Talk:Origin of the Eucharist

message: I was looking at the Last Supper article and then remembered that last November I talked with Esoglou and then redecorated the table there as below:
Mark 14:22-24         	And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, ‘Take ye: this is my body.’                                                                                                                         	And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.’
Matthew 26:26-28      	And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’                                                                                                                   	And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, ‘Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.’
1 Corinthians 11:23-25	For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.’	In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.’
Luke 22:19-20         	And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.’                                                                                               	And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.’
Do you guys want to think about that format here? Some users may actually read this one. History2007 (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for experimenting: personally I find the current table easier to follow; but this may be simply the result of the fact that this is the normal way of displaying such comparative tables and I am used to comparing vertically across columns.Jpacobb (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it has no evident advantage for the Institution Narratives table, which may be what Jpacobb had in mind; but I think it would make the Chilton Six Eucharists table much more readable.  I find the shortness of the lines of text a serious difficulty in reading that table, probably because I am accustomed to take in more words at a glance.  Esoglou (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table redecoration 

message: It is good to see  Oxyphenbutazone  taking an interest in the article.  However, while many of his changes might be considered an improvement (though I would question some of them) they seem to raise a major question: are they OR?  I presume that when Eschoir inserted the table he quoted a particular translation of the Bible (it looks to me like a NASV or similar text), but I can't locate the exact source among the many versions and editions.  If so, does Wiki allow us to improve it in this way?Jpacobb (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can not locate the version, and if the version is not clearly referenced, it is WP:OR. However, user:Oxyphenbutazone seems to edit once in a while, so my guess is that if you do not hear back in a few days, you can just use a suitable version and use that text, and state which version you have used. Some time ago, there was a discussion somewhere about copyright, and I do not even remember it any more, but the version in Wikisource is guaranteed to be trouble free. History2007 (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Comparative Table of NT passages 

message: If the second option is accepted, the following points will be relevant here rather than elsewhere:
# It needs to be very clear that when dealing with any early anaphora where we have a long text there are weighty problems of textual criticism to be resolved.  There is a debate as to whether the earliest forms of Addai and Mari contained the Words of Institution. (It probably did not.) 
# Opinion is far more divided than the current articles allow as to the provenance and date of the Apostolic Tradition and responsible scholars defend its Roman origin and date it around 215.
# David N. Power (The Eucharistic Mystery) divides the pre-Nicene Eucharistic prayers into four groups and includes the "Supper Narrative" (i.e. words of institution) as forming part of two of the four.
Full references for the above are available. Jpacobb (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific Concerns

message: A new subsection has been added.  I consider its inclusion unbalances the article and that we should consider deleting it.  Two sources are given: John Allegro's 1970 book which was a nine-days talking point when published but as far as I know made no real impact on scholarly debate afterwards and a website which I think fails to qualify as a Reliable Source .  In brief: undue prominence given to an incident which failed to find roots in the academic world. Jpacobb (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: delete: I agree to delete the Psychedelic Mushroom theory section because it is a fringe theory with no impact on scholarship.A ntv (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Delete: Does not really fit under "contemporary scholarship".  Esoglou (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychedelic Mushrooms: Beyond the Fringe? 

message: The link  http://www.leaderu.com/theology/passover.html was previously described as "a Christian website" and "Christian" was changed to "non-Catholic Protestant".  This is a redundant expression which could be understood as POV.  The site itself does form part of an evangelical conglomerate, but does not major on pushing protestantism and in fact, while a catholic might reasonably want to see more said about certain things, in my opinion at least, there is very little or nothing on the page to which a catholic academic would object as mistaken.  I feel no description of the site is better than a potentially conflictive one. (I wondered whether to remove the description of the following one as well, but left it since the site positively implies it belongs to an individual Anglican parishes and they tend to express a theology which is more "restricted" than the range of opinions acceptable within Anglicanism.) Jpacobb (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove: I suggest to fully remove such a external link. There are thousands of web pages about this issue, and the simply reason that such link deals with the Origin of the Eucharist is not a reason to include it. As per WP:EXT we shall actually check the need of each single external link, and this link does not contain further research by well-known scholars, does not include material which cannot be insert in the article, is not a reference text source. Also the next link, the "Anglican" one, should be removed for the same reason: in Wiki we have lots of articles about the view of the Eucharist under each single denomination, and this article is not to duplicate such details. Only the first link should be retained, but simply because it meets the criteria of including further research by a well-known scholar (but perhaps it could be under a "Further reading" section).A ntv (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Description of Link as "non-Catholic Protestant website"