WikiProject iconChristianity: Bible Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Bible.


Pillars & Apostles is a perfectly descriptive term, and a Biblical one-- but I am open to finding a better one. There is no reason to remove it unless we find a better term.

Note-- Jesus, James the Just, and Mary, mother of Jesus all appear in the Gosples and all appear in Acts. Your edit created more problems than it solved.--Carlaude (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this is an inherent problem with the categorisation scheme - there's overlap between Apostles and Gospels, etc. We deleted Pillars of the church because there's no evidence that it designates a particular group of people. StAnselm (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars" Gal 2:9. (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Encyclopedia: St. James the Less: "Then we lose sight of James till St. Paul, three years after his conversion (A.D. 37), went up to Jerusalem. ... On the same occasion, the "pillars" of the Church, James, Peter, and John "gave to me (Paul) and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision" (Galatians 2:9)." (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Various edits[edit]

Various edits

I have made some changes to the template attempting to improve it, to which Carlaude quickily reverts and warns: "Please do not make controversial edits without WP:Consensus, per guidlines you can find at WP:BRD. Some edits would be fine but your constant rvting without consensus is a waste of our time."

1. For some reason Carlaude refuses to include the NT person Herodias.

2. Aretas IV is located in a list of "Roman and local" gospel names as Aretas is only found in 2 Cor 11:32.

3. He also doesn't seem to like the location of the Twelve above the gospel names for easier access, given that they have received special treatment by being separated out of the gospel list. (In the earlier versions which had captions above the lists it was less of a problem.)

4. Stranger he wants to mix Roman officials with local nobility, while a clear group called "Herod's family" is rejected for this unaccountable claim: "many will not know or see a difference between Roman client kings of & more "normal" Roman officials, the box should be arranged to help people who do not know the sta[t]us in advance", while one would have thought that most people, even those unknowledgeable in the field, knew about Herod.

5. And exceptionally strange is including Revelation in a category of Epistles which I can't see anyone easily comprehending. -- spincontrol 03:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. Of course this is the first you have prought this up, and the first you have discussed your edits at all. I don't refuse to Herodias, but since you refuse to break up you many and sometime unhelpful edits you hinder the collaboration that would be much called for and that would ease the any efforts to preserve any good edits you have made, while removing the bad. Carlaude:Talk 04:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you didn't read the reasoning behind the edits because I mentioned Herodias twice. -- spincontrol 04:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acts now? As I said, Aretas is only mentioned in 2 Cor. -- spincontrol 04:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. I just dissagree. I consider the 12 better placed between the Gospels and Acts since they are figures in both the Gospels and in Acts. If you get WP:Consensus otherwise then we will change it. Carlaude:Talk 04:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This I will have to accept for the moment as I guess it comes down to different perspectives. -- spincontrol 04:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. First of all the "local nobility" are also Roman officials as they are client kings of Rome. Second even if we lable them with some means of distiguing terms, etc., many people (if not most) will not who is or who or even what the differce if. The templete to help find article about people they want to learn about. There is no need to assume they know such facts as these in advance. The template is simpler to include the goverement officals together. Carlaude:Talk 04:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Herodias, Salome and Pilate's Wife were not officials. Obfuscating Herod's family by mixing them with Roman figures is certainly not transparency at work. -- spincontrol 04:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. Like it or not, the Book of Revelation is an epistle, namly one written to people John knew in Asia minor-- but I am open to ideas if you think that section can be impoved. Carlaude:Talk 04:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps then you might explain why the writer calls it a βιβλιον in 20:18. It is a book prefaced with a forward and seven letters. The attempted argument you use is against usual understanding of the text, which should suggest that you reconsider if you want to appeal to general readership as you have already done elsewhere. -- spincontrol 04:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made each of the changes I've listed above as separate edits so that Carlaude doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater... except separating out Herod's family: the "Roman and Local officials" category needs reconsidering as it also includes Salome and Pilate's Wife (obviously not officials) along with a post-biblically named Longinus and seems only a grab-all of disparate figures. -- spincontrol 03:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are manking this difficult for no reason. Please stop making such edits without consensus per WP:BRD and my comments below. I have rvted your THIRD repeat of the controversial & now bad faith edit: namly #3 above. Carlaude:Talk 04:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Did I "read the reasoning behind the edits"? You mean in your edit summaries? No-- even if you think the reasoning was there, that is not the purpose of edit summaries. I do not think you even listed every edit in the summaries, much less explained the reasoning behind each edit... so I did not seek to "discuss" via edit summaries (aka edit warring).
  • 4. So we can either:
  • (a) Use something like "Officials & Noblity". "Romans & Noblity" or "Romans & Herodians" would also be fine with me. Or...
  • (b) Use "Roman and local officials," "Government officials," or just "Officials" -- but put the wives and daughter elsewhere under "Gospel" people, etc.
  • 5. There is no such verse as "Revelation 20:18," but Gordon Fee sure thinks it is an epistle. In his book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, pg 253, 3rd ed., he cites Revelation 1:4-7 and Revelation 21:22 as classic examples of how Near East epistles are begun and ended in the time it was written. None the less, the current format is fine with me as many people will not know it is an epistle, and it simplifies the table. Carlaude:Talk 15:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you are so willing to talk about edit warring as you call it, I guess you are expressing your own desires. I made it clear what my intentions were (if you cared to read the edit summaries), by introducing a missing figure, by attempting to clarify the hotchpotch that was mislabeled "Roman officials" and by trying to put the apostles in a more transparent position. You admit you didn't even read the rational, yet you start accusing of "bad faith" and "edit warring" with your intent to revert. The only thing I can assume is that you are too close to the material and are over-protective.
What's wrong with having "Herod's family" separated out and "Romans", putting Lysanias into Gospel people? It leads to clarity and accuracy. "Longinus" was not an "official" either. "Herodians" is confusing, given its use in Mark.
(Sorry, Revelation 22:18, which makes it plain that it is not an epistle, calling it a book. The introductory sections should remind one of 2 Macabbees with its covering letters. Ben Sirach has a covering letter as an introduction. It's typical of the era.) -- spincontrol 03:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. As I have said above, the "local nobility" are also Roman officials as they are client kings of Rome and many people (if not most) will not know who is one, the other, or neither. If you are discussing with me then tell me what is wrong with the six different options I gave you. Carlaude:Talk 04:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already comment on some of them. 1) "Herodians" is confusing, given its use in Mark, 2) "Longinus" was not an "official" and neither is Pilate's wife (which recommends against anything using "officials"), which just leaves "Romans & Nobility" out of your choice as the only one possible given the current lists. There are thus two categories, "Romans" and "Nobility" or better, basically "Herod's family". You said, 'the "local nobility" are also Roman officials as they are client kings of Rome', but not one of the following Herodias, Salome, Pilate's wife and "Longinus" are "Roman officials". Now could you please respond to my original question, What's wrong with having "Herod's family" separated out and "Romans", putting Lysanias into Gospel people? It leads to clarity and accuracy. -- spincontrol 08:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. Claiming a "book" (as John uses the term) cannot also be an not an epistle would be, for starters, WP:OR. Read How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. It is a good book. Carlaude:Talk 04:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should re-edit the Book of Revelation in order to support your view. You were after all responsible for this modification without reasoning supplied. -- spincontrol 08:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


For the record I think we can dicuss where to put Longinus after the current questions are answered, since it will be simpler then. I think anywhere you want to put him will be fine with me.
I have responded to your "original question" twice above. Stop repeating it.
If I can read around your non-answers it would seem you seem to have these views.
  • (a) i. "Officials & Noblity" - Doktorspin dislikes (because Pilate's wife is not noblity?) Carlaude:Talk 12:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pilate's wife is neither an official nor nobility. "Longinus" is neither an official nor nobility. Even Cornelius the centurion is neither an official nor nobility. Failed. -- spincontrol 20:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (a) ii. "Romans & Noblity" - no clear comments by Doktorspin Carlaude:Talk 12:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without the misspelling it has no descriptive problem. -- spincontrol 20:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (a) iii. "Romans & Herodians" - Doktorspin dislikes (due to "Herodians" use in Mark)
  • (b) i. "Roman and local officials" without wives and daughter - Doktorspin dislikes (no clear reason; just leave Longinus out)
  • (b) ii. "Government officials" without wives and daughter - Doktorspin dislikes (no clear reason; just leave Longinus out)
  • (b) iii. "Officials" without wives and daughter - Doktorspin dislikes (no clear reason; just leave Longinus out) Carlaude:Talk 12:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To preserve the basic hotchpotch under one heading, you'll take out the wives and daughter and "Longinus". Well, "Longinus" doesn't fit anyway, but if there were two categories, "Herod's family" and "Romans", you wouldn't need to toss out anyone. Simplicity, transparency, and accuracy. -- spincontrol 20:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So to me, of the six choices, you have really only given sound reasons against (a) i and (a) iii.
See above. Now, as you still haven't answered about using two categories, "Herod's family" and "Romans", despite being asked twice, perhaps you might try now. What's wrong with two accurate but separate categories?? An example of one possibility:
-- spincontrol 20:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on. Are saying now that "Longinus doesn't fit anyway" in your view? I never noticed that-- and I didn't notice you saying this the first 6 to 10 times you brought up either! It was for a totally unrelated reasons that I proposed that you can leave out Longinus if you want to to do so. Carlaude:Talk 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I first mentioned it when I noticed it at 04:57, 23 September 2009, ie two days ago. He's Roman, but not an official. -- spincontrol 04:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the thrid time, I repeat. I have responded to your question above. Twice. But you have not seemed to have noticed either my response or my letting you know that I have responed. It is you who not responded to my response. I cannot contine these games of yours where you just repeat your mantras rather than reading my replies.
  • Your proposal is no more simple, no more accurate, and is less transparent. Carlaude:Talk 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you've still haven't supplied any reasoning. My proposal is not a mixed list, so how is it no more simple, no more accurate, and is less transparent''? -- spincontrol 04:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to discuss your proposal(s) with others here. If you get WP:Consensus to change it, then we will change it. Carlaude:Talk 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There is nothing controversial about including Herodias, nor putting Aretas in his rightful place. I see nothing controversial about putting the Twelve in a more easily accessible position seeing as they have been separated from the gospel names and are not included in the gospel name list at all, a rather confusing arrangement if one doesn't have the 12 earlier.

Claiming that such edits are controversial is not helpful to dealing with the matter. There seem to be logical and factual difficulties with the template. I don't think Carlaude is in the position to use the royal plural when talking about "wasting our time". What is needed is attempts to deal with issues. -- spincontrol 03:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edits are "controversial" if anyone else doesn't want them. You knew I had reveted them-- but you just ask or didn't discuss why. You just hoped I would like them better the second time. WP:BRD gives you the task of beginning the dicussion if you still want new edits that have been reverted by another editor-- controversial edits.
  • Of course if you think there is a better, more NPOV, adjective than "controversial" to use in such an edit summary, I would be glad to hear it.
  • It is not WP:Assuming good faith (nor helpful) to take statements of mine-- that you wasting my time and wasting your own time-- and to claim it is some sort of "royal plural" in which I am only talking about myself. Carlaude:Talk 04:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed you were unaware of your language. Hopefully now you know how it was perceived. Better adjective than "controversial"? Try something like "contended". So far you are only talking from your own position, so the "our" seemed somewhat inappropriate. I had hoped you'd enter into a dialog on the editing, as I tried to clearly indicate what the issues were, but instead of answering those issues you immediately started talking about rules. I'm all for discussion but citing rules is a talk stopper. -- spincontrol 04:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making accusations, Carlaude, when you describe your edits. You wrote: "Rvting Doktorspin's THIRD repeat of a controversial & now bad faith edit, per WP:BRD. Please STOP." I feel your apparent attitude is not conducive to discussion and is not in the spirit of Wiki editorship, as is your appeal to rules rather than discussion to communicate. If the third revert you refer to is about the Twelve you should say so, otherwise I don't know what you are referring to. However, as of your earlier comment about you disagreeing with the 12 move, see my response.

What do you propose to be done with the "Roman and Local officials" which has the non-officials Herodias, Salome and Pilate's wife (and "Longinus" isn't an official either)? Why do you want Herod's family to be mixed in with the Romans? The category is a hotchpotch that as is doesn't help the reader. -- spincontrol 04:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather appealing to (or citing) the rules to communicate. If you think citing rules to explain my actions and expectations some how "hinders" communication, then I cannot help that. However, if other people cite guidlines or rules, this does nothing to absolve you of your responsiblity to still follow them. Carlaude:Talk 15:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A rush to rules and accusations says otherwise. It says that you are having difficulties talking. I think we can improve the navbox and I think we have. -- spincontrol 03:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are tring to help each other, let me tell you that you are comming across as very condescending and disingenuous. Carlaude:Talk 04:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Communication, which is what we were talking about, is essential to our work and, if there are difficulties, they need to be clarified. When one makes statements such as yours above, one usually needs to show some relevance and some reasoning for the evaluations. Failing to do so makes them appear to be simply insult. You've now talked about me 1) making bad faith edits, 2) wasting time, 3) making controversial edits, 4) coming across as condescending and 5) coming across as disingenuous. As you show a liking for rules, check out WP:civility and WP:PA. We are supposed to be trying to work together to improve Wiki; can we get back to that? -- spincontrol 07:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's add calling my participation 6) playing "games" with all the sleights of the WP:GAME article and 7) repeating "{my} mantras". -- spincontrol 04:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. Carlaude:Talk 11:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

color coding sections[edit]

I like the color coding (as it is now). Good job. Carlaude:Talk 15:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect name[edit]

...should be "New Testament Characters". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characters are fictional. The theory that Jesus is fictional is a tiny minority view, see Christ myth theory#notes #7-23.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and, for example, this quote:
şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 03:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Color coding again[edit]

Does anyone think that it is not clear why Gospels, Acts, Epistles and Revelation group titles have a different background tone from Jesus Christ, The Twelve and Romans & Herod's Family? If so, do you think it is necessary to explain the different tonalities? -- spin|control 13:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it is not clear, looks strange, and should be one colour without a clear explanation for the multicolouring in the template. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you didn't like the the two tonality look when you changed it, though your change was contrary to a slim consensus, as Carlaude's comment above indicates as a reaction to the initial change. I reduced the tonal difference from that which you originally edited out so that it should look less "strange". (I don't think it looks strange at all, but then I guess I'd see why the differences are there.) So let's see if a new consensus arises.
When I asked about an explanation for those different tonalities, I was fishing for a constructive suggest, if you truly don't find the color coding transparent, how would you clarify what the darker ones represent, Gospels, Acts, Epistles and Revelation. If you think an explanation is necessary, how would you do it? -- spin|control 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but I agree, we should just keep the template one color. The point of navigation templates is for navigation, and I don't see the multi-tonality really helping navigation very much here. If you want to introduce some subgrouping, then I would say do so with subgroup labels. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
seems there is no support for multicolour. Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


What do the italics mean?

It means they are part of Herod's family - see the heading on the left. StAnselm (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.” Burridge 2004, p. 34
  2. ^ "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Van Voorst 2000, p. 16
  3. ^ Stanton 2002, p. 145
  4. ^ Charlesworth 2006, p. xxiii
  5. ^ Grant 1995, p. 199
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Dohertyms was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ "I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest.", Wright, N. T., "The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright", There Is A God, Antony Flew & Roy Abraham Varghese, New York: HarperOne, 2007, 188. ISBN 978-0061335297
  8. ^ "The alternative thesis... that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him.", Dunn, James D. G. The Evidence for Jesus. Louisville: Westminster, 1985, 29)
  9. ^ "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place." Sanders, E.P., The Historical Figure of Jesus, New York: Penguin Press, 1993, xiv)
  10. ^ "Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories.", Bruce, F. F., The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th revised edition, Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972
  11. ^ "Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was exicuted by crucifiction under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death.", Johnson, Luke Timothy, The Real Jesus, San Francisco: Harper, 1996, 121. ISBN 978-0060641665
  12. ^ "It is certain, however, that Jesus was arrested while in Jerusalem for the Passover, probably in the year 30, and that he was cannot be doubted that Peter was a personal disciple of Jesus", (emphasis added) Koester, Helmut, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) pgs. 76 & 164.
  13. ^ "Jesus is in no danger of suffering Catherine (of Alexandria)'s fate as an unhistorical myth" Allison, Dale C., The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009, 37. ISBN 978-082862624
  14. ^ "I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist. But I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.", Ehrman, Bart, Discussion on the Infidel Guy Radio Show, relevant audio available at
  15. ^ "I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying.", Crossan, John Dominic, interview, available at
  16. ^ "By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived.", Rudolf Bultmann, "The Study of the Synoptic Gospels", in Form Criticism, transled by Fredrick C. Grant (New York: Harper & Brother, 1962) p. 62.