Talk:Pentecost/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

49 or 50 days

The problem is theological when trying to set dates according to the Nicene tradition rather than the ancient Jewish practice. The Scriptures are clear. Pentecost is calculated beginning the first sabbath after Passover not Easter. Passover is the prior authority not the Nicene Easter. The first sabbath after Passover begins the week of weeks or seven weeks of days = 49 days. The day after the seventh sabbath is the day of Pentecost. It always falls on a Sunday and never any other day of the week. Now if you choose to follow the Nicene Easter as the time to set Pentecost, you shift from the day of the crucifixion (Passover) to the resurrection (Sunday) as the time to count 50 days. This creates confusion because many will observe Pentecost on a Sunday when their calculations demand Monday. This is another example where it appears the Christian faith in being anti-semitic will not count from the sabbath after the Passover as the Scriptures demands, but makes up a man made day. Often, the day of Pentecost by Jewish and Nicene calculations falls on the same Sunday. Many times it does not. I believe we should stick to the Jewish and Scriptural calculation and reject the Nicene alteration.Acts0412 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC) ___________________________________________

49 or 50 days

This article says Pentecost is the same as Whitsun and that it is 50 days after Easter. 50 days after Easter is necessarily a Monday, but Whitsun is a Sunday, 49 days after Easter. What's going on? 218.138.251.110 12:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Andrew

The count of 50 is inclusive of Easter Sunday. Pentecost is, literally, the fiftieth day. MishaPan 16:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is still 49 days after Easter Sunday. Just as Easter Monday is 1 day after Easter Sunday. Etymology does not change the meaning of the word after. After literally means after. The Jewish festival was 50 days after (or counted inclusively) but wasn't tied to Sundays as the Christian calendar, no? Jagdfeld (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

u should b stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.34.243 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Whitsun is the seventh day after 'Easter' or 50th day inclusive. Pentecost, however, is the day after the seventh weekly sabbath after or coinciding with the Passover, and so is always on a Sunday. (Although in any article, one would have to include the controversy about calculating it's date, as by the Talmud system it can be other days of the week and is a bit more varied.)

The Apostles kept Pentecost several times - chances are they would have been counting by the jewish system. (It would be wierd, after all, for the Jews to be counting to Pentecost, and the disciples to be counting to Whitsun, and so to be gathering on completely different days!) Jesus was not ressurected on the first day of Passover, so invariably Easter cannot be the same start date to calculate Pentecost.

Neither, however, is Passover unrelated. Orthodox Easter is much closer than the celebration of Easter in the West, as far as it's relation to Passover - but neither is going to give an exact date of 'Pentecost' every year.

(And which system is used when picking the day for Whitsun, Orthodox Easter or Western Easter?)

The articles should not be combined, as they are celebrated on different days - even if the articles may mention each other and Whitsun may be referred to as Pentecost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.204.79 (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Immature vandalism

There was some very immature vandalism on the page, where someone had added the (misspelt) phrase "Jeasus was the first hippy". I have deleted it. Go and play childish jokes elsewhere. Pftaylor 10:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Day of the Pentergram

I have removed the reference to 'The Day of the Pentergram'. Firstly, I don't think that 'pentergram' is a word. It is not in the Oxford or Merriam-Webster dictionaries and it does not appear on Wikipedia. The only occurrence of it in conection with the Pentecost that shows up on Google is on this page. I suspect that what was meant here was 'pentagram', but I can see no other reference to 'the day of the pentagram' or any reliable connection between the Pentecost and the pentagram.

If anyone wants to put it back, please provide some evidence of the connection. Seth ze 00:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

Yikes. This little article needs a lot of work. Mkmcconn 06:26 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

better Mkmcconn 19:58, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Remove cleanup tag?

I believe that this article may be sufficiently cleaned up now that we can remove the clean-up tag. If a few others could read over it and make sure that you're happy with it too, then that would be great. -- Jarich 10:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Yo yo yo

I didn't read the entire article; however, I came here to comment on how clear it is. I've been surfing Christian terminology (like ecclesiology, catholicism, orthodoxy, etc.) and most of the articles are so complicated that they left me more confused than when I began. I still don't have a basic understanding of most of what I read. This article alone clarified this term to the point where I believe I have a basic understanding now, finally, of Pentecost and Pentecostal. If it needs cleaning up, that would be for technicalities only, as the article is already very clear and helpful. Please spay/neuter; it saves lives! 06:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Pentecost traditions

Where was the Pentecost service that traditionally had a (paper? white silk?) dove descend on a ring sliding down a long slanting wire? Wetman 20:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Passover & Pentecost

In terms of actual Christian theology this is weak. I teach a second grade class that already knows the ideas here. Is this written for adult Christians? Show me the words of Jesus or the apostles about this. This is the second most important event in Christianity after the advent of Jesus. Is this actually all you can say about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Engr.student (talk • contribs) 11:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is "you" ? If you feel this needs more, please go ahead and add it. -- Beardo 03:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sam, just wondering what the point was in trying to disambiguate Passover from Pentecost. Passover or Pesach is the Jewish holiday, and Shavuot occurs 7 weeks later. Pentecost is the Christian holiday that occurs seven weeks after Easter. I'm sure you know all this, so I'm simply curious what your intentions were. JFW | T@lk 17:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pentecost is a Christian Holiday that occurs the morning after seven sabbaths after Passover. (It is also a Jewish holiday.) It is true many Christians have 'altered the date' to make the counting start from Easter - which frankly is a lot easier than counting as God commanded in Leviticus. But that does not change that the calculation of Pentecost, as the Apostles kept it, is in regards to Passover, not 'Easter'. Whitsun, I believe, is 'Pentecost' altered to be calculated from Easter, according to the traditions of man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.204.79 (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pentacost used to redirect there [1]. Since you opposed the disambig, I redirected it to Pentecost, and placed a disambig there. I find your reverts and the reasoning for them unhelpful. Sam Spade 17:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the redirect. It obviates the need for disambiguation at the top of Passover. JFW | T@lk 17:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We still havn't resolved the issue of your reverts regarding the disambig header @ Pentecost however... Sam Spade 20:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the reader should be able to "find what they are looking for", but the previous version was misleading and incorrect.

Old version:

Note: This article is mostly about the Christian holiday of Pentecost. For the Jewish holiday of "Pentecost" see the articles on Shavuot, or passover

My version:

The name of the Jewish holiday Shavuot is commonly translated as "Pentecost".

There is only one small difference between these disambiguation lines, namely the mention of Passover. The article itself makes it abundantly clear that Pentecost is a Christian holiday, and as I stated quite clearly in my edit summary, the term "pentecost" only bears distant causal relationship and should certainly not be disambiguated at the top of the article. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing to resolve, Jack. JFW | T@lk 21:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pentacost used to redirect to passover. Now it redirects to pentecost. Seems obvious to me that a link to passover be handy in the disambig. I agree that may not be perfectly precise, but disambigs arn't ment to be. They are rather a resource to help people find the article they are looking for. Sam Spade 22:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the pentacost redirect was erroneous, and we should not be promulgating that error. This page is about Ford, the American car manufacturer. See also Mitsubishi. Can we please just leave this alone now? JFW | T@lk 22:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whit?

There are contradictory statements about the origins of the term "whitsunday" in the introduction and body of this article. I am not sufficiently learned in the subject to judge which is correct, but it is a rather glaring error.

User:65.96.215.51, you must be referring to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pentecost&diff=15623538&oldid=15569099 by User:195.93.21.67. Thank you for pointing this out. I'll go get help from Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Religion. -- PFHLai 00:27, 2005 September 8 (UTC)

Version of the Bible

I'm just wondering if use of the NIV would be better than the version used for the scripture verses here. The NIV, in my opinion, is alot more "readable" and easier to understand. So I'd like to change the verses to NIV for clarity purposes. Are there any objections? (Cabin Tom 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

What is the present version? Is it King James? --Sumple (Talk) 00:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Present version appears to be King James. No objections to changing it from me. -- Jarich 10:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

To: Cabin Tom --- The NIV is a "Conversationally Edited" Bible version, and is not an accurate translation. If you have difficulty reading and understanding a genuine translation of the Bible (Like the KJV), get yourself a New American Standard Version (NASV), for that is the most technically accurate translation into modern American English.

The NASV is a linguist's joy and an etymologist's delight.

Read the Preface to the NASV to discover the motivation and rationale responsible for its production, because it is directly related to the appearance of the NIV in the 1950s... And, it's a good story. --Hankdm 07:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) is the standard text of scholars these days (or at least it appears to be in academic journals) on both sides of the Atlantic. It's generally seen as the most faithful to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, but without losing clarity of style. Emilymadcat (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Chode

I've just removed a link to Chode since it was, ahem, rather inappropriate. I can't find any mention of this term in a theological context so maybe someone would like to create an article for it, or just remove the reference (just "50 days after Easter" is fine surely?). Hairy Dude 13:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

49 days after Easter. (7 weeks). It's the 50th day (that means Pentecost in Greek), if Easter is the 1st. And the 8th Sunday (if Easter is the first). --Lagarto 15:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Whitsun

It is still contradictory as to whether Whitsun is white or not. And I think the bold Whitsun should be mentioned in the first paragraph. --Henrygb 22:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Most sources (including Meriam Webster) give white. -- Beardo 07:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As noted first sentance in :

"The name "Whit" does not come from use of white robes/garments worn at baptism. This tradition of wearing white started after Pentecost was called Whit Sunday. The word "whit" comes from the word "wisdom", one of the gifts of the Spirit at Pentecost. Hence the varying names for Pentecost in other countries, individually signifying various gifts, attributes and signs of the Holy Spirit. ( F Noy -Dorchester)"

conflicts with other parts of this page.

The second sentance - what names in other languages. Anyone have examples.

And this "F Noy - Dorchester" - is that a reference. The only F Noy I could find in a google search linked to Dorchester is a firm of car repairers.

-- Beardo 14:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Brewer has:

Whitsunday.

White Sunday. The seventh Sunday after Easter, to commemorate the “Descent of the Holy Ghost” on the day of Pentecost. In the Primitive Church the newly-baptised wore white from Easter to Pentecost, and were called alba’ti (white-robed). The last of the Sundays, which was also the chief festival, was called emphatically Domin’ica in Albis (Sunday in White). 1

Another etymology is Wit or Wisdom Sunday, the day when the Apostles were filled with wisdom by the Holy Ghost. 2

This day Wit-sonday is cald. For wisdom and wit serene fald, Was zonen to the Apostles as this day. Cambr. Univer. MSS., Dd. i. 1, p. 234. (Compare Witten-agemote.) 3

We ought to kepe this our Witsonday bicause the law of God was then of the Holy Wyght or Ghost deliured gostly vnto vs.—Taverner (1540).

This day is called Wytsonday because the Holy Ghost brought wytte and wysdom into Christis disciples … and filled them full of ghostly wytte.—In die Pentecostis (printed by Wynken de Worde).

http://www.bartleby.com/81/17457.html

-- Beardo 14:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Whitsunday?

It appears that there have been some edits that removed all references to Whitsunday until you get to the middle of the article: "...elsewhere in Italy Whitsunday is called Pascha rosatum." I can only surmise that Whitsunday is the same as Pentecost because a search on Whitsunday redirected me to the this article, but there needs to be some language explaining it. Rmesler 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Now included a mention in the first paragraph. -- Beardo 01:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning: "When is Pentecost?"

The Wikipedia section "When is Pentecost?" begins: "According to Church tradition... "

However, would that one prefer to eschew mere Church tradition and adhere, instead, to an authentic Biblical date for Pentecost:

There is only one (1) genuinely authentic Pentecost, annually!

There is not a separate "Christian" Pentecost on a different date than the Biblical date God has established for the Hebrew High Holy Day of Pentecost (Shavu'ot).

On the first "Christian" Pentecost, the correct date was determined using the Hebrew calendar, it was neither calculated from nor associated with pagan Easter, for the correct annual date of Pentecost is not connected to the date of Easter.

All of the events surrounding the Pentecost of the New Testament (Acts Of The Apostles, Chapter 2) occurred on a major Hebrew High Holy Day, an Annual High Sabbath Day, which is a "Pilgrimage" Sabbath. (About which, see: Ex. 23:14-17; Lev. Chapter 23; Deu. 16:16)

In the Wikipedia > Pentecost section "When is Pentecost?"... [2]

Pentecost was on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - Not on May 15, as stated in Wikipedia.

Pentecost will be on Sunday, June 8, 2008 - Not on May 11, as stated in Wikipedia.

Pentecost will be on Sunday, June 11, 2016 - Not on May 15, as stated in Wikipedia.

Remember, there is not a traditional "Christian" Pentecost on some different date, there is only a "False" Pentecost on some different date.

Pentecost always occurs on a Sunday, 50 days from the Hebrew's Feast of First Fruits. (Not 50 days from Easter!)

The Roman Catholics established the "50 days from Easter" date 300 years after Christ Jesus, around the 4th century, CE; while God established the "50 days from the Hebrew's Feast of First Fruits" date around the 15th century, BCE.

Whom should one believe to accurately determine the date for Pentecost? God, maybe?

The Feast of First Fruits is always on the Sunday following The Passover.

And, the Sunday following The Passover is when Christ Jesus was resurrected.

And, The Passover is when Christ Jesus was crucified.

But, occasionally (i.e. 2005, 2008, 2016, et. al.), Easter is capricious and falls a month before The Passover. About which, see:

During any given century, a capricious Easter occurs a month before The Passover about 20% of the time. And, Easter was capricious before there was a Christ, or Christians. Easter has been capricious since its institution over 5,000 years ago.

When a Christian counts 50 days from Easter in hope of determining the date for Pentecost, in those years when a capricious Easter occurs a month before The Passover (2008), a false date for Pentecost will occur about a month before the authentic Biblical Pentecost. A month before the God-ordained, God-established Pentecost (Shavu'ot) on the Hebrew calendar.

In 2008, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, and most all other Christian denominations that focus so strongly (and wrongly!) on Easter will be falsely and meaninglessly celebrating the Christian Pentecost on May 11, 2008, while the genuinely authentic, God-ordained, God-established Pentecost is 28 days later, on June 8, 2008.

With this information, why would anyone care to celebrate the Christian Pentecost, in 2008, on a false and meaningless date?

And, you might wish to ask yourself: "How could Christ Jesus be resurrected from the dead on any Easter (2008) that occurs a month before the day of His crucifixion, death and burial on The Passover?" To be resurrected before having died would be one of the greatest miracles, ever! --Hankdm 08:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting perspective, but the Bible teaches that Christians no longer live under the Law, but under Grace (John 1:17, Romans 6:14). The Old Testament holydays and new moons no longer apply to believing Christians (Colossians 2:16). The oldest heresy in Christianity is the heresy of Judaizing, and it was condemned by the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:15–20 ). The calculation of Pascha (unfortunately, in English called by the pagan name of Easter) is based upon the Jewish Passover. The Jews themselves have changed the method of calculating Passover since the first century. So, technically, no one uses the strictly biblical method of sighting the new moon. The calculation of Pentecost is hardly "capricious." The observation of Pentecost is the same as in New Testament times in that it is 50 days after Passover, which for Christians is the Resurrection of Christ. Just a note regarding the celebration of Christ's Resurrection "a month before the day of His crucifixion"—although the rule no longer prevails in the West, Eastern Christianity still continues to hold to the ancient tradition of not celebrating Pascha before the Jewish Passover. MishaPan 19:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't pick on poor little Easter. It isn't "capricious", it's doing the best it can with the limited information available to it. Nobody has "changed the method of calculating Passover". The Rabbis were always tasked with ensuring that Passover falls in the spring, rather than doing a Ramadan through the year. The new month started when, and because, the Rabbis accepted testimony as to the sighting of the moon. The fixed calendar we use today merely codifies what the Rabbis would have done anyway. And when they saw that Passover was starting to fall early, they would add a leap month to correct. I imagine that's when Easter starts to fall early. It isn't capricious, any Jew could tell you what years that would be. Pedantrician (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Gos also said not to use grace as an excuse to sin, or to exchange truth for a lie. Actually claiming one of his Holy days is on a different date would classify as lying. (Choosing to celebrate it then may be a different topic.) He also said not to inquire after pagans and their customs and to copycat. Also, the passage about feast, new moons, and sabbath days was in regards to the -particulars- of those days. Not to judge people over whether or not they light fires on the Sabbath, or wash their hands ten times, etc! He never claimed the days changed. Note, also, that those same Holy days will be celebrated in the Millenial Kingdom by Israel, and all nations will go up to Jerusalem to participate with them. Yes, we are under grace and not the law - a very wondrous thing. But God's truth is not dictated by the whims and traditions of man.

How does one undo the vandalism? Dawn22 16:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It starts with discernment: reading the word and recognizing what God says vs. what became a later tradition or what was based off earlier tradition. Simply being able to recognize truth from lies, rather than acceptiong every tradition at face value, is the first step. Second - do not spread the lie, and defend the truth. As to the celebrations - it becomes a matter of the heart. What is God convicting you to do? Certainly we cannot lie to our fellow man or children or mix the gospel with lies, even for the sake of goodwill or seemingly good reasons. But if there is nothing in the Word to say we are wrong, and we are not causing our fellow man to stumble, then it is up to our own hearts and between us and God. The vandalism will not be easily undone - but the more Christians who take a step back to evaluate where their extra-Biblical practices came from, and whther they are of profit, or misleadind, then perhaps like yeast it will cause a reverse effect and begin to heal the damage.

Removed text

The following text was added by User:Hankdm in January to the Etymology section.

"PENTECOST" is the Greek word used (ca. BCE 270) in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament) in reference to the Jewish holiday of Shavuot (also known as the "Feast Of Weeks"), which is celebrated every year in the late spring.--Hankdm 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. Please feel free to integrate the information contained here into the article.

Jarich 05:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Major revision needed

This article does need a thorough revision. Pentecost is definiticely NOT one of the three major Mosaic feasts. This is a misleading statement. It is a Christian Holiday devoted to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which is also understood as foundation of the Christian Church (by the vast majority of Christian tradition). Its date is always the 50th day after Christian Easter in any count.

- By 'any' count? By the majority of Christians celebrating 'traditional' Chrisitian holidays, yes - however there are a number of Christian groups who celebrate Pentecost as the 50th day after the first weekly sabbath after or coinciding with passover (or some similar calculation, I believe that was it), as it fits the Biblical calculation system and would have been how the early apostles calculated it.

The event remembered in the New Testament (St. Luke`s Acts chapter 2) is linked to the Jewish holiday celebrated now as Shavuot which may be called one of the Mosaic feasts. Luke`s dating thus refers to a meeting of the disciples of Christ on that Jewish holiday. It is called the "50th" day by Luke in accordance with Lev. 23,16. Since the Christian Easter count departed from the Jewish calendar the Christian holiday of Pentecost is no more related to Shavuot - thus at least for the last 16 centuries. To the best of my knowledge the topics of shavuot have never played a role in Christian Pentecoste liturgy. It may well be that in the days of Luke "Pentekoste" was an expression among Greek speaking Jews for the Jewish holiday of Shavuot - I am not aware of a historical source for that outside the Christian Tradition.

Thus also the reference to the Strongs Concordance in the first sentence -by itself absolutely correct- is strongly misleading. This is an exegetical explanation for Luke's usage of the term - not a reference to the actual Christian holiday.

Pentecost was origianlly a Jewish feast, celebrating the reception of the Law on Mount Sinai. The "topics of Shavuot" have, indeed played a role in the Christian Pentecost liturgy, and are mentioned in the Eastern Orthodox services for the Feast. Also, the Jewish practice of decorating the Synagogue in greenery was carried directly into Christian practice in both East and West (though now, sadly, it has been lost among the majority of Western Christians). Among Eastern Christians, dairy products (see article on Shavuot) are eaten every day of Pentecost week, even on Wednesday and Friday, which are normally fast days on which dairy products are forbidden. As for the practice of referring to Shavuot as "Pentekoste", see the Jewish Encyclopedia article entitled "Pentecost." MishaPan 16:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no time for an edit war that's why I am not changing the text right away - the article has been edited around the present mixup for too long by too many people to expect them to accept a straight rewrite. Besides my English is not too sure. But as a reference for information the article is of little value as it stands because there is too much mixup in it. --Kipala 19:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd added {{cleanup}} and come shit to explain, when I found this message. I'd add to it that the article is a mess in more ways than one. First, its language is unencyclopædic (lots of "we read that" and "it's interesting to note", etc.), and is PoV (it's clearly written from the perspective of Christian believers, who seem for the most part also to be unaware of any but the most literal and straightforward Biblical interpretation). The structure of the article is odd (for example, "name and origin" at the beginning, as one would expect, but "etymology" right at the end...). The style of quotations is inconsistent, too. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 07:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how I should do this, or if I even need to with the current cleanup flag, but: I think the amount of info is great in this article (albeit some is likely POV and needs syntactical/grammatical editing), but where is practically ANY sourcing? By my count, there is all of one (1) reference, and it simply is an external link to the Online Etymology Dictionary. Any thoughts on how to fix this? or is it covered by the cleanup flagging? Thanks! JasonDUIUC 13:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some PoV clean up might be in order, but if Mel Etitis feels the article needs other than "literal" interpretation of scripture, he should add it, if he has reliable sources. A reasoned discussion of the scholarly approach to the text would be welcome. But I think he should note that the article is as much about the Christian holy day as about the biblical text, and the holy day presupposes faith in the literal accuracy of the text. He should also realize that perfunctory dismissal of the literal interpretation is itself non-NPOV. MishaPan 18:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

First, the fact of the holy day presupposes nothing about the literal accuracy of the text; those who celebrate may (though frequently don't) hold such beliefs, but that should have no effect on the article. Secondly, as it's impossible to interpret the text literally, because it contains clear contradictions, and as no reputable scholar accepts a literal interpretation, concentrating on non-literal interpretations is the NPoV approach (though I should point out that I didn't in fact suggest anything like this in what I said, so it's something of a straw man). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your phrase, "those who celebrate may (though frequently don't) hold such beliefs" is an entirely unfounded presupposition. Have you ever been to a church service? Do you honestly believe that the majority of people there don't believe what is being taught? Why would they waste their time? Another problem is that you seem to restrict your use of the word "scholar" exclusively to those who follow the critical school. There are hundreds of well-reasoned and intelligent biblical scholars who also happen to be believers. Does the fact of their faith make them disreputable in your opinion? If so, that is not NPoV. I would, however, be interested in hearing what "clear contraditions" you see in the biblical text concerning Pentecost. "Concentrating on the non-literal interpretation" is, by definition, not NPoV. Providing both sides of an argument, without favoring one over the other, is NPoV. MishaPan 14:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a peculiar view that believers aren't critical — a quick look at just about any theology department (possibly outside the U.S. — I don't know about them) would disabuse you of that opinion.

NPoV doesn't mean giving every side equal billing; it means giving each side billing consonant with its status and position. If the non-literal interpretation is the majority view, then it gets more attention, and vice versa. That's determined by the literature, and I'd say that the literature on non-literal interpretations clearly predominates.

With regard to my position: I was brought up a Catholic and went to a religious school. I'm now an atheist. I spend a great deal of my time teaching the philosophy of religion, and have published in that field. I know many people on the Theology Faculty here at Oxford, both in my own College and in others. None of that is relevant, though (any more than would be my never having been to a church service, my going every day, my being a Muslim, a Mormon, or a Methodist, etc.).

As for the precise contradictions in this case: see John 20:22, which has Jesus giving the disciples the Holy Spirit. See also Ernst Haenchen's Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Westminster John Knox Press; 1971). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I did not use the term "critical school" clearly. Of course there is no objection to approaching the biblical text in a scholarly manner. By "critical school" I was referring to the negative approach taken by some scholars who seem to think that "demythologizing" is a requirement incumbent upon all scholars who wish to be so called (and, by corollary, that any who do not demythologize the text are ipso facto not scholars). The irony that such scholars seem to miss is that their own slavish obedience to what their teachers have taught them makes them just as dogmatic as those scholars who approach the text from the perspective of faith. There is an academically unhealthy tendency among such scholars to simply dismiss out of hand any who disagree with them, no matter how well-reasoned their opponents' arguments may be. Thus, with all due respect, I must object to your assertion that "no reputable scholar accepts a literal interpretation" as being unfounded and unacademic. It certainly seems to be a gross exageration, and borders on prejudice. Regarding your statement that, "literature on non-literal interpretations clearly predominates," I think you'll agree that the weight of an argument is determined by quality and not by volume (and, if it were determined by volume, the sheer quantity of published academic work--in all shades of quality--clearly favours a literal interpretation). As for the seeming contradition of John 20:22, please see the paragraph I added below about St. Gregory the Great. With respect, MishaPan 19:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tags from the article. I think they produced good results, but are no longer needed. Radu Comanescu 13:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there's much more to be done, from copy-editing to removing PoV and an unencyclopædic tone. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mel Etitis, I'm sorry that you are now an atheist. An atheist will always remove PoV from any text that does not harm Jesus, so I see no issue here. As for the so-called contradiction from John 20:22, the Greek words are Λάβετε πνευμα ‘άγιον, Labete pneuma hagion, Receive the Holy Spirit. And, do you see, that is exactly what happened at the Pentecost: the Apostles were able to receive the Holy Spirit. Best regards. Radu Comanescu 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

St Gregory the Great writes: "Why was the Holy Spirit first given to the disciples on earth [by Christ in John 20:22], and later sent from heaven [by the Holy Spirit in Acts 2], except that there are two precepts of love: of God and of neighbor? The gift of the Spirit on earth was to bring about love of neighbor, and the gift from heaven was to bring about love of God. Just as there is one love and two precepts, so there is one Spirit and two gifts." (Forty Gospel Homilies, Cistercian Studies: CXXIII, Tr. Dom David Hurst. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications 1990, p. 202.) Others have interpreted the first giving (reception) of the Holy Spirit as limited to the Apostles and effecting their consecration for the sacramental ministry (it was by authority of this charism that they elected and consecrated Saint Matthias to the aposotlic ministry), and the second giving (descent) of the Holy Spirit as general and effecting the chrismation of the entire Christian community as it existed at that time in Jerusalem (by which all became members of the royal priesthood of believers, the charism being thenceforward bestowed through the laying-on of hands by the Apostles—vid. Acts 8:14–17, 19:2–6). (See Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Press 1984, p. 247.) MishaPan 19:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course John 20:22 speaks about a consecration based upon a charism (which is a supernatural gift granted by the Holy Spirit, hence the naming of the Holy Spirit by Jesus), but it is a preparation, too, for the theophany of the Pentecost. As in the days of Moses, near Mount Sinai, special preparation was required for humans that were to experience a theophany associated to a new level of the Revelation. On Mount Sinai, God revealed Himself as Yahweh, ruling - through Tôrâ - over the second level of the Revelation (during the first level, God had revealed Himself as El, Eloah, Elohim). At Pentecost, God reveals Himself as Abba, Father, highlighting - through the Holy Spirit - the role played by the Son in the great scenario of salvation. The level of Abba is the third level, preached and announced by Jesus, established by the Holy Spirit in the act of founding the visible Church. The Church is, in fact, in a certain way, the Tôrâ of the third level. Best regards (and I mean it). Radu Comanescu 12:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

REVIVED THREAD

This entire article is a disaster. It's biased, factually incorrect, reads like a bad novel at times and in some places is just not finished (see the final paragraph of 'Location of the first Pentecost'). Official plea for someone to begin rewrites of a higher standard - I suggest it is added back to 'clean-up'. Guest user WITAN, 23:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.239.90 (talk)

Unknown footnote tag

I removed the {{note|fn_1}} tag under Etymology. It doesn't point to anything, and I don't know what it is supposed to mean. If anyone knows (and can get it to do anything) they can restore it MishaPan 18:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wish: "Shavuot" in alephbeth

In Name and origin:

"Pentecost" is derived from the Greek name for Shavuot,

Q: how is Shavuot spelled in Hebrew? Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 07:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is spelled shin-bet-ain-vav-tav. In nikkud writing, these letters have some dots and dashes, indicating that the word must be spelled shabuot with vowels. During history, bet acquired the ability to express a "v", too; so now it needs a dagesh (a dot in its center) in order to indicate that it will be read "b". There is no dagesh in bet here, so we read the word shavuot. Radu Comanescu 08:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Added quick reference

I've just added the 2008 date for Pentecost to the top of the page, which should be helpful to the people (such as myself) who came to the page to see roughly when Pentecost is this year.

I am aware that the page duplicates this information in a table somewhat further down the page, but given the significance (Pentecost is a day, and therefore has a date, and is therefore rather central to Pentecost) I have added it as a mini-section at the top of the page.

I anticipate that as the years grow older that someone will post when the 2009, 2010 etc dates are.

87.194.49.123 (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Whitsun

The Whitsun article does not present sufficient information on its own. More information about Whitsun is presented on the Pentecost article than on its proper article. Whitsun should be merged into Pentecost. Neelix (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC) jesus was part of pentecost —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.154.234 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The Whitsun page is at present serving mostly as a disambiguation page for various songs, poems etc. What little information about Whitsun itself that is on the page can be put in the Pentecost introduction, but should also stay on the Whitsun page. The Whitsun page should also be marked as a disambiguation page. Jasper33 (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

They are alternate terms for the same thing; I think Whitsun should be merged in (and maybe more said about English Whitsun traditions). In the meantime I'm going to add the Whitsun page to "See Also."Yngvadottir (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also disagree. The Whitsun page is really a disambig page, even if it is not classified as such. The link to the Pentecost article leads that page, and is sufficient for the disambiguation purpose. oknazevad (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Greek for hēmera

The first letter (η with an accent over it) shows up as a ? on my browser. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thioiie is not the Author of the book of Acts

I removed the refrence to "Thioiie author of the book of acts" and replaced with "The author of the book of acts"

The main reson is that the Author leaves this information out in the text itsself. Although tradition and early church citations indicate that Luke the Physician (Puals Companion) was the author of both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.59.225 (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

New Pentecost

There should perhaps be discussion within the article about the debated notion that the Second Vatican Council was a New Pentecost. [3] ADM (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Denmark

Removed "Many Danes, especially youths, do not know the meaning of Pentecost." because there was no source provided to back up this generalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.116.33 (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The CEV is a very poor translation of the Greek. I suggest someone seek out a more accurate translation.

35.8.219.44 (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation Error

I have noticed a translation error in the part about the public holidays. In this part it says that:

"In Sweden it is not a public holiday, since Pentecost Monday (Annandag Påsk) through a government decision 15 December 2004 was abolished as a public holiday..."

the wrong translation is the part I have put in italic. "Annandag Påsk" do not mean Pentecost Monday but "Easter Monday. The correct Translation is "Annandag Pingst"; http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annandag_Pingst

//Theblacksmith99 (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

extraneous information in Public Holiday section

I don't think this text regarding Sweden belongs in the article, so I am going to remove it.

"This made the average work-year 2 hours 17 minutes longer, since Pentecost Monday was always on a Monday, while June 6 moves, so it can occur on a Saturday or Sunday. The unions were not happy, and union-talks 2007 led to guarantees that employees would be compensated for the extra hours."

Sandeylife (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Pentecost Monday does not seem to be a public holiday in Portugal, that statement appears to be incorrect. See also this: http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/44809/is-pentecost-observed-in-lisbon Can anybody confirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:62:4225:6BC2:450C:FE9F:FC6F:652A (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Denial Of Jewish Origin of Pentecost

I have reverted the reversion of "Glenfarclas" who claims Pentecost is a non-Jewish feast. It is this kind of antisemitism that needs to be addressed in Christian theology. While my intro about Pentecost may need better wording, the real meaning should be straigtway made known. This is not an attempt to hijack this subject but rather bring information to the seeker of truth that is accurate. It is wrong and false to claim Pentecost is Christian in origin and deny its original Jewish beginning. I will not fight this issue with those who are illerate in Biblical understanding. Let me just say my intent was honest and for the purpose of accurate information. I was not attempting to de-Christianize any New Testament meaning or use of Pentecost.

Here is what I added: "Pentecost Means 50th. The Jews count seven sabbaths and the day following the last sabbath which is a Sunday is Pentecost. The count begins the first sabbath after Passover[1]." Would someone tell me what is false about this?Acts0412 (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The mainstream practice followed by all Jews today is to count from the second day of Passover (the "day after the Sabbath", where Sabbath is understood as "day of rest", i.e., the first day of Passover. Festivals are also days of rest. Only the Sadducees, etc, took it to mean, literally, to wait until the Sabbath after Passover. Pedantrician (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The ad-hominems ("Biblically illiterate," "antisemitism") are really unnecessary here; please review WP:AGF before you continue in that vein. The problem with your edits is that the opening sentences of an article should explain what this subject is. The material you'd like to emphasize is appropriate for an "Origins" or "Historical background" section. When a user says to himself, "What's Pentecost? I'll check Wikipedia to find out," Jewish counting methods are not the first thing he wants to read about.

So this is why, for instance, our article on Algebra begins, "Algebra is the branch of mathematics concerning the study of the rules of operations and relations, and the constructions and concepts arising from them, including terms, polynomials, equations and algebraic structures." When you go down to the History section, you'll learn: "While the word algebra comes from the Arabic language (al-jabr, الجبر literally, restoration) and much of its methods from Arabic/Islamic mathematics, its roots can be traced to earlier traditions, most notably ancient Indian mathematics, which had a direct influence on Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (c. 780-850)." It's not "Islamophobia" to have the article arranged in this way, any more than it's "antisemitism" to recognize Jewish origins of Pentecost in an "Origins" section. We also have a lengthy article on Shavuot which may be what you're really thinking of here.

Finally, "Pentecost" does not mean "50th" -- it comes from a Greek word for fiftieth, but as an English encyclopedic term it means, basically, "a feast in the Christian liturgical year commemorating the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples of Christ."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've restored proper encyclopedic order for the opening of the article. The derivation "fiftieth day" is mentioned in the first paragraph, and Jewish origins including "Jewish 'fiftieth day' celebrations" are mentioned in the second paragraph. I really don't see how anyone could find "antisemitism" in this, but I've even gone ahead and added a hatnote for Shavuot. If you want "Pentecost is JEWISH !!!!!!1!" that's the closest you're going to get.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally, the unhelpfulness of your version of the opening is fully explained by this comment which was left by an unregistered user at the top of this talk page, and which I've moved down here:

For a person who is not informed on the subject the opening section is very unhelpful. I guess that "Pentecost now also commemorates the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and other followers of Jesus as described in the Book of Acts, Chapter 2 in the New Testament" is essentially the money graph. I am guessing though since it is not at all clear. The use of "now" is perhaps an unhelpful qualifier since it complicates the issue by connecting it to previous traditions (presumably, most people looking up "pentecost" are first interested in what the heck pentecost is in modern practice among the major religions). Maybe an informed person can devise a "pentecost is..." sentence early in the entry to give us ignorant folk a starting point before complicating things in the explainitory text later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.21.82 (talk • contribs)

Denial Of Jewish Origin of Pentecost

Glenfarclas, your response to me is pure antisemitism. You claim Pentecost does not mean 50th is false. Strong's Greek #4004-4005 clearly says it means 50th. This is in direct reference to the seven weeks of sabbaths + one day as observed by the Jews. The word Pentecost is found three times in the New Testament and each time in reference to the Jewish holiday religious feast. This was before there was any attempt by Christians to grab it and make it into something totally different than the Jewish historic day. The day of Pentecost in Acts 2 is the Christian connection to this day. All these other traditions are man-made perversions. Yes, I consider your comments as Jew hating. Your condescending attitude tells me you do not want the Jewish history before the man-made Christian one. What is wrongm with the correct order? Put the man-made stuff after the original order. As far as people not interested in how to calculate the 50 days not being important, that is false. Just look at all the mess of different ones trying to figure it out. Since you are usurping control over this entry and others not allowed to edit it for fact and order, I am going to let this be my last remark about this. You need to consider how offensive you are to people who are Jewish like I am. Trying to make Pentecost into a Gentile holiday when it was not so for the first 300 years of the Church is unacceptable.Acts0412 (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay dude, take it to ARV or whatever you feel like with your ludicrous hotheaded yelping, you'll be laughed out of town.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the Jewish Pentecost falls chronologically ahead of the Christian, I think the way the introduction is now laid out is correct. This however, brings up another (Slight) problem. Shouldn't the reference to "The first Pentecost" be retitled "The first Christian Pentecost"? I would also be interested in seeing where the Jewish/First testament Pentecost occurred in relation to the world and its borders today.--Deke42 (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Richard Wagner?

The article contained: "Consider Richard Wagner's Das Liebesmahl Der Apostel (The Love Feast of the Apostles) 1841 [cantata for male voices and orchestra.]". I would like to consider that. Wagner, to my knowledge, didn't compose any church music, also "Liebesmahl" would point me to Maundy Thursday (Mahl means Supper), not Pentecost. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Icon theologically dubious

The icon used to illustrate this article shows twelve robed saints (identifiable as such by the iconographic convention of haloes) receiving the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus had twelve Apostles and one of them turned out rotten (to wit: Judas Iscariot), leaving eleven, is this image really appropriate here? Writtenright (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)writtenright

Hate to say it, but it sounds like you are nit picking. Just sayin. Ltwin (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There may be better ones, as Mary was there too. But by Pentecost Matthias had replaced Judas, so the 12 male aspect is correct. --carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Praise be to Saint Matthias, a.k.a. Saint Tolmai, a.k.a. Saint Zacchaeus, a.k.a. Saint Barnabas, a.k.a. Saint Nathaniel, crucified in Colchis, buried at Gonio, stoned to death by the Jews in Jerusalem and beheaded there, who died of old age in Jerusalem. May peace be upon him! "Therefore think not overly upon the shrewd and probing words of those philosophers who would belabor long, sifting and analyzing the Sacred Scriptures for inconsistencies and interpolations, for overmuch rationality doth kill the Spirit. And curses be upon the heads of those philosophers who would maintain that the Christian Church doth make a fetish of the number twelve: that we would cut and paste the pages of the Divine Word to make it fit our own preconceived numerological scheme, for such shall be condemned and cast out into the darkness." - Gospel of Matthias, XII:12. Writtenright (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bible version?

We really need to reference which version of the Bible we are quoting. Assuming it's a free version, it's not a copyright violation, but it still is technically plagiarism. Unless someone translated it themselves, in which case it is original research. — trlkly 06:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's just as easy to use {{bibleverse||John|3:16|KJV|}}. KJV works for nearly every quote, well understood and disagreements in significant detail are rare compared with other versions for most stuff. (I haven't found any actually, though there's bound to be some).

A user may paraphrase it and use bibleverse as inline external quote. e.g. "Paul went to Ephesus.(bibleverse)" Student7 (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Pentecost Online Directory

World Ist Directory & Web Portal for Pentecostals Internationally Recognized and Leading Pentecost Directory Service Provider. website http://www.pentecostdirectory.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentecostdirectory (talk • contribs) 07:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Time of day

There was a statement at the end of the section "Liturgical celebration: Eastern churches" that the NT event occurred at the ninth hour (3 PM) -- presumably to explain the time of day for the Coptic kneeling rite on Pentecost Sunday afternoon. However, Acts 2:15 states that it occurred at the third hour (about 9 AM). Consequently I deleted the aforementioned sentence and added an indication of the time to the section "New Testament" itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horatio325 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Book of Mormon

The section called "The Book of Mormon" seems irrelevant to the subject of Pentecost. Can someone tell me what the purpose of this section is?Punk4orchrist (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)punk4orchrist

Agree. I rm section. It might be different if it were a widely held or official, or important belief. It doesn't seem to be. Thanks for pointing that out! Student7 (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The material is (by its own admission) questionable at best, and definitely doesn't belong here. It would be different if it were official doctrine, and even more so if the BOM offered some substantial commentary or other material on the subject, but it doesn't. Concur. - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Small Potatoes (grammar)

Pentecost falls on the tenth day after Ascension Thursday (40 days after Easter).

The sentence above is formally confusing , on its face . This sentence is the last line of the introductory paragraph . I could delve into the formal reasons for this structure/meaning confusion ,but the obviousness of the problem , would argue against any such tiresome chore . The , all too apparent , shoddy syntax , could be easily remedied by the deletion of the parentheses and the addition of 2 words to render the phrase therein , as a clausal construct . Well , " eezy-peezy " you might think - if your inner dialogue included late 90's idiom - but , as it turns out , not so . The last time I engaged in this sort of ad-hoc syntactical smoothing for the purpose of clarifying , not changing , a writer's meaning - I believe it was as basic as, noun-verb number agreement - my virtual knuckles were smartly rapped with a threat to report and then brand me with some odious Acronym . Needless to say , I refrained from reverting , nor did I engage in disputation , for a number of reasons . At this point , I could go on , concerning the distinction between proof-reading and editorial concerns , but I won't - and I won't alter the confused and confusing sentence that occasioned this overly prolix diatribe .Bjhodge8 (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Bjhodge8, your soap-boxing here is a grammatical train-wreck and serves no purpose other than to attempt to chide others to do work you could do yourself. Do you have a special keyboard that mangles and embellishes your opines? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, Wow ! So aggressive ! I'm glad my informal style on the talk page doesn't have to live up to the high standard you have established in the introductory paragraph to the formal article .Bjhodge8 (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, Oh yeah , Cheers ! (Bjhodge8 (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

Bjhodge8 You actually had a good point about that sentence from the lead, and in response to it, another editor has fixed the sentence, hopefully to your satisfaction (if not, leave another comment here). Your comment would have had more of an impact if it had been more concise, though, and the unnecessary spaces before and after the commas and periods (full stops) are distracting. The form of one's writing can sometimes have an effect on the import, that is, what you are trying to say, and can irritate even editors as nice as Checkingfax (I assure you, s/he is a very nice and helpful editor). I'm sorry you had a bad experience with an earlier edit. Don't let that deter you from making corrections and improvements you feel are needed in articles. Corinne (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Jewish name, feature of the first day itself

I realize it's been discussed variously on this page, with different points being made, and in the past. The Jewish Encyclopedia article says the Greek word "Pentecost" was used by some Greek-speaking Jews; appears in the Septuagint. Can we take the sentence "The word Pentecost derives from the ancient Greek name for the Jewish feast" and change it to "The word Pentecost derives from the ancient Greek name, used by some Greek-speaking Jews, for the Jewish feast"? I think it is important for the sake of the article that there be some acknowledgment that it was not simply a juxtaposition of things, which the Christians quite independently decided to call "50 days".

I wonder why the etymology section mentioned above was removed. It seems significant enough to me for this article that the word is used in the Septuagint for the Jewish holiday. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If it reads "The word Pentecost derives from the ancient Greek name for the Jewish feast" doesn't imply that the term was "a juxtaposition of things, which the Christians quite independently decided to call 50 days". So, your longer proposed text seem to try to solve a non-problem. tahc ^chat 22:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"all-night vigil"

As every Sunday and feast in Orthodoxy is preceded with an "all-night vigil", why mention it here? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not necessary, but don't see any harm in mentioning it, either. Do you think that as the text stands now it gives the undue impression that there are not all-night vigils preceding the other Sundays? We could clarify it to say "As is usual with Orthodox Sundays and feasts..."-Jpbrenna (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Whit Tuesday

I suppose Whit Tuesday should be mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Septuagint

Can someone tell me what source they are using for the Septuagint? I started with Exodus 34:22, which our article highlights, and which is translated as "Festival of Weeks" in the New Translation of the Septuagint - the language in the Septuagint is ἀρχὴν θερισμοῦ πυρῶν - this is "beginning of the harvest of wheat" - therismos means harvest ... what is the connection of ἡμέρα to Pentecost? ἡμέρα is used in entirely unrelated passages like Ex. 7:25 (BDAG) but I have not been able to find a direct connection to Pentecost. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The other relevant language in both Exodus 34:22 and Deuteronomy 16:10 is ἑορτὴν ἑβδομάδων - this is literally just "Festival of Weeks" Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Septuagint --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

When is Pentecost?

Fifty days is sourced in the body, it does not have to be sourced in the lead. It is sourced to BDAG and UBS. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

BDAG is only addresses the meaning of the term. We all agree on the meaning "50".

It is on the actual count of days that you have made wrong in the lead. As I have said, in Jewish culture then, part of a day counts as a whole day, so 50 comes from seven weeks plus and extra day. Today we no longer count seven weeks as 50 days. In English we call that 49. tahc ^chat 04:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The USB quote under Pentecost#Date is a recommendation for translating the term in Scripture-- not in writing English encyclopedia articles nor for writing instructions for when to place Pentecost on a calendar. To write articles that call 7 weeks the same a 50 days would require changing the rules for the English language. tahc ^chat 05:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not 7 weeks, you are incorrect about this. It is the fiftieth day, after seven weeks. That is what the article says, that is what the sources say, and that is correct. It is not 49 days in English. Sunday-Saturday is 7 days. The 49th day is Saturday. The "fiftieth day" is Sunday. I have added the UBS sources information that the first Sunday and the last Saturday are counted as part of the 49, that is all we need to say about it. We do not need information in this article about how the Pharisees count, or how you personally count, or any of the other unsourced comments about that that I have removed. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Seven weeks comes from "you shall count until the day after the seventh Sabbath, fifty days" - this is a major problem in Judaism, but it is not an issue in Christianity. For Christians Pentecost is the 50th day after Easter - more discussion about this only adds more confusion for casual readers - its true that Hellenistic Jews used Pentecost in their literature to represent the "Feast of Weeks" - but in Christian faith it is a different celebration, counted from Easter. That is what this article is about. The name of the celebration is Pentecost - Please stop adding unsourced personal comments about this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not planning to go to the Shavuot article and change the name of the festival to "Feast of Seven Weeks Plus One Day" - in Jewish culture then, part of a day counts as a whole day, so 50 comes from seven weeks plus and extra day - since you have said this three times, I don't think English is your native language (I'm not saying this to put you down, but we have several editors for whom English is not a native language) - "in Jewish culture then" is a very awkward phrase. This explanation is not necessary for this article because it is not called "The Feast of Seven Weeks" - it is called Pentecost. We do not need to explain that it is seven weeks starting from the Sabbath, plus one day, based on Leviticus 23:16 - because it is not an issue for Pentecost which is not called "Seven Weeks" but is already called the "Fiftieth Day" Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• i just restored language that used to be in the lead but got removed somehow (diff) - does that satisfy both of you? Jytdog (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog Why do you think restoring unsourced material would satisfy me? Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

How do you propose that i answer that question? (that is a real question) Jytdog (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Not only is English my native language-- it is my only language.

You say "Sunday-Saturday is 7 days" but that is only the case it one counted from two different times of day on those two days... from the very first minute of Sunday to the very last minute of Saturday.

If Easter is Sunday April 16 and Pentecost (or another holiday) was the next day on Monday April 17, and I asked any how many days is Pentecost after Easter... every English speaker I have known would say one day later. No one... except you, perhaps... would say Monday was two days after Sunday.

In the same way, we say Sunday June 4 is 49 days after Sunday April 16... or to put more simply, 7 weeks. tahc ^chat 16:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog-- thank you for your input but I think that the explanation of when it is should be as accurate as possible for that question. The issues of where the name comes from and what the Bible says about the date are different and should not be confused with this issue. tahc ^chat 17:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you please post sources or drop it? Your personal theory is not something I can add to the article. This is the wrong article to discuss complications in the date that are unrelated to the Christian feast of Pentecost. This article is not about the Festival of Weeks in Judaism. The correct article to add this is Shavuot Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You don't need a source for the sky being blue... but as I said you can look at any calender.

I have never discussed the Festival of Weeks in Judaism, so I do not see why you are bring up now. We also would not expect the Festival of Weeks to be measured from the day of Jesus' resurrection. It sounds like you merely have no reasons left for your POV. tahc ^chat 21:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It is sourced in the article to several different sources. So far you have mispelled explanation as explination, attempted to add sentences with very poor construction, and added dubious tags to "fiftieth" which is sourced to several WP:RS stating that you "don't need to cite that the sky is blue" - I don't find your comments on talk are coherent, and you seem to be having difficulty with the concept of "fiftieth day". You keep talking about "Seven Weeks" and it does not seem you understand the term "Pentecost." This suggests to me that there is a significant competence problem here. Further, what you are currently doing by adding dubious tags to a basic fact that is sourced because you feel you do not "need sources" is vandalism. If you don't have sources, there is nothing to discuss and you should not add "discuss" tags. This is not a discussion WP:FORUM Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I admit I am poor speller, but I can count. Can you count?

You do have have sources for the origin of the term... but the origin is not the issue (see etymological fallacy), and you have no RSs for when it is.

You also have given up on effort to discuss it with me, without ever starting. It is you that is having difficulty with the concept of "fiftieth day". If Monday is just 1 day after Sunday (and not 2 days), then Pentecost is just 49 day after Easter (and not 50 days). tahc ^chat 16:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it is 50 days. This is not a discussion WP:FORUM. If you are a "poor speller" then please find something to do other then editing Wikipedia, as spelling is a requirement for competent editing. I have a suggestion—go find an abacus. Write SMTWRFS on the individual beads. Count 1 Sunday 2 Monday 3 Tuesday 4 Wednesday 5 Thursday 6 Friday 7 Saturday. Do this 7 times, until you can convince yourself that the "fiftieth day" is Sunday. That is what my math professors said in my advanced classes: Go home and convince yourself. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Britannica Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The Moveable Feasts, Fasts and Other Annual Observances

Are you also the one who add the citation "The Moveable Feasts, Fasts and Other Annual Observances of the Catholic Church, two chapter"? It says "The Christian Pentecost is celebrated seven weeks or fifty days after the feast of the Lord's Resurrection" as the opening sentence of chapter two.

I am reverting the text under date to that which was long standing, until a two days ago, when you removed it without any WP:CON, . tahc ^chat 19:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

We are using the wording in Britannica. It does not say anything about "inclusive" — using parentheticals to say completely inane and obvious things that readers can figure out on their own from context is just bad writing. I don't think you have the competence necessary to edit Wikipedia. A primary Church source from 1775 is not something we would use as WP:RS — moveable feast may need to be removed also, if it is not a term in use in other sources. I don't need WP:CON to make changes. Please familiarize yourself with our basic policies, including WP:RS. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No. You do need WP:CON to make changes, because others disagree. Please familiarize yourself with our basic policies.

While you have decided that you want to use wording (that you claim is) "from Britannica", you cannot cannot choose that on your own-- since you don't WP:OWN the article.

We are going to use the old consensus text until there is a new consensus, if a new consensus arises.

Furthermore, while you claim to be using Britannica, your text is subverted by your ignoring Britannica on exactly the issue at hand:

Britannica says -- "Pentecost... celebrated on the Sunday that falls on the 50th day after Easter." (which is strange wording, but clearly means Sunday June 4)

Seraphim says -- "The Christian feast of Pentecost falls on the fiftieth day after Easter" (which seemly indicates Monday June 5)

We have to wonder if you even read the Britannica page you claim to cite. tahc ^chat 23:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This is what our article says "The Christian feast of Pentecost falls on the fiftieth day after Easter. Because Easter itself has no fixed date, this makes Pentecost a moveable feast. The date for the "Feast of Weeks" came the day after seven full weeks following the first harvest of grain." Thus, it is also known as the "fiftieth day" or Pentecost." - nothing you have added to it is necessary. It is poorly written, poorly sourced and it doesn't add any new information. There is no such thing as the "old consensus text." It is not strange wording. The text does not "seemingly indicate Monday" but I will reword it to mention that Pentecost always falls on Sunday. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to (1) claim there is no old consensus text... OR (2) claim something it poorly written/adds no new information... OR (3) claim something "poorly" sourced, then we can discuss it and have a good chance of making progress. What you are doing (for starters) is trying to claim all three-- and making lots of accusations. This is not working for you.

If you pick one-- or at least just one at a time-- then we can hope to progress to evidence, and so forth. If you don't have time for this in your life, then please leave such issues to those of us who do. tahc ^chat 16:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

"Restoring consensus version" is not part of our consensus policy. Multiple admins have affirmed this, so there is nothing more to talk about. It's not, stop trying to pretend it is. "Easter inclusive" is actually a term. Based on no sources, you are restoring a version that says Easter (inclusive of Easter). The sources that use "Easter Inclusive" also use "Pentecost Inclusive" — you may not think this is necessary, but so far you haven't posted any sources, and you continue to restore a version that is unsourced. Show me a source that says "Pentecost is 50 days from Easter (inclusive of Easter day). The only source that uses this parenthetical and this wording is a book that is compiled from Wikipedia articles. Easter inclusive is an old fashioned way of saying "Easter." It comes from a time when the Church was a more dominant part of people's lives. "Pentecost inclusive" as well. It is used to count backwards from Pentecost, or fowards to celebrations that are not very well known today. You can't simply take a term that has a particular historical meaning, and then invent your own interpretation of it without any WP:RS to support the wording you have chosen. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

As for my time, I am not interested in discussions that have nothing to do with the article. Your personal theories don't belong in the article, and they dont belong on the talk page. I've already requested spp to stop you from vandalizing the article. If and when you come to terms with the fact that you, like every other editor on Wikipedia, need to source your edits, I will discuss them with you further, and not before. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Again

• Here is the old consensus version.

“ Pentecost is always seven weeks after Easter Day: that is to say, 50 days after Easter (inclusive of Easter Day). ”

• If you cannot tell, I have no idea why you think that "Restoring consensus version is not part of our consensus policy"-- as you say. I think you should look at the Wikipedia polciy on WP:consensus. If need be, you can tell us what your view is, and (most of all) point out Wikipedia polcies support your view. If this is merely your POV on what you have seen other admins have done, then that is not Wikipedia polcy.
• We can tell that you hate the terms "Easter Inclusive", as if that is (i) somewhere in the old consensus version and is (ii) a septarate phrase (or non-phrase). Please drop this; (it not so true and) your arguments are as clear as mud. Instead of (vaguely) attacking the current text, just say "Hey guys, let us word it this way instead..." and then write an alternative text here on the talk page. It may also help to (briefly) say why you think your proposed text is an improvement. Thank you. tahc ^chat 14:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You are not "Restoring consensus version" you are edit warring. Every once in a while someone tries to slip it past ANI that they were just "restoring the consensus version" and the other editor was "edit warring" and every time the admins tell them WP:BRD works both ways. Repeating it more times does not make it more true. They then write incoherent comments on talk in the hopes that other editors will just give up. This usually results in an RfC. You have no source for the way you have used Easter inclusive, and you need one. I am removing it because it is unsourced and non-essential. Your continued insistence on restoring unsourced material is only going to result in an RfC, which will force you to post sources. (Or I guess you can just let other editors do it for you.) I tried to avoid this, however, some editors do not leave you any option. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim-- you seem to be refusing to discuss this because you believe (in advance) a discussion will not work. If you will not discuss this with others, they why are you telling me? Do you expect someone can magically look into your brain an understand what you see without you telling us in words? El C, Andreas Philopater, and I: none of us can do this.

To claim something "usually results in an RfC" only sounds like you are trying to threaten me with a RfC. Do you think I am the one writing "incoherent comments on talk"? If you will not share some small part of your proposed text and why you would consider it better then how can I make any coherent comments on it?

Go ahead read WP:BRD again. If Seraphim boldy changes the old version, and Seraphim's new change is reverted, then Seraphim has to discuss the old version. To claim every old version as equal is to remove any meaning from the WP:Consensus policy. See also WP:Silence and consensus.

If you want a RfC go ahead-- but I see no need. I have never (that I can recall) seen a dispute like this go to a RfC. A discussion is always the place to start-- but if you cannot even try to discuss, I cannot imagine that any RfC will turn out better for you. tahc ^chat 03:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You need to post sources. I already posted a sourced version, that you reverted. The current version is unsourced for Easter inclusive. A discussion will not work unless you post sources. Yes, it would be abominable if this ended up in RfC because you feel you can use archaic language from the 14th century without a source. I am getting tired of repeating myself. You can not remove the sourced version and replace it with an unsourced version. No matter how much you cry "consensus" or try to blame it on me, it is not a defense. Consensus discussion begins with WP:RS. You still have not posted any, only edit warred multiple times over a version that is currently partially unsourced and partially inadequately sourced to out of date material. It is not my job to source content you want to add—but I have tried anyway. Unfortunately, the majority of WP:RS I have reviewed, including several encyclopedia articles, do not use the term "Seven weeks" or support the current version—further, we no longer use "Easter Inclusive" in common speech. I have reviewed the sources for this also, and I have tried to explain it to you numerous times. Are there any sources you want me to consider before I write a proposed revision? Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Obvously I consider the current sources more than sufficient for the current text on the date of Pentecost. Let's say I am open to finded another even better source. How do I do that if you will not discuss? You comments seem to focus a lot on the exact words involved. Are you hoping I can find a source with certain exact words we can use? Even if we could, that would bad plan. To use the exact words from another source (depending on how credit it was given) would be either (1) poor style or (2) plagiarism or (3) possibly both.

Rather focusing on the sourcing a certain wording, we need to (only) source the facts and ideas stated. Can you (briefly) explain what fact(s) is stated in the text, but that you consider to be not in the sources? tahc ^chat 16:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

For example-- if we count all the days between Easter Sunday and Pentecost, and then also add the day of Easter and the day of Pentecost, we get a certain number of days. It would seem safe to say that number is 50. If this even needs a source, then this fact is supported by the sources. We can say this fact in different ways... with or without the word "inclusive"... but it is still in the sources. If you want to reword it to not use the word "inclusive", then we are open to that. tahc ^chat 16:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not plagiarism. The problem with the word inclusive is that it is a specific term with a specific meaning, mostly used in texts from the 13th-19th centuries. It is used in Church documents, etc. Easter used to be called "Easter inclusive" but Pentecost was also called "Pentecost inclusive." I already provided a source for this in the footnote, I would hope that you read it before reverting. As for Seven Weeks, it is also a specific term, referring to the "Festival of Seven Weeks" — it seems you found a 18th century Catholic source that uses the term, but we need something more recent. For all I know, the Catholic Church has since said "Pentecost is not the Feast of Seven Weeks, don't call it that anymore." Or maybe the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't use it. Maybe they do. We can't know without a source. I've checked numerous encyclopedia articles and none of them use "seven weeks" so I am leaning against inclusion. If it is still in use it should be included, and if not it should not be. There is no need to say "Seven weeks: that is the 50th day" when eighth Sunday is simpler and will do. If WP:RS do describe it this way, then it is worth including but it would be better to find a second source then to simply use a primary and infer that the language is linked to the "Festival of Seven Weeks" — it's better to find a secondary source that discusses it explicitly. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

While other parts of the article address any confussion between Shavuot and Pentecost, there is zero confusion added with the use of the term "seven weeks" (uncapitalized) in this context. In fact "Seven Weeks" is not even a common term for the "Feast of Weeks" or "Shavuot". There is no reason to wonder if Catholics or Eastern Orthodox now avoid calling Pentecost the "Feast of Seven Weeks"-- because we are not calling it that.

You seem to have this idea that we should follow what other encyclopedias do, but tertiary sources-- such as encyclopedias-- are not the best sources. In most cases, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources-- such as the The Moveable Feasts, Fasts and Other Annual Observances.

Regarding-- "eighth Sunday is simpler and will do"-- to say eighth Sunday not do at all. To say "eighth Sunday" (by itself) sounds like Pentecost is 8 weeks after Easter. To say "eighth Sunday" with a long preamble on the "season of Easter" is rather un-simple. tahc ^chat 18:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree completely with that last. "Eighth Sunday" makes it sounds like 56 days. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've read those policies. You should read them again. No, secondary sources from the 18th century are not "best sources." Encyclopedias can be both secondary and tertiary. They are also used to evaluate what is WP:DUE for inclusion. Please do not restore this without a current secondary source. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The language of seven weeks comes from Leviticus. If it is significant to add for the date of the Christian feast, then it would not be this difficult to source. It is already in the OT section. In fact, I have seen sources that specifically use "Seven weeks" to describe the OT festival, but only use "Fifty days" for the Christian feast. You may have noticed that my editing style is to cite things very thoroughly and precisely. If your position actually is that the language "seven weeks" has no significance then it should not be included at all. Why not add the date in hours from Easter? Or minutes from Easter? Because you have to keep the readers attention span in mind. This kind of editing is destructive to the encyclopedia, and it is why many of our articles need improvement. Does it improve the article? Not really. If it isn't important, then leave it out. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Your editing style is not to cite things very thoroughly and precisely. Your editing style is focus on words rather than facts in a way that leads to problems.

You yourself have admitted that the date of Pentecost is not under dispute. It has not changed (relative to Easter) in many many centuries, if ever. This makes the 18th century secondary source to be the clearest and best source for the date of Pentecost. None-the-less, the Encyclopedia Britannica also supports seven weeks. There is no "Sunday that falls on the 50th day after Easter" but it does fall seven weeks after, which is clearly what is meant. Lastly, if you want to cite a more modern source, just walk down to your local Halmark store and buy a calander. It will show Easter to be seven after Pentecost, ever time. Just because Leviticus has langage in it that says "seven weeks" dosen't mean that is where it comes from.

If you are merely trying to avoid the words "seven weeks" (for some reason all your own) then the obvious solution is to just say "49 days" instead. To make this work, however, we will proablly need to drop efforts to also call it "50 days". tahc ^chat 16:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The "OT section" is about the Jewish festival that gives Pentecost its name, the date of which depends on Passover; it is not about the Christian feast of Pentecost itself, the date of which depends on Easter (and which commemorates a distinct event in the life of the Christian Church). So whatever language is used there is hardly relevant to the dating of the main topic of the article. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead

The first things we get to know today:

The Christian holiday of Pentecost is celebrated on "the fiftieth day" after Easter Sunday, inclusively (i.e. 49 days with the first day counted, seven weeks), hence its name. It comes from the Greek word Pentekoste, meaning fiftieth. It is also known as the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Fifty Days.

If I didn't know I wanted first to know what it is about (Holy Spirit), not how the name was derived. Feast of the Weeks is not a synonym, afaik, but the English phrase of the Hebrew feast that was celebrated already much sooner than Christianity. Better drop that whole thing from the lead, - it's in detail - and then correct - there in the body. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, these are more specialized details and they are addressed thoroughly in the article. As for Feast of Weeks, it is described in Tobit as "in the feast of Pentecost, which is the holy feast of the seven weeks, there was a good dinner prepared me" — which is interesting, because Tobit is now widely accepted to have been written around 200BC. Interesting, but aside from some excellent study notes in the Harper-Collins NRSV (with Apocrypha), there is not much written about Tobit, so it is not very useful to us here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Still: the "normal" meaning is probably the Christian feast, - it's related to the older one, and translations arrive at the same name, - easily confusing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Septuagint

To say "In the Septuagint x, and in the apocrypha y", as though the former did not include the latter shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Septuagint is. It is like saying "In the United States x, and in the States of Kansas and Missouri y", as though the latter were not part of the former. If something is in Maccabees and in Tobit then it is in the Septuagint. Any source that says otherwise is misleading, but to be frank I do not believe Seraphim System has correctly understood the source cited. If she or he can provide a quotation from the source that says "Feast of Weeks in the Septuagint, and Feast of 50 Days in the deuterocanonical or apocryphal books", as though the latter were not part of the former, then I will revise my opinion of their competence, and transfer it to the author of their source. The issue of which books of the Septuagint will also be found in a Jewish or Protestant bible is in any case quite irrelevant, as the texts are being cited here as texts in ancient Greek that mention the feast, regardless of their canonical status. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that is what it said, but I have changed it to make this clearer. The fact that the term is not used in the Old Testament is not "irrelevant", and it is sourced to one of the best Biblical Lexicons available - but this needs to be explained because the average reader will not understand why something is in the Septuagint but is not in the Old Testament. Based on your comments, I am not convinced that you understand. I know about the apocrypha and the Septuagint - I am writing for casual readers who may not. For the books in the Septuagint that ARE considered part of the Old Testament "pentecoste" is not used. Therefore what you continue to add - that Pentecost is the ancient greek word for Festival of Weeks is actually wrong For now, I have left the extended explanation as a footnote. I think you should review both BDAG and Kittel and follow what are considered the two best lexicons in the field - I imagine the Resource Exchange will be able to help you. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It said, word for word: known as the "Feast of Weeks" in the Septaugint and the "Feast of 50 Days" in the deuterocanonical or apocryphal books. Now you have changed the deuterocanonical or apocryphal books to rabbinical tradition (is that in the source cited?) and have added WP:NPOV issues about what you consider to be the "Old Testament" (presumably the Jewish Old Testament, rather than the Greek Orthodox Old Testament? Only for Jews it isn't Old, because they haven't got a New to contradistinguish). Rather than get tied up in knots about whether or not the ancient Greek texts cited are canonical, and to whom, it would be far preferable just to say that the word "Pentecost" is derived from a word that appears in two ancient Greek collections of texts: the Septuagint and the New Testament. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Your edit to your previous comment suggests that you think sola scriptura applies to ancient linguistics. A word not being in an ancient Greek text you consider canonical, means it is not really an ancient Greek word. Seriously?--Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with sola scriptura. Everything is cited to secondary sources. You are not making sense. It is not the Koine word for "Festival of Weeks" - that is ἑορτὴν ἑβδομάδων - literally "festival of weeks". The Greek Text of the Septuagint is available for free online, and you can check it yourself. You can also check the UBS handbook for Deuteronomy. And yes, rabbinical tradition is in BDAG, it is also here. This page is about a Christian celebration, so I don't know why you feel your personal feelings about the term "Old Testament" are relevant. That is the term used by the sources. Every single statement in that section is sourced to extremely high quality sources. I don't agree that it is "preferable" to say that Pentecost is the Koine word for "Festival of Weeks" because it is not. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

So is your contention that Tobit and Maccabees are not in the Septuagint, or not in ancient Greek? And suddenly Acts is not in koine Greek? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It's thoughtful of you to suggest I might find the Septuagint online, but in fact the 1979 Stuttgart Septuagint is not three feet from my elbow. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Great, can you check and tell me if Acts is in the Septuagint? Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the word "koine" only applies BC? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I am saying your comment about Acts is a complete non-sequitur. The word Pentecost is not used in the Septuagint as a translation for Festival of Weeks. That is what this page asserted when I began editing it, and that is what I have corrected. Obscuring the issue to distort what the WP:RS say about this would not be preferable. Please keep in mind this section is only about etymology. I have limited the section to what can be sourced to very strong and widely accepted academic sources, and avoided inserting my own opinions and interpretations. It would be nice if you could do the same. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Tobit and 2 Maccabees are both in the Septuagint (not my opinion - look it up), and by your sources both use pentekoste to refer to the feast. I have reduced the section so that it is only about etymology. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

They are in the Septuagint, not in the Old Testament. Also, Thayer is from 1889, so that Lexicon is not a good source. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to continue working on this article, I am advising you once more to simply ask at the resource desk if they can provide you with a copy of Kittel's Pentecost entry from the full 10 volume lexicon (There is an abridged version also, but this is not the one you want.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, you really made a dog's dinner of that! (And there were no bare urls; seeing things now?) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Listen, please dont replace the updated BDAG with a dated lexicon from 1889. I know they're kind of fancy, but just ask at the resource exchange, they have found even the most obscure articles for me. Unfortunately, I have then in e-format or I would scan them for you myself. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• So we now have The Septugiant uses the term Pentēkostē in Tobit 2:1, 2 Maccabees 12:32 and in Acts 2:1 to refer to the "Feast of Pentecost".[2] In Deuteronomy 16:10 and Exodus 34:22 the Septuagint uses eorten ebdomadonto refer to the Jewish holiday known as the "Festival of Weeks." I apologise for not taking your question about Acts seriously. I assumed you knew it wasn't in the Septuagint and were trying to be funny. As this stands, we have books and feasts all distinguished and conflated at random. Do you seriously mean to suggest that there was a hitherto unknown "Feast of Pentecost" in the 1st and 2nd centuries BC, distinct from the "Feast of Weeks" found in the Pentateuch? Does Kittel really say that? Editing: OK, so Kittel obviously distinguishes the pilgrim festival to Jerusalem from the earlier version of the festival. But if we're going to make that a hard distinction, we can cut out all mention of the Pentateuch as besides the point, and just have Pentecost as the Greek name for the pilgrim festival. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear: that's to be read in a tone of heavy sarcasm. I do not for one moment think we should follow a Nazi's hard distinction between the "Old Testament" on the one hand and the "Jewish" on the other. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think, Kittel is a widely-cited authority for this particular lexicon. I don't want to get into an argument about what happened in Germany. He was acquitted in Court, and at least one Jew (or Mischling) testified that he helped her. She was one of the borderline cases, with some Christian background an a student of his. You can read more about it if you want, but it is beside the point here. We do not throw out extremely well regarded widely used academic sources because of our personal opinions about a matter, especially when that person has been tried in a court and acquitted. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Leaving Kittel aside for a moment, can you tell me which book of the Old Testament you think uses the word Pentecost? Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, let's not mention the war. Or indeed all the reliable sources that say Kittel should be used with careful and critical judgement (not simply copied). To answer your question, I have throughout insisted upon using "Septuagint" rather than "Old Testament" precisely to avoid the problems of WP:NPOV opened up by the topic of the Old Testament canon. After all, our topic here is the ancient use of the word "pentecost" for a Jewish feast, regardless of the canonical status of the texts that use it. Your insistence on doing the opposite is somewhat WP:POINTy. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

EDNT says the same thing - it distinguishes Tobit and 2 Maccabees from the OT. I am not sure why you feel this merits accusations of Nazism, as I'm fairly confident it is non-controversial. When I started editing this page, it did not even mention that Pentecost was the birth of the Church. You didn't just remove the statement from Kittel, you changed "Feast of Pentecost" to "the Jewish holiday Festival of Weeks" - what's that about? The topic here is not "the use of the word pentecost for a Jewish feast" - this page is not about a Jewish feast, it is about a biblical event that Christians commemorate as the birth of the Church. The first 300 years were the best, or so the story goes. This one statement about etymology is not critical, I didn't even restore it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty uncontroversial that Kittel was a Nazi. This is why other reliable sources explicitly say he should be used with care. I can't imagine why you take it so personally. As to the name of the Jewish feast, was it not you who changed Shavuot to Weeks in the lead? I was simply aiming for consistency in the body of the article. Whatever the differences between the way Shavuot was celebrated pre- and post-Temple, I hope we can agree that the Apostles were celebrating Shavuot in Acts? (The same Jewish feast described by the near-contemporaneous Philo and Josephus). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I do have sources for that and I plan to add it. Regarding Kittel - many Germans were Nazis at the time, it was a fascist regime. Was there another political party he could have belonged to? He was never convicted of any war crimes or violent acts against Jews, in fact Jews testified at his trial that he protected them. Eerdman's is a major publisher for Christian Theology books. I'm not taking it personally - I just don't understand why you are bringing it up in this discussion. Are you arguing that Tobit and 2 Maccabees are part of the OT? Or that the statement that "The Old Testament does not use the word Pentacost" needs to be examined more critically? The statement that the word "Pentecost" is not used in the OT (for "Festival of Weeks") is not controversial, it's about as controversial as "the sky is blue." Its a basic fact that does not need a citation could be cited directly to the Greek text of the Septuagint, but I cited it to secondary sources because that is how I do things. This seems to be about your OR that the Septuagint and the OT are the same thing. There minority-view critics of every scholar, but Kittel's lexicon is considered an authority, and it is published by one of the best publishers of Christian theology books. Of course there are going to be some people who don't like it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand why you are concerned. I researched this when I first heard about it—during his trial, many people testified that he did not support the racial ideology or extremist wing of the Nazi party. His classroom lectures were scrutinized, and there was never any evidence that he promoted Nazi rhetoric or hate speech. His opposition to the extremist wing of the party was noted. He may have had theologically based oppositions to Judaism - but scholars who refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between theologically based criticism of Judaism and the racial ideology of Nazism are a minority view, if not a fringe view. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how many times you expect me to repeat this: I am not saying whether Tobit and Maccabees are in the Old Testament one way or the other, because doing so contravenes WP:NPOV. It is an incontrovertible statement of fact that both are in the Septuagint. You and Bartholomew I of Constantinople might agree that the sky is blue; but you might not agree about the Old Testament canon. So stop trying to impose your POV on the article. As to your inability to understand why a Nazi (even if you consider them a relatively innocuous one) might not be the best source on Jewish feasts, that is indeed something to ponder. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is not about "Jewish feasts", it is about the Christian feast of Pentecost. Gerhard Kittel is one of the best sources available for biblical greek etymology. If you have some kind of personal issues about that, proceed directly to RS/n. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a view about the Old Testament canon. I added a footnote specifically to address why certain editions of the Bible, like NABre include Tobit in the Old Testament, and others do not. So I suppose it is a fair comment that Kittel's comment is only accurate from a Jewish perspective, or a Protestant perspective. Fine, I haven't restored it - why are you going on and on about this? The Jewish woman, Annemarie Tugendhat, whose father was actually in a concentration camp testified that Kittel strongly objected to Nazi actions against the Jews. Would you have done the same thing in his position? Rhetorical question, but spend some time thinking about it. Telling editors they are trying to "impose POV" is actually a personal attack - you should not do it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Why am I going on and on about this? Because you keep asking me about it, apparently finding it hard to grasp, so I keep answering. As to the topic, as you say, this article is about the Christian feast of Pentecost. That feast takes its name from the ancient Greek name for a Jewish feast. That is the etymology, and it is not controversial, but it is precisely the issue on which you are POV-pushing, in part at least through uncritically adhering to a source that is not without value, but nevertheless is (again uncontroversially) the work of a Nazi who died in 1948. You apparently also find it hard to grasp why anybody would think this problematic. So I keep trying to explain. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've found more sources for this. For you, it's easy—it is preferable to just de-emphasize Christian Pentecost entirely. The reality is much more difficult. Paul says in 1 Corinthians that the will return to Jerusalem for Pentecost. We don't have any evidence that there is a Christian celebration at that time - in fact, I have not been able to find a source for when the Christian celebration of Pentecost began. The better Lexicons and commentaries are divided. Where scholarly sources are evenly divided, I have to include the different positions. Why would Paul be returning to Jerusalem to celebrate a Jewish festival? We don't know - that's the reality. Most likely, we can say Acts 2:1 takes place during Shavuot, but then we have to consider what scholars have said about Acts 20:16. We can not just interpret primary religious texts on our own. Your repeated comments that "Pentecost is a Jewish Feast." and "Kittel is a Nazi." suggest that you simply don't care what the WP:RS say if they contradict your POV or your WP:OR based on primary sources. These comments indicate that you may not grasp the complexity of the issue of what Pentecost was in the early Church. You do not seem to be able to distinguish the Jewish festival from the Christian celebration. Judaism is part of Christianity's background and origins, but Christianity is a separate religion. The article said Pentecost is the old Greek and Latin name for the Jewish Festival of Weeks which can be found in the Hebrew Bible. It is called by that name in Exodus 34:22 and Deuteronomy 16:10 - That is what the article said, it did not describe how or why the name Pentecost was derived, as you claim, it was just flat out wrong - I am the person who added the corrected sourced version.Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally, I would advise you against inanely repeating "Kittel was a Nazi" like a broken record. Gerhard Kittel is an extremely well-respected Christian scholar. His Lexicon is published by Eerdman's and has been edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. It most certainly meets our standards for WP:RS. You are only making yourself look bad here. I have already agreed to remove the discussion about the OT and Apocrypha because it is written from a Protestant POV, and is not essential—but that is the only reason. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Also you have not said specifically what you feel is problematically sourced to Kittel in the article. Currently the only thing I see that could be a problem is the term "Feast of Pentecost" which you have tried to replace with "Festival of Weeks." I have added sources clarifying this—I do not want to say it is "Festival of Weeks" because it is not. eorten ebdomadon is Festival of Weeks. In Tobit 2:1, both terms are used in the same verse (Tobit 2:1 actually uses "ἁγία ἑπτὰ ἑβδομάδων" => sacred seven weeks, this is translated as "sacred festival of weeks" in NRSV)—I don't think it is controversial. but it needs to be explained. Saying that the term Pentecost is the same as the term "festival of weeks" in the Septuagint is wrong. Digging up a dated lexicon from 1889 and removing BDAG actually is POV editing. BDAG already says it "refers to the festival of weeks" - what more do you want? The Greek words used in the Septuagint are not the same. "Kittel is a Nazi" is a highly inappropriate reaction. Filing an NPOV complaint strongly implying that I am adding Nazi-POV content for calling the Pentecost the "Feast of Pentecost" is beyond the beyond. Had the editors consulted the Greek text of the Septuagint and reliable secondary sources before adding this to the article, we would not be having this problem. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Seraphim System, I have asked uninvolved editors to consider the matter. If your edits are as unproblematic as you think, then you can only look forward to them endorsing your work. This is even more likely given the effort you have made in the past couple of hours to broaden the base of sources and tone down the pointiness. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I would, however, add that I have stepped back from editing the article, and I would suggest you do the same. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

outside eyes

I have requested at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Pentecost that uninvolved editors consider what has been happening here. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia basics

Rather than insults and edit-warring, might it be a thought to take a deep breath, read WP:5, perhaps WP:CO too, and start trying to reach agreeement? "We're using this", "We're not using that" – shall we perhaps decide together what we are doing? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I've read the policies, this is not a consensus issue. A Catholic-specific primary source from the 18th century is not replacing Britannica. I have asked more then once for TahrC to post sources - he has said he does not need to. His comments are garbled and unintelligible. There is no need to waste my time or the community's time entertaining this. Unlike Judaism, there is no controversy in Christianity over the date of Pentecost. I have edited the section further to make the date and its relationship to "Sunday" clearer, and added links that will give our readers more information, like Octave of Easter Eastertide. Hopefully, this will resolve the issue. I have moved the Feast of Weeks discussion to the OT, because there are complications regarding firstfruits/Passover/Sabbath that are entirely unrelated to the dating of the Christian celebration. I am all for RfC's where they are appropriate, but editors should not abuse the policies, especially the consensus clause, and try to push something to RfC based on nothing other then their poor reading of our policies, including WP:DUE and WP:RS. I don't think TahrC is competent to edit, based on his nearly unintelligible comments on talk, the statement that he "doesn't need sources" and that he has "poor spelling." Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like point that no one (except Seraphim) said anyone "doesn't need sources". Purposely putting Seraphim's own comments in quotes and claiming I instead made that statement violates all sorts of policies. This is on top of Seraphim purposfully misunderstanding my quote of an important policy-- and ignoring the RSs that Seraphim claims to want. tahc ^chat 16:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Apparently this "Easter inclusive" language has been written into multiple articles. You know what comes up when I google "Easter Inclusive"?:

• Easter All-Inclusive Vacations
• Guide to an Inclusive Easter Egg hunt - Toys R US
• Easter Deals - All Inclusive
• All-inclusive 3 star hotel in Rimini
• All-inclsive Easter egg hunt
• Easter holidays
• All-Inclusive Easter In Mauritius
• All Inclusive Easter Holiday in Santa Ponsa
• Cheap All-Inclusive Easter Island Vacations | Travelocity
• Easter offer hotel Riccione all inclusive packages From € 40,00
• Trudeau on Easter: “Christian Canadians help make Canada diverse, and inclusive”

And nothing about the date of Pentecost, or the Octave of Easter. Not only is it bad writing, if our readers Google it to figure out what it means they will get hit with page after page of ads. The term seems to be commonly used in texts from the 19th century and earlier (though there are a few from 1902 and the turn of the century.) It is still used in some modern texts, but there is no need to use confusing and technical language when it can be said in plain English. It's been used in some 13th and 14th century texts, but that is not a good reason to use it and the fact that it is a technical term certainly is a good reason to not write something like Easter (inclusive of Easter day.) — if you are going to use archaic technical language, you should source it carefully and make sure you are using it correctly. I am considering adding a footnote about this. I also find myself having to clean up a lot of parenthetical remarks—parentheses are not intended to be a substitute for complete sentences. Parentheses should only be used for information "that isn’t essential to the meaning of the rest of the sentence" —in other words, if you are willing to revert multiple times over it, it probably shouldn't be in parentheses. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding WP:CO, it goes both ways. The last thing you did was file an NPOV complaint for a section that did not have an NPOV problem, and sayOctave of Easter]] links to an important article for Christians, you were stepping away from the article. Now you are back, making vague comments about how "we" should make decisions together on an article you declared you were no longer working on — are you saying that you think an 18th century primary religious document is an appropriate source to use to add information that isn't found in the vast majority of modern sources? As an experienced editor, you should know better. I have found some of your comments to be helpful, yes, and the etymology section is the product of a long discussion that we had. But regarding TahrC's edits, I don't think any editor needs to collaborate with an editor who does not feel he needs to post WP:RS. When he posted, I said what I would to any editor "May I see your sources?" He said "I don't need to post sources." Then he said I "had to talk to him." No, I don't—This is an incredibly rude thing to say to other editors. So everyone else has to post WP:RS but he doesn't? It is basically saying that you don't care about wasting other editors time or being disruptive. It doesn't work like that. Consensus discussions are based on sources, not on our personal feelings. Even so, I have made an effort to understand his comments and incorporate them into the text, based on sources that are appropriate under our WP:RS policy. I have also taken into consideration your comments on Kittel, and have specifically avoided using TDNT for the OT section. But this is not a discussion WP:FORUM. If you want to mentor TahrC on our core policies, I think that would be admirable. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• There was a clear NPOV problem, as you implicitly recognised by rectifying it as soon as I asked for other editors to take a look. That I have stepped away from editing the article not to get dragged into an edit war, does not mean I am turning my back on the article for good so you can turn it into your own private project. Might I suggest you too just leave it for a few days? You seem to be taking edits to this article far too personally. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Like I said in the NPOV discussion, I made the changes based on sources, not because of any complaint. If you had really wanted to you could have done the same thing instead of replacing BDAG with Thayer just so you could write "JEWISH!!!1!" all over the article. I've already requested temporary spp to stop Tahc from adding unsourced/poorly sourced content that fails verification. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

As Tahc says below, you are ascribing intentions to us without basis out of your own fevered imagination. All the more reason to take a break. You recently posted a link to WP:BRD – it's precisely the D part you seem to be having trouble with. You unilaterally making edits on the basis what you think other editors want does not establish consensus. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It is based on the fact that you removed BDAG and have been using 19th century sources to call it the "Jewish Feast of Weeks." It may be, but in the etymology section this only confuses the issue, not clarifies it. You have repeatedly say this page is about "Jewish culture" or a "Jewish harvest festival" — my edits, have been based on sources. If you are so interested in this page, why were there so many unsourced errors and an Evangelical-POV bias in the article? Why do you only have a problem now that an editor is balancing the article based on academic sources? The POV behavior I've seen from editors on this article is extremely disturbing, down to accusing other editors of Nazism. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyway Kittel is used by Bruce Metzger, who has written one of the leading commentaries on the greek text of the New Testament. Metzger supervised the NRSV translation. Even the NY Times has said "There is nothing quite like Kittel in authority" If Bruce Metzger and Frederick Danker (the D in BDAG) use it, then you're right, I don't see any problem with using it. bhhysterics are not going to be helpful here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

One of the reasons we keep going round in circles is that you keep ascribing views and feelings to people rather than paying any attention to what they actually say to you. As I said a week ago, "Using Kittel no more makes somebody a Nazi than driving on an Autobahn does; but using Kittel to minimise the Jewish roots of Christianity should be a red flag". As I have repeated ad nauseum, Kittel should be used judiciously rather than slavishly. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I already said this but you should post that to RS/n. Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and it's not a forum for your personal WP:ADVOCACY about Kittel. Considering how authoritative Kittel is as a source, and how widely cited it is (check Google) that is all your ad nauseum comments amount to—using Wikipedia to push a non-mainstream view with the goal of minimizing the entirety of established scholarship in English language New Testament Studies is not the purpose of this talk page, and it is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Here's the hard truth about Kittel: until the English language evolves to a point where we need another major update in our translations, Kittel's influence will continue to be dominant. Wikipedia is not the place to "fix" what you perceive to be wrong with Christian scholarship. If you have a specific problem, you, like everyone else, are free to post it on RS/n. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, let me clarify that. It might come as a shocking revelation, but when I say that you are not being discriminating enough in your use of Kittel, that is not a blanket condemnation of English language New Testament Studies, however much you may think you embody the same. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

And just in case you take silence to be consensus: despite your insistence to the contrary, it is a pretty mainstream view that the English word "pentecost" is derived from a Greek word for a Jewish feast. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The actual point in contention between us, the etymology that you were fighting tooth and nail to obfuscate? Your insistence about "not a Jewish feast", "keeps adding the word Jewish", "isn't in the Old Testament" (as though that signified either way), etc. etc.? Have you forgotten it already? It's only a week ago. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about any of my specific edits, and we both know it. This is WP:ADVOCACY about Kittel and minimizing Christianity as an independent religion, which is intensely disrespectful. You removed BDAG to unduly emphasize the Jewish origins, and minimize that it is a Christian celebration, and then posted repeatedly about how you removed BDAG, an unrelated source, because Kittel is a Nazi. It's not a Jewish feast, it's a Christian feast. Like I said, WP:ADVOCACY. Huff and puff all you want, I'm done with this conversation. If you have an issue about Kittel, don't harass me about it, post it to RS/n. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The only problem there is that you are entirely mischaracterising both my edits and my intentions. With regard to the edits, simply paying attention to what people write should help. With regard to intentions: stop trying to read minds. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You've made several comments describing this as being about "jewish culture" or a "jewish harvest festival." The diffs are all there for the future. You have said things that are false such as Kittel was the only source I used. I can't really say whether you believe these things are true, but there are diffs that will prove they are not true. Maybe your intentions are good, but how much that matters in the face of evidence is debatable. If you are not willing to listen to feedback about how your comments are coming across, and instead think all the fault lies with another editor, then WP:BRD is not going to be effective, and we will need moderated discussion. Other editors that you pinged for input told you on the noticeboard that they did not see an NPOV problem in the section. You still revised the section, and restored your own personal exegesis of the Septuagint claiming that there were two secondary source references for it — you would not like it if other editors did this. It is your edit that is problematic, and it is your edits that show WP:ADVOCACY and disregard for policy. Especially, pushing it unilaterally after opening a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard certainly does not look good. Even if you did not intend it that way, I am bringing it to your attention. That is how this works. If other editors agree with me in the future, you will not be able to say "But I didn't know, no one told me." Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

A long screed that is nothing to the point, or indeed to the facts. Again, you speak of diffs yet provide none. I sympathise with the failure, since it would be hard to support your contentions from anything I have actually written. I have never said that this article is "about Jewish culture", or that Pentecost is "a Jewish harvest festival" (there are sources that say that – the OED among them – but I have never said that). When I took your problematic edits to a noticeboard you very quickly changed tack and revised them in a way that I myself said was more acceptable, so finding other editors agreeing with that is hardly some startling surprise. I also (unlike yourself) refrained from editing the article while the conversation there was ongoing – so who was acting "unilaterally", in fact? But to the point: it is not a personal exegesis of the Septuagint to say that Tobit and Maccabees are in it, nor that they use the word "pentekoste" to refer to a Jewish festival. The only person who seems to think either statement controversial is you. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I will provide diffs for dispute resolution. I'm not looking forward to it, but given your last comment I'm convinced it's necessary. What is the OED? If you mean Oxford Reference, I've read all the Pentecost articles. They are referring to what Pentecost used to be, not what it is. Your comments have shown time and again that you do not appreciate the historical complexity of this. It does not seem to me that you care as much about whether it is represented accurately, as you do about emphasizing the fact that is was once a Jewish harvest festival. Your edits and comments over the last when have demonstrated a sustained and narrow interest in emphasizing this. This is exegesis that you added to emphasize this point, changing the section to correct a perceived NPOV problem: [4]. Your behavior shows classic signs of advocacy motivated editing under WP:ADVOCACY which says When advocacy is not disclosed, it often manifests through behaviors such as tendentious editing, stonewalling, argumentum ad nauseam or ignoring the opinions of others. When such behavior occurs over a length of time, advocacy is often the cause. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The etymology section should indeed emphasize the etymology. If that is advocacy, I'm a banana. Good luck finding diffs that say anything otherwise, or convincing other editors to that effect. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

On "tendentious editing, stonewalling, argumentum ad nauseam or ignoring the opinions of others" – um, hands up who thinks I'm the one doing that? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you are doing that. Thank you for wishing me luck, but this is just advice. You can't reach consensus if you ignore the comments of editors who are taking the time to discuss with you. It has not been going on that long, but the fact that you have already shown that you are willing to ignore comments from uninvolved editors, as in the NPOV discussion, is not a good sign. Any editor who reviews our discussion can make their own decisions, and it is plain to see. Do I think you will be topic banned? No. Do I think editors are going to approve adding personal textual analysis of greek text to the article? No, because if they approve it for you, it means all of us are allowed to do it. The reason I haven't made similar additions is because my understanding of the policy is that it is not allowed. If it is allowed, I sure would like to know. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly enough agia is used for a lot of profound things like the "holy name of god" and the "holy one of Israel" and then the holiest of holys according to Hosea, we start seeing things like "holy nation" and "Aaron, the holy one of the Lord" and in the Apocrypha we start seeing the really good stuff "sacred vestments" and the "holy lampstand" and of course repeated mentions of the "holy city" and the "holy altar" - as for Tobit, I don't think anyone really knows for sure what it's about, or even when it was written - is it unusual? Yes, it does seem unusual. The Harper Collins notes compare it to Luke and Amos. But if you have solid secondary sources please do post them because I would like to read them as well. And if not, remove this line, Wikipedia is not the place to post your own interpretation of scripture. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The more I think about, the more concerned I am that it is extremely unusual for a book to mention Amos and also mention the Feast of Weeks. The Feast of Weeks is really only discussed in the Pentateuch, with a minor mention in 2 Chronicles. The source that I added for Tobit is a translator's guide — it does say that this should be translated as "Festival of Weeks" but it doesn't offer any insight into interpretation. I'm iffy on including it at all, and I certainly don't think you should push your interpretation of Tobit without a stronger source. You think the relative clause "clarifies further" — I disagree, especially when you consider the verse as a whole, and how loaded the use of the word agia is in this context. "A good dinner was prepared for me .... bring whatever poor person you may find...and he shall eat together with me...one of our own people has been murdered...then I remembered the prophecy of Amos...and I wept." It seems extremely unlikely that the meaning of this passage is the same as Leviticus or Deuteronomy. You say "Jewish Festival of Weeks" like that is a simple non-controversial matter. In this verse interpreting "sacred festival of weeks" is not obvious. Even the NRSV study notes indicates significant disagreement about this amongst scholars. If there is a secondary source for this, I will defer to that source, but it does need a source. Preferably a stronger source then a translation handbook (which is currently the only source provided.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If you have read the NPOV discussion, you will have seen that I stated there that your edits of 3 June made for a much more acceptable article than had your edits of 2 June (which prompted taking it to the NPOV noticeboard in the first place). Not only that, but I commended you for this in that discussion. As I was in agreement with other editors that you had reversed much of the damage that had prompted my request, I am not sure how you feel that I was ignoring other editors. We are now a week and another hundred of your non-consensus edits later. But just to be clear now, you are saying that in your view Tobit does not use the word pentekoste to refer to a Jewish festival? And that me thinking otherwise is "personal textual analysis"? Or you agree that it refers to a festival, but question that it refers to Shavuot? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Read it again if you want, does what I think matter? Why are you interested in my reading? Neither my reading, nor yours, belongs in the article. Most of the sources I have won't even go near this. There is some back and forth in the HC study notes—one note is priestly, the other prophetic. This is a deep and longstanding issue, that is directly connected to the word used in the passage for sacred. Right now, it doesn't have any secondary source—the only source we have connecting it to "Festival of Weeks" is a translation source. I changed this to Shavuot without realizing the full implications. Translators commentaries have a different emphasis. Given how sensitive this is, and how controversial it is, you should understand that you need a source. Since you have presumably been an editor for far longer then I have, this should not be a difficult concept that requires multiple rounds of discussion. If you were happy with the June 3 version then you can restore that, I don't remember why you changed it in the first place. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

So to recap, you think that whether or not Tobit uses pentekoste to refer to a Jewish festival at all is a deep and controversial issue? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I think he uses it to refer to "our feast of Pentecost" but the feast that is described in the book is very different from how Shavuot is described in all the other texts that mention it. It doesn't describe bringing any offering to the Temple. Instead it describes sharing a good dinner with the poor. And doesn't the narrative take place in Ninevah? So, what Tobit is describing, is almost certainly a distinct concept of Pentecost then what is described in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, etc. (which all assume offerings will be brought to the Temple) — but that doesn't mean you can't find sources that would support a superficial reading. I will eventually try to find a commentary on the greek text of Tobit, but if you add WP:RS supporting the superficial reading, then I will follow what the WP:RS say, even though I think the only thing that is obvious from reading the text is that it can't be the Shavuot described in Deuteronomy. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Might I draw your attention to Sejin Park, Pentecost and Sinai: The Festival of Weeks as a Celebration of the Sinai Event (T&T Clark Library of Biblical Studies, New York and London, 2009)? This establishes that somebody removed into exile in Nineveh would not be able to celebrate in quite the same way as they had done in the past, but leaves no doubt that Pentecost = Feast of Weeks. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Easter Inclusive

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not sure if we should use this term. I can't find any secondary sources that use it — all I can find are 13th-19th century texts, which use the term to discuss dating of holidays in complex discussions about the liturgical calendar and the correct color of priestly vestments. I know that it's meaning seems fairly obvious, but I'm not sure it's significant enough to risk confusing casual readers, which is the audience we are supposed to be writing for. It's not only "Easter inclusive" it's also "Pentecost inclusive" — it seems it was once widely in use, but only primary sources are available for it and it is not commonly used in English today. Are we going to rename the page "Pentecost inclusive"? — I think we should follow Britannica and the majority of modern sources, which all say "Pentecost is the fiftieth day after Easter." Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

tahc Which is why its 50 days, not 49 by the way. It's not "Pentecost is 49 days from Easter inclusive" — the correct use of these terms based on the sources is "It is fifty days from Easter inclusive to Pentecost inclusive." — this is why you should not make unsourced edits based on something you read in 18th century primary sources. You should source it, so other editors can WP:V instead of insisting that we should change it to 49 days because you don't need to cite that the sky is blue. I've added a footnote, I hope that is sufficient. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You are rewritting the article over and over-- but not discussing the changes you want-- nor are you disscussing the changes you think I want. To make a change and then afterward say-- "I've added a footnote, I hope that is sufficient" is not discussion. tahc ^chat 20:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

tahc I added and sourced the content you wanted to add per WP:BRD. Even though the WP:ONUS is on you to justify inclusion with sources, I thought it was worth adding with a footnote. Continuing to revert to the unsourced version (or where the cites fail verification, which you should be aware of since you added the quotes) is vandalism, and it will be reverted as vandalism. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You have added lots of content-- I cannot tell which you think I wanted. Again, WP:BRD, is not about guessing what someone else wants and changing it without discussion.

Please stop adding new talk sections. Please stop adding things here. This makes it very difficult for a 3rd person to follow. Would you please just go back to Talk:Pentecost/Archive 1#When is Pentecost? and respond to these comments. Thank you. tahc ^chat 20:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding a 18th century Catholic source to the text. Maybe I wasn't clear, an 18th century Catholic text is not WP:RS because it is out of date, even for the denomination. That is not the understanding of the date of Pentecost in other denominations. If you want to source an addition to this section, it would preferably be sourced to a secondary source or encyclopedia, and it should at the least be up to date and accurate. I am revising it based on encyclopedia entries, and I get that you really badly need to call it seven weeks—I honestly do not care, but you need to source it appropriately. Same for Easter inclusive, because right now it is 1) not essential and 2) not used correctly. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that the problem here is a failure to understand that Greek (and Latin; I don't know about Hebrew) use inclusive counting for days of the month and other series. Seven weeks in Greek was referred to fifty days, just as the 24th of a 30 day Athenian month was "a week" from the end of the month, not "the sixth day from the end of the month", which was the 25th. I would refer you to Herbert Weir Smyth (1916) A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge:Harvard University Press) ([Appendix:Notes], p.722) and New Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges (1903) J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard, Benj. L. D'Ooge, Ed. (Ginn & Company), reprinted by Melissa Media Associates, New Rochell, NY 1998 ([631(d]], p. 428). I would not automatically dismiss older sources in these matters. Often there is nothing newer as scholars, like the inhabitants of Kansas City , have "...gone about as fer as they kin go". Some relatively old secondary sources are still used in classics, even E.C. Woodcock's groundbreaking A New Latin Syntax is now nearly sixty years old, and I don't believe it covers numerals and dates (which doesn't matter so much, since we're really talking about Greek here). I haven't looked at the 18th century source yet, but I'm inclined to keep it and add anything newer that we can find, if only because if first they come for the 18th century Catholics, next they'll come for the 19th century German Lutherans from Poland, and then where will we get our variant readings of Telesilla? But none of this means we shouldn't explain this phenomenon to readers who might be unfamiliar with it and add the most up-to-date sources we can (bearing in mind that they might still be a century-or-so old). In the immortal words of Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.: "Parties are advised to chill". --Jpbrenna (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I literally just replaced it with Kittel. We're not interpreting Greek on our own here, so I think we really need to stick to sources directly about the text, not personal interpretations. I don't really understand your comment "if first they come for catholics" — but I pulled this from RS/n since I finally found an authoritative source for the claim (right when I had stopped looking too). Anyway, I don't really believe that scholars have "gone about as far as they can go." I should remind you that WP:AGE MATTERS applies here, especially vocabulary changed, and is part of our WP:RS policy. There have been a lot of advances in Biblical scholarship since the 19th century, and as far as Catholicism is concerned, major doctrinal changes. 18th century Catholic sources are only good for historical value—but the entire catechism has been rewritten since then, and they are working from updated translations. We simply have more information then we have in the past (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) — for some reason Biblia Hebraica is still used a lot, but what can you do? The entire NIV translation is based on it, so who am I to argue. If it continues to be a problem, I will repost it to RS/n. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The whole "first they came for the Catholics" bit and the reference to Oklahoma! were tongue-in-cheek. Your objections to this source are red herrings: The Dead Sea Scrolls didn't change our understanding of inclusiveness in Hebrew day numbering, and Vatican I & II etc. did not contain statements about the inclusiveness of Pentecost numbering in the Greek New Testament. The "disputed" (by no one except you) source is not about church doctrines that have been defined or restated, new understandings in biblical scholarship, or changes in church discipline, practice, architecture etc. or any other subject where WP:AGE MATTERS would apply. It's about the numbering of the days of Pentecost, which has not changed.--Jpbrenna (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, that is really interesting, I have been wondering why Greeks started to use the term "Pentecost" — maybe it was because of how they count. But without a secondary source it is just WP:OR, and unfortunately I can't add it to the article without a source. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not a personal interpretation or original research. The sources tell us that the Greeks and Romans invariably reckoned both ends of a series when counting days. It's not original research to state that inclusive counting for days is the rule in all varieties of Ancient Greek — quite the opposite: it would be original research to claim that the rules in the comprehensive Greek grammars are somehow suspended for Pentēkostē. Do you have a source that states this? If not, that means that calling a date seven weeks after Easter or Passover "fifty days, Easter inclusive" or "fifty days, Passover inclusive", would both be accurate statements. This can be stated other ways, but that does not mean that sourced statements need to be purged because they are stated in a particular way or because of the source's age. When modern sources say 50 days after Easter, they are essentially adopting ancient inclusive counting, otherwise the math doesn't work. There is no conflict between Britannica and these other sources except the one that you seem to be imagining. They all agree, explicitly or implicitly, that Pentecost is fifty days after Easter inclusive. --Jpbrenna (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is your article. Have you read WP:OWN? You also have to balance WP:AGE MATTERS with WP:RECENTISM, specifically with regard to "The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus." --Andreas Philopater (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended discussion

1) The unsourced exegesis currently in the article either has to be removed, or sourced (and if a source is added for it, please include a quote for verification). 2) Why should we use KJV when at least two updated translations do not include seven? Only because it includes "seven" and Jpbrenna prefers to use the one English translation that has the word he wants? This seems like more continuation of the extended POV issues on this article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Seraphim, I landed here from the noticeboard filed case. Both of you are actually right, depends how days are counted. It is generally said resurrection happened 3th day after death (which makes 2 days), because 1-Friday, 2-Saturday, 3-Sunday (the way it was counted, like by the Greeks), but some would argue counting it mathematically as we would do with a scale (which includes a zero)... it would be 0-Friday, 1-Saturday and 2-Sunday... But generally as you know, this is not exactly true, because it is from the morning of the starting day to the night of the last since Christians use the solar calendar. So I would suggest including both versions (because it's somewhere between 49 and 50). It could also not be dismissed that the number 7 in Abrahamic religions has a particular significance... Furthermore, while there are newer versions of the Bible, KJV is still very (and could be argued the most) popular. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2017

That is not the issue of the dispute, and I dont know why you think it is. I filed the dispute resokution exactly because of off topic comments like this one. The inclusive issue was settled at RS/n months ago, I dont know why Jpbrenna thinks it is relevant to this revert, because it is not. The inclusive language was left in the lede and dating sections because an uninvolved editor provided a source for it at RS/n. The dispute is about the etymology section, not the dating section. There is no dispute about whether Pentecost means fifty days, because it means fifty days. The dispute it about unsourced primary religious text interpretation that needs to be sourced to be added to the article. The talk page is not a place to post unsourced discussion, it has been an ongoing problem here. Maybe I should start removing unsourced personal comments, instead of reaponding to them. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Look at it this way, feast of weeks is linked in the first paragraph of the lede. That is what most people are going to read. There is also a section about the Old Testament. Etymologically, the two are unrelated. The interpretation of Scripture for what Tobit means by Pentecost is exegesis. While most likely the editors are acting in good faith, there is no need to keep repeating the same point over and over, whether or not it is relevant to the section. And it is most certainly unacceptable to do this based on unsourced scriptural interpretation. This is not a sermon, it is not supposed to be written to prove that Pentecost was Shavuot (until a certain date that is unknown) - and even if we do add more about this it would have to be sourced well, and not an unsourced POV add to the etymology section, where it does not belong. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim, I have just reread the whole comment you have left in the noticeboard, and reviewed once more the recent revert [5].

• What I see was reverted was the reference to the Feast of [seven] Weeks (which makes 49).

I believed I was answering in my reply the current revert for which you provided a rational. In the comment you left at the noticeboard, nowhere have you raised as argument that Feast of Weeks was already sufficiently included. I can not read other editors mind. What I see though is that you were asking why KJV as reference was included when it was the only version using the term. I just thought that there seems to be something wrong in dismissing the most used (and cited) English language Bible version. If your main rational for the removal was redundancy, you didn't make that obvious. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you should review the extensive discussion about this, and also the OT section of the article. I posted at DR precisely because repeating myself here has not been productive. It is not 49 days, it always the day after the seventh sabbath in OT tradition. That makes it the 50th day. The Greek word for this is Pentecost, this is covered in the second sentence of the etymology section. Whether or not Tobit meant Shavuot is a different question and the appropriate place to discuss it is not one unsourced line in the etymology section. The dating of Tobit itself is uncertain, since there are multiple versions of the text and because the Greek texts are from a period where there were significant changes in religious culture, involving the Temple and Pentecost, especially the eventual destruction of the Temple. We can't assume anything about what Tobit means without a source. Tobit also discussed Amos, it is extremely unlikely that is a non-critical text. This would need considerably more discussion in the article, in a separate history section, and it would have to be sourced. The need for WP:RS is not really debateable. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a confusion here between 50 days and 50th day... Pentecost as you say stands for fiftieth not 50. 50th day (which is different from 50 days) is equal to 49 days. When you say the first day if the day didn't end you can't claim this = 1 day. The same way you can't claim a baby is one year old until the full year passed. My comment left above still stand true, but I doubt the Church compute to such degree of details as counting mornings to nights... So there really isn't any contradictions because claiming 50th or 49 days... they're synonymous. You guys are fighting when you are saying the same thing in different languages. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not our usual practice to add every possible trivial detail to general articles like this one. That level of detail about calculation is way too technical for a broad article. Maybe it can be discussed in some more specific articles about the liturgical year where people who are interested in that discussion can find it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Seraphim, I have found another confusing sentence in the article:

The term Pentecost comes from the Greek Πεντηκοστή (Pentēkostē) meaning "fiftieth". It refers to the festival celebrated on the fiftieth day after Passover, also known as the "Feast of Weeks" in the Septuagint[ii] and the "Feast of 50 days" in rabbinic tradition.[5]

But see what is in the intro:

In Eastern Christianity, Pentecost can also refer to the entire fifty days of Easter through Pentecost inclusive;

• Definition 1: Pentecost meaning Whitsunday
• Definition 2: Pentecost meaning from Easter to Whitsunday (inclusive).

If Pentecost can mean those two different things and that if we assume that the Eastern Church is closer to Rabbinistic traditions than Western, than

Feast of 50 days might actually mean the whole festivities including Easter (definition 2), if we take definition 2: it makes 50 days (because they're all inclusive).

Could we assume Feast of Weeks rather refers to definition 1... in which case it would be 7 weeks after Easter... which would be the 50th... it makes 49 days (after Easter).

So here might lie the confusion and the reason behind the conflict in the talkpage. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)