed to the other speakers. How about your churches? Do they encourage you to actively participate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindybubbles (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the normal practice in at least the United States. I revised the entry which previously said nothing of this practice. To ignore or delete this reality is a violation of NPOV. Delmlsfan (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Resurrection

I added the words 'Christians believe' in the sentence describing the Resurrection. This should not be interpreted as flaming towards Christians; I am a practising Lutheran myself. However, due to the supernatural nature of the Resurrection, I feel that, in an objective encyclopaedia, this event--a divine miracle or a myth, whatever you believe--should be presented as a belief. AxelWN (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A good edit actually. The historicity of the Crucifixion is well attested, and supported in scholarly sources, but the Resurrection is not considered a historical event in scholarly sources. History2007 (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good edit myself. It's under the heading "Biblical accounts" so it's clearly implied that "according to the biblical account, Jesus rose from the dead on the third day." If we're going to add that qualifier, we would logically to add it to every sentence in the section. StAnselm (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will get out of the middle and let you two guys discuss it yourselves. History2007 (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a valid point: while you can argue the nature of the resurrection, you cannot disagree with the fact the gospels say it occured. I should, of course, have thought of that myself. I thought the phrase 'Jesus arose from the dead' looked a bit strange in an encyclopaedia, though you're right. I'll undo the edit. AxelWN (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It is incredible. you have obviously written by the Pope and the Vatican City. Nothing about Italy which represents more than 50 percent of the millenium history of world Catholicism. In return, for example, there are five rows about Malta, an amazing archipelago that would come easily...in the mouth of the Hudson river. A decisive place for Catholicism, such as the Philippines, however. And the changes are a waste of time. Congratulations. This site is unwatchable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.163.200 (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)