Talk:Not peace, but a sword

Untitled

Removed text: A human born of a mortal woman and the son of a patriach in a nation whose prophets had warned against patriarchy, jesus declined to rise to the throne of israel, dashing his countrymens hopes of overturning the occupying forces. Instead, the son of royalty advocated an approach that confronted his own cultures religious leaders for their idolatry and hypocricy.

I like it, but it needs work to fit the scope of the article - generally we leave articles this specific without much in the way of background - the link to Jesus should do that. -SV(talk) 06:52, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just a minor point - can we fix the highlighting? It's SO ugly! Mark Richards 06:53, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While you're working on it, please attribute who the "some" is in "Some believe the sword represents war" - Nunh-huh 23:07, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Still seems to be arguing against a straw-man (sword=war). I'm not convinced that an article interpreting a paraphrase of a saying attributed to Jesus in the Book of Matthew, all without a single attributed viewpoint, is a wise addition to Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 00:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I'm not sure why you replaced the paragraphs I removed. They are at best original research that interpret the passage in a way I have never before seen. I have reworked the article again and would support deleting everything in the "Sword equals Truth explanation" section. - SimonP 08:22, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Verse-specific articles & VfD questions

On the VfD page I was asked about objections to verse-specific pages. As a rule, I support inclusion of almost any well-written WP article, particularly those that I can learn from. My rule of thumb whether the topic is the Bible, Star Trek, Sexology or Taxonomy is this question: "Whould an exhaustive encyclopedia on this topic have an entry on this matter?" I do believe that this article qualifies as a "yes."

But, I do think special attention needs to be taken in naming the article for 1. Clarity for the honest ignorance of the potential reader; and 2. NPOV. This doesn't exclude verses being redirects to an article. Maybe even Interpretations of Matthew 10:34 would be better than a direct quote. Davodd 06:15, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

From Vfd:

I come to bring a sword

• Jesus here isn't advocating violence- he clearly lays out his stance on violence in earlier chapters when he says to "love thine enemies" and "turn the other cheek". He is saying that truth is so often controversial. Because Christianity often seems from the outside to not be benefitial, people will try to validate the wish that it is false so that they don't feel guilty about doing what they wish, so it will naturally cause much division among people. Many will have to give up things- even be at odds with their family if their family doesn't support their beliefs, like many Muslim-to-Christian converts face. And somethings are going to hurt, like a sword! But everything in life, even the painful, inconvenient, not peaceful things, happen for a reason. They teach us so many great lessons and bring us to depend on God, to lean on him when it hurts. When Jesus came, he set the world on fire! He is telling us that its not a religion of passivity, but of fighting a spiritual battle, being "prayer warriors", figting everyday against what drags us down and what stands against.

• I'm not convinced that an article interpreting a paraphrase of a saying attributed to Jesus in the Book of Matthew, all without a single attributed viewpoint, is a wise addition to Wikipedia. Contains many "facts" (such as this being "the most quoted" phrase, etc. that have no basis. - Nunh-huh 00:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• • Important saying of Christ but the article title is not a quote and even if it were I doubt that this is a good title for an article on, say, different views of this saying, analysis by different POVs, the context of the saying, &c. Delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• I agree that the article in its present version is something other than encyclopedic, but let's try to rehabilitate it before we seriously consider deletion. I can fix it up a little, but I haven't the resources to do the real work. This much I know: There is an ongoing debate about the passage, and there are undoubtedly sources that could be cited on the various viewpoints described. Someone just has to find them.

• If we keep hitting it and nothing happens, then yes, it should go. But it's too early to decide that. - Sara 01:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Somehow I don't think a philosophy of "write first, get facts later" will produce anything of value. It certainly hasn't so far. - Nunh-huh 01:15, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Well said. - Texture 01:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Texture 01:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. If kept, move to the most familiar and quoted version, the KJV rendition of the Bible title: I came not to send peace, but a sword. There surely must be somewhere this can be merged to. Smerdis of Tlön 16:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I don't believe Wikipedia should contain an exposition of every Bible verse, or even every major bible verse. The current article is biased towards a non-standard interpretation. Most of this stuff is probably better discussed in Pacifism or Christian pacifism. No vote yet. DJ Clayworth 16:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Being the central author of the article, I do have an opinion - I agree with some of the criticisms - yes, it is rather poorly titled (as often are the quotations, tranlsations, and transliterations - this was Aramaic to begin with, kids). I do think it has a place here, and would characterise some of the above people as holding the view that Wikipedia be purged by some secular divine right, of all religiously-contextualized works. Take a look at our articles on other religions? There is nothing wrong or NPOV for using biblespeak in an article about a well-documented term in human culture, as long as its reasonably describes the general context. I might also add that someone with a name like Nuh-uhh, might be prejudiced toward disagreement rather than consensus. -SV(talk) 23:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • You have no basis for that personal attack. -- Nunh-huh 23:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: significant. Article needs heavy clean up & reworking, including citations. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename to a stubby part of a larger article on Christian views on war and peace. Davodd 07:24, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • It might be a good solution for now, David, but would that mean that this represents an opjection to passage-specific articles? I understand that we dont want each passage of the bible to be entered into wiki - but maybe it would be a good idea. I dont remember any consensus on that - was one of the original discussions. I wouldnt think it problematic to include only those passages that were interesting - meaning no -database dumps, just hand-input articles for (assumingly) the passages that present the most interest. We have had articles on specific idioms, statements, speeches, etc. Maybe this discussion points to new Wikipedia:Policy --SV(talk) 17:18, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment on Davodd's proposal above -- I don't recommend merging into a broader topic. I think there can be a solid, well focused article if we stick to that one verse. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:29, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The most important word in my comment is the first one. I'll take other discussion to the article TALK page. ;-) Davodd 06:05, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a well-done article, except TITLE. It's important as an explanation of the verse. (See the misconception mentioned on the page). The Bible was one of the first printed books. Why should it be limited here? Plenty of less worthy articles out there folks! Zoney 14:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm curious: Why does an encyclopedia need an entry for a sepcific controversial bible verse? There are probably thousands of controversial bible verses! Should there be an entry for every one? And what about other holy books like the Q'uran or Book of Mormon? This article specifically seems quite unbalanced as it is written. It seems more like an advocacy of a specific non-violent interpretation of the bible verse than a write-up of some critical historical phenomenon as should be documented in an encyclopedia.

Changes

I'd like to cut the Romans quote down to just verses 20-21, or just 21, or remove it entirely. Comments? One-dimensional Tangent 23:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

sounds good. excellent work, btw. Ungtss 23:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. If I cut out anything that you consider important, do put it back. I admit that I don't understand the relevance (to this topic) of that passage. One-dimensional Tangent 00:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The external links that I came up with for "In support of the 'advocacy of violence' interpretation, non-Christian" are terrible. I'd appreciate it if someone could come up ones that aren't so caustic. One-dimensional Tangent 05:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

basically

basically, the overwhelming majority of jesus quotes on the gospels are anti-war and anti-violence. it's therefore ridiculous trying to prove the opposite simply by one sentence - most probably taken out of context - since that would mean that either jesus doesn't know what he's talking about or that someone copied the gospels wrong.

retitle

I think this should be retitled Not Peace, but a Sword, Matthew 10:34-39, Luke 12:51-53,14:26-27. This is the name given by Kurt Aland's United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, the current standard reconstructed Greek text, edited by, among others, Bruce Metzger.

It's also the title of a NYT op-ed piece, March 1, 2004, by William Safire: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.20.90 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have belatedly acted on this, but using lowercase: Not peace, but a sword. – Fayenatic London 09:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Matthew 15:4

Thats a pretty controversial verse, kinda.....

It's only controverial if you misread it, ignoring its context. Jesus is simply saying that he comes not to allow the status quo ('peace') but to cause change (using the metaphorical 'sword' to divide the flock). It is a powerful statement of His purpose; any controversy is simply a case of mistranslation and misinterpretation. In any case, it is certainly not a call to violence. --137.186.216.108 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yupp, if a quote is something positive then Jesus meant it. But if a quote is stating something evil then Jesus did not mean it that way and it has to be wildly translated. ... Using that logic I can make Hitlers Mein Kampf or the Quran promote pacifism... Jesus meant something violent with this, especially considering what he has promised on judgement day for all who reject him.

--90.149.188.205 (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Different translations?

Shouldn't there be some info on this page about the various different translations of this passage? I'd love to see some analysis of the actual Greek (or Aramaic, or Latin), and I can't help but wonder whether or not this whole thing is just a misread intention that was lost in translation.

Assuming you're expert in Koine Greek, you can find it easily enough online, or pick up a Greek interlinear Bible. Online: interlinear, interlinear (needs free font), or raw text. They don't always say what text they're using (Nestle, Westcott-Hort, etc), though.

Assuming you're not and expert in Koine Greek, stop now and don't bother looking at the interlinear stuff--you'll just end up reading the English fragments and interpreting them in un-Greek ways. You're still going to need to rely on existing translations, which are typically prepared by large bodies of people who are experts.

—One-dimensional Tangent (Talk) 04:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:One-dimensional Tangent, shouldn't we be looking for the work of the "large bodies of people who are experts" and simply citing that research in the article? Otherwise it violates [[WP::OR]]. Crasshopper (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The question of correctly interpreting the Greek is all important. The expression βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν literally means cast the peace onto the ground. As far as I can ascertain, βαλεῖν has never meant "to bring". It is much more logical here to treat it as equivalent to καταβαλεῖν which means "to overthrow". In other words, Jesus is here saying that his purpose is not to overthrow the peace (the pax Romana) but rather to overthrow war, μάχαιρα being a metaphor for war. The expression ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν also repays detailed examination. It is used 15 times in the New Testament, in several cases it refers to coming from the sea to the shore. Among the other instances, there is the one of seed falling on the ground, one of Saul falling to the ground and yet another, a few verses earlier than the one in question, to sparrows falling to the ground. Arguably, its only true meaning in the New Testament is "onto the ground", or "on the ground". When correctly interpreted, Matthew 10:34, is therefore completely consistent with the Messianic mission as we understand it.

—Mantovano (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sapiential interpretation

There is a less robust but better sourced stub on a similar verse. Perhaps this could be used uniquely, and the rest of the "interpretation" sourced or removed.74.74.191.241 (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting Fact

10-34 is actually a police '10 code' meaning riot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.185.144 (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Original language

I agree with User:Mantovano, there can't be a realistic exegesis of a controversial subject like this without considering the original language. Comparing different English translations is much less direct and adds another layer of indeterminacy.

Crasshopper (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Luke 19:27

"This verse makes it more clear regarding the sword, Jesus clearly says (New International Version ©1984) But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'" (Luke 19:27)"

Jesus is telling a parable, and it's a character in the parable who uses those words.

"11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’ 17 “ ‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’

18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’

19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’

20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’

22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

25 “ ‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’ ”

I haven't edited the text, just providing some context I think is important. SicTim (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not divide the article in two sections with...

Why not divide the article in two sections with the first one presenting arguments about the violent viewpoint and the other talking about the apologetic one? It would certainly be better, mainly because the article is about a wildly-discussed topic. In addition, it is uncyclopedic to spam the article with the apologetic version and ignoring the other points of views.

--90.149.188.205 (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Original research

From what I can see this article is almost entirely OR and should be pared back to a stub until proper sources can be found to support a start quality article. (The Bible is not a reliable source for this content.) It seems editors here have continued piling more OR on top of what's there already rather than finding sources that would address the refimprove and OR tags that have been posted since 2007 and 2009. If a clarification of what constitutes OR would be useful, I'll do my best to provide it. Jojalozzo 21:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, WP:NOR is a good defense tactic, for WP-defending NOR warriors, and for mature articles' defenses. It is not a good reason to delete an article with such a widely discussed, perennial topic. Rather let it grow and compete and merge with

• The Bible and violence
• Christianity and violence
• Live by the sword, die by the sword
• Sell your cloak and buy a sword

There are over 900 articles in 2007 and over 1700 articles with "May contain Original Research" tags currently on the wiki. Is our article being singled out as an general example for them, by "paring it back to a stub"? Or is there a specific passage you wish to point out?

I hope you understand, I'm only trying defend, in general, my initial weeks long effort. I eventually added one cite (from a bible.com scholar). (You removed another cite by a relevant remark concerning ridiculous literalistic interpretations.) I improved the "pile of quotations" style that had crept back in. In general, much of what was "pared back to a stub" by Editor2020 (see next discussion) contain my thought, but it did not qualify, in general, as violating NP:NOR. So in general, I say no. But in particular I am very open to saying yes after reasonable criticism and discussion. Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 06:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your first sentence.

I mean that although a few seasoned WP:NOR practitioners could cleanup ALL NOR-tagged articles in defense of Wikipedia's stature, or one amateurish WP:NOR "call" could stave off a watched article's contamination, that neither applied here. It already had WP:NOR tags. (As you know those are common growing pains for the start class.) It had other problems that started my involvement which I was defending.

I do understand that you recently spent weeks entering unsourced (therefore very likely OR) content here. Please do not continue entering anything that is not sourced. Most of what you have added appears to be your own interpretation of scripture. If it's not, whose interpretation is it and why didn't you include the sources.

Well, I've just finished studying about 140 pp. of scholarly material (you'll see), and intend to slowly incorporate only sourced material. It is important to note that much of my educated guessing is now cite-able, but then I knew that as I appealed for more time.

In my opinion filling in educated guesses just to create flow is as important a growth process as deciding where a missing scholarly fact needs to go, once it is discovered. When the inline citation tags are removable, then the NOR is given citation needed tags, then is finally removed, but not until then. This assumes active work and active watching. Cheers. — CpiralCpiral 06:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Per your question whether the number of other similarly tagged articles means this article is being singled out, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF.

Thanks for that.

I am happy to see some sources have been added. That suggests progress, indicates an ability to find sources and reinforces the identification of remaining unsourced content as OR. Jojalozzo 20:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Gutted article

About the recent edits made by Editor2020, please, let us make one cut at a time, and then the additions. I added one edit at a time, carefully, over many weeks. At first I proceeded cautiously, knowing Editor2020's presence and editing style.

After three weeks attending to the article, I felt Editor2020 was accepting my good faith edits the same way I accepted Jojalozzo's cut.

The amount of material that was recently removed was excessive. The version that was leftover, with its "massive 19 minute rewrite effort", I had issues with.— CpiralCpiral 05:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Did I reach too far? At least I didn't strip it to a stub, as suggested above. Sorry, I'll try to do it step at a time. Editor2020 (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

He, he. Thank you. — CpiralCpiral 07:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that you're right about violence begets violence and the synoptic problem being poor seed, and I am happy to see them rooted out by you, Editor2020. — CpiralCpiral 07:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Woah, fellas. What happened here? This page has clearly been steralized by somebody with an agenda. There used to be so much info on 10:34, not it's just a confusing sub-heading that minimizes its importance. Are we okay with people with agendas monkeying with the repository of human knowledge? DigitalPants (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The part about Richard Dawkins' views

I think the part about Richard Dawkins' views are entirely unrelated to the topic of wiki article.

GreenOrca (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Someone with militant atheist views is not going to provide much of value in the discussion other than representing the most extreme viewpoint. He is also not, to my knowledge, a subject matter expert in the Bible or Christianity. 173.2.236.247 (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

what the heck?

I have never seen such a blatant violation of WP:OR and WP:NOT! We don't do essays in mainspace. I merged what was useable to The Bible and violence. I suggest that anybody who cares about this idea develop actual Wikipedia content (you know, sourced, NPOV, reflecting what mainstream authorities say, and not what pops out of some editor's head) in that article, and if it becomes big enough that it needs splitting out, we can re-fill this article with the split-off content. Happy to discuss, over there. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

Why was this article gutted of content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.103.31 (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The content that was removed was unsourced original research. Content in Wikipedia needs to be sourced from reliable sources - it cannot be editors' reflections on anything. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it a little. Right now this is at least brief and understandable. The sourcing could be a lot better, but I do not have time. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Context: "variance"

This verse is in the context of the subject "variance" ("division"), and should not be detached therefrom.

Also, whether the "peace", or "sword" is "sent" or "brought" is irrelevant to the moral of the passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.60.146 (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)