Talk:Passion play

Claims depending on a peculiar translation

The section Passion play#Historical perspective argues that the Passion narrative as it has been passed down must be erroneous because it doesn't make sense. The argument is expressed rhetorically: "Would a Roman governor have "no basis for a charge" with a man refusing to pay taxes, and claiming to be king? If so, Pilate was a very odd governor." The evidence that Jesus claimed to be king is the translation presented of Luke, which reads in part:

So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.

The problem is, most translations have Jesus giving an entirely different answer! In the majority of translations -- as can be seen at http://biblehub.com/luke/23-3.htm -- Jesus's answer is "It is thou who sayest it" or a close variation. That's an entirely different response from the "yes, it is as you say" purported by the outlier translations -- and it's one to which Pilate's response makes sense, since it's not Jesus claiming kingship.

I realize that RW doesn't have the same "no original research" policy as That Other Wiki, but in this case I think the original research is regrettably flimsy and should probably be de-emphasized. -- Kaban-kun (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Potential ref note

Would it be okay to stick a ref note saying something along the lines of "That's not the kind of passion these plays or about" or "The funny thing about words in English is that they often have multiple wildly different definitions" to the line about passion plays not including much if any sex, or is that too much "stating the obvious"? --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)