Talk:Historical background of the New Testament: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:36, 30 November 2004

A note to the curious

This is quite possibly the fastest growing talk page in Wikipedia. The archives from the last month total at least 200k of discussion. Unless you have a day to spare, you are advised to read the (disputed) summaries. If you have less than half a day to spare, you are advised to ignore the summaries and skip to the last 4 or 5 sections.

CheeseDreams 22:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Summary of Discussion upto 28th November 2004

Discussion of Summary

This page, at the time of writing is pushing 131K

This is despite the fact that 5 sections of the page are simply summaries.

In order to reduce the page size, and improve readability, this section summarises the summaries themselves.

In addition it summarises a further summary of summaries and the disputes made of that, and the disputes about the disputes, together with an off-topic discussion.

The original text this summary replaces can be viewed at archive 6. Archive 6 contains the summaries that this replaces NOT the text that the summaries themselves replace, these can be viewed at archives 2-5.

It is not in chronological order, but instead ordered by topic for ease of viewing

This summary was made by CheeseDreams, who asserts that in their opinion it is NPOV. This undoubtably will be disputed.

Any disputed paragraphs or sentences, or locations where others demand additions into the summary are marked (0) where this marking corresponds to the section about the dispute which follows after the summary.

Summary written Exclusively by CheeseDreams

Dispute of summary

CheeseDream's version of the disputed area of the summary

(1) -

??????'s version of the disputed area of the summary

(1) -

Original text (as per archive 6) of the disputed area of the summary

(1) -

The article ( a summary exclusive to Wikipedia by the author CheeseDreams )

Jesus and the Article(s)

The title should not be changed into The historical Jesus (4 votes against 1)

"the article, is neither about Christianity nor religion ...(it)... is about the culture and events..." (5 votes against 2)

Unopposed statement by Pedant

This article is about what its title says it is. ... It is only about the history and culture of the region as it bears on the (real or imaginary) person: Jesus, the central figure in Christian Theology. Anything that conflicts ... does not belong in THIS article.

This article should mention Jesus at least a non-zero amount (1st vote - 5 votes against 2) (2nd vote - 2 votes against 2)

This article is more background to 1st Century Roman Palestine than cross-referenced summary of Jesus' life (1st vote - 2 votes against 1) (2nd vote - 2 votes against 3)

Is this article the background to 1st Century Roman Palestine with asides if something is needed to understand Jesus' life
Is this article summarising Jesus' life, and cross referencing it to historical and cultural information about 1st Century Roman Palestine

Mild support for specific asides about things that happened to Jesus (vote-1: 3 votes against 2) (vote-2:3 votes against 3) (vote-3: 4 votes against 1 (+1 both sides))

Should the article be split to make this a non-issue

The article should not be split into "background" and "Jesus in it" (general consensus against 1 vote)

is it better to have 2 articles

one mainly avoiding Jesus in 1st century Palestine and discussing background instead (keeping the title)
one predominantly about Jesus in 1st century Palestine and mildly the background (The historical Jesus )

or a single article including both

Introductary Paragraphs

"According to most Christians, Jesus lived in the first century in Judea" is POV not NPOV (3 votes against 1)

Introduction should comment that some dispute historicity (5 votes against 1)

Should the article (as its starting point)

The article should assume Jesus exists as its starting point
The article should not make assumption of historicity or non-historicity

Agreement that the basis for the first paragraph should be (5 votes to 2 (proposal A) to 1 (proposal B)): "Jesus is [traditionally/usually] held to have lived in the first century in Judea. Without addressing Jesus existence as an actual historic figure, this article discusses the cultural and political forces active at that time. see: Historicity of Jesus for information relating to the existence of Jesus as a historical figure."

The intro mentioned above makes clear that the existence of Jesus is not being asserted (8 votes against 1 digression)

The 1st and 2nd introductory sentences should be recast (input from 6 persons): The main record of the life of Jesus are the Gospels, in the Christian New Testament. These sources place Jesus in what became Roman Palestine (modern Israel and Palestine) during the early 1st century.

The 3rd sentence should become (2 votes against 1): The article Historicity of Jesus covers debates regarding the existence of Jesus, but if so then it is agreed by most Christians and academics who hold this view that it is necessary to understand the cultural and historical background in which Jesus is thought to have lived.

The 4th sentence should become (general consensus): This was a volatile period marked by cultural and political dilemmas. Out of the Roman occupation of Palestine sprang two of the modern world's religions: Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.

Terminology

The area should be called "Palestine" or something similar (4 votes against 2)

is it more important that Roman Palestine did not exist at the time in question
or is it more important that Palestine is the only term covering the whole area

The area should be referred to as "Roman Palestine" (7 votes against 1)

"pharisees were considered living saints" is either not accurate or inapropriate best wording (4 votes)

"at the time of Christ" is an inappropriate phrase (1 vote against 1)
"at this time" is an acceptable phrase to replace "at the time of Christ" (7 votes against none)

Other Messiahs

Other groups who believed in different Messiah figures should be mentioned (8 votes)

One (and only one) speaker opposed detailed listing of the known movements in this section

Contemporary understanding of the meaning of messiah should be included (general uncontested consensus)

Uncontested statement

In Judaism, "Messiah" means "annointed". It was the symbol of high office. There were two officers routinely annointed this way - a priest messiah, and a king messiah. The hope of a "messiah" to save them would usually have meant simply, some king or priest who would stand up to the romans or whoever was felt oppressing them at the time. The meaning of "Messiah" in christianity, that of a godhead, a unique being who would save them in the sense of salvation, was not part of Judaism, though it may have formed part of the hopes or mystic beliefs of some cults or splinter groups.

The phrase "Son of Man" is not always apocalyptic (1 vote (+3 informal) no other votes)

Undisputed statement by User:FT2

Many historians claim that Jesus himself did not claim to be a "messiah" in any way unlike other messiahs.

dispute over the meaning of "saviour of Israel"

there is no evidence anyone thought that a messiah would be a saviour of Israel
many expected to be saved from the judgement of God
the expectation of a messiah was the expectation of a saviour of Israel
many considered the Romans to be the judgement of God
the articles Mosiach and Messiah explain the understanding of the term

discussion of the paragraph on other messiahs

A compromise text was developed
One user (user X) produced an alternative proposal
A new compromise text is proposed taking into account elements of User X's proposal
User X disputes elements of the compromise text
User X proposes a 2nd alternative text
Some users dispute the willingness of User X to collaborate
A new compromise text is proposed taking into account discussions around User X's 2nd proposal
User X disputes elements of the compromise text and considers their own proposal superior
A new compromise text is proposed taking into account discussions around User X's comments
User X disputes elements of the compromise text
A new compromise text is proposed taking into account discussions around User X's comments
User X restates their intolerance of elements of the compromise text
User X restates their 2nd alternative text
A new compromise text is proposed taking into account suggestions from User X and others
The new text is voted on after "packing the house" has occurred.
The result of the vote is (2 supporting the compromise text, 5 against it)

dispute on Mandaeans and John the baptist

Mandaeans first came into existance in the 2nd/3rd centuries BC
There is no evidence that Mandaeans were followers of John the baptist
Mandaeans considered John the baptist a messiah
Mandaeans first came into existance in the 2nd/3rd centuries AD
Mandaeans were followers of John the baptist
John the baptist was Nazorean
Mandaean was a dialaect at this time
Mandaean is a modern synonym for Nazorean
Modern Mandaeans refer to themselves as Nazorean

dispute on divinity and the existance of other messiah's

first century messiahs and prophets never claimed they were divine
Josephus is not acceptable to cite
some first century messiahs and prophets claimed they were divine
Jesus did not claim he was divine
Josephus is acceptable to cite
Jesus did claim he was divine
Josephus states that the persons supposedly "messiah"s were actually thought to be prophets
the Jews had considerable law on false prophets
Josephus supports the idea that there were people claiming to be and thought to be "messiah"s

Structure of the article

This article should not just be a historical narrative (majority consensus, though with a large minority disputing it)

The article should be an historical narrative with asides

The article should be structured into topics such as Political situation (regional rulers, high priests, notable militaristic action), Religious organizations (major schools, prophets, messianic groups), Later developments (political control, emergence of more modern Judaism and Christianity)

Development of later religion

This article should describe who followed the Pharisees (4 votes against 1, 1 abstention)
"Later forms of Judaism" followed the Pharisees rather than "Rabbinic Judaism" (1st vote-unresolved) (2nd vote - 3 votes against 1)

Discussion of the subsequent development of Christianity and how it connected to the gentiles belongs elsewhere not here (4 votes against 1 (+1 for a brief mention))

FT2s version of the paragraph discussing how christianity emerged is preferred (general consensus)

Originally the intent was to preach to the Jews. Some but not all requirements were removed, as it was felt that the new emphasis was on faith and not detailed laws. Thus there were 'Jewish Christians', Jews who believed in Christ Messiah. When the Jews as a community rejected this, the Christian message was taken to the gentiles instead. To make it palatable, and draw a line separating them from the Jews (who were by now becoming politically dangerous associates) many more of the restrictive laws were removed and the emphasis was shifted. The message that reached the gentiles was therefore a more universal one, in the sense that it was easier to digest, its appeal was more emotional than legalistic, and it did not contain many of the practices beliefs and rituals by which the Jews kept themselves separate from others.

Anything later than bar Kochba is irrelevant

Is it important that the manner in which christianity emerged indicates the historiography of the Gospels

The editors ( a summary exclusive to Wikipedia by the author CheeseDreams )

Consensus

early discussions

Early discussions focused on achieving consensus, and included voting
A visible solution was reached on most of the issues
A version for discussion was drafted at a user talk page
Discussions were had
Submissions were made with regard to compromise
The article was unlocked
A draft of the changes was made on the article
A request for 48 hours non-editing to discuss the article was made
Most users respected the request

reversion war

User Y violated the request, rewriting the article substantially
User Y's version predominantly went against the consensus and the voting
User Z reverted user Y's version to the version about which a 48 hour non-edit was requested
User Y reverted it back to their version
User Z insisted on the concensus version being restored
User Y reverted it back
User Z reverted it once more
User Y's associates reverted it to User Y's version
User Z restored the discussion version
The revert war continued
The article was locked in the User Y state.

disputed behaviour

it is acceptable to make some changes
it is unacceptable to make large changes for this article in that state
it is fundamentally important to ask for a pause in editing to prevent edit wars
it is acceptable to make major changes to the article when it is so contested
Slrubenstein has the right to revert from FT2s version although the opposite is not true
if a page is not protected, editors have a right to work on it
the way forward is discussion on talk pages
it is inappropriate to ask for a pause in editing for the purpose of discussion
respect and decency demand that though one has rights, one should sometimes abstain from them
Saying one editor can revert, but the other editor cannot, is hypocrisy

the resulting 2 versions

The people User X invited to this page all support his version
3 users (none of whom invited the other) do not support User X's version
The value of a split depends on the nature of the articles
User X sarcastically suggests splitting the article
Splitting the versions into two articles will solve this problem
User X's version is NPOV
User X refuses not to edit both articles to how they think it should be
User X admits User X will never tolerate the other version
User X's version is POV not NPOV
The not-User-X version is complicated
The not-User-X version complies more than satisfies journalistic standards for readability
User X's version is appallingly unreadable
User X's version is exquisite

Issues with users on this talk page

"Packing the house" occurred between the sets of voting

It is a more important fact that Gerrymandering is unethical
It is a more important fact that Gerrymandering is currently allowed

Mediation was formally requested

It became apparant that Slrubenstein, Amgine, and CheeseDreams should formally request mediation between them (which has is now occurring)

FT2 as a mediator

At an early stage FT2 arrived and behaved in the manner of a mediator
Slrubenstein disputes that FT2 was ever treated as a mediator
Slrubenstein and JDG think that FT2 is agenda driven
Wesley, Amgine, CheeseDreams, think that FT2 is fair

Worth of scholarship

Amgine has secured access to ATLA.

Mud-slinging occurred

Slrubenstein stated about FT2 that

FT2 is not acting in good faith
FT2 is a nut
FT2 is masturbating Slrubenstein
FT2 uses silly argument
FT2 is ignorant
FT2 has no business working on this article because he thinks Slrubenstein's arguments suspect.
FT2s reasoning is specious and ignorant.

FT2 states about Slrubenstein

Some people think Slrubenstein is not acting in good faith
Slrubenstein is disrespectful

Slrubenstein implied about CheeseDreams

CheeseDreams is a racist

CheeseDreams stated about Slrubenstein that

Slrubenstein is uncivil
Slrubenstein uses personal attacks
Slrubenstein is a hypocrit
Slrubenstein has no interest in consensus
Slrubenstein is vain and arrogant
Slrubenstein's case is so weak that he feels the need to round up supporters from elsewhere in order to win discussions

JDG implied about CheeseDreams

CheeseDreams is rude
CheeseDreams starts revert wars
CheeseDreams is a gay atheist
CheeseDreams should be banned

CheeseDreams implied about JDG that

JDG threatened a revert war
JDG was referred to as Darling
JDG is neither neutral nor reasonable
JDG is crassly aggressive
JDG stated he would ignore the result of this discussion and revert the article to Slrubenstein's version

Priesthood Discussion regarding the role of priests in the context being more administrative than all-powerful. Disagreement over generalization of their antecedents.

Saducees vs. Pharisees A discussion regarding some of the relative differences, especially as seen by the culture at large, between these two groups in the context. A question regarding the nominal control of synagogues degenerated into irrelevancy, which colored many further sections. The net discussion found no disagreement with the concepts that Saducess had more political power, while Pharisees were more popular, and there was probably more than a little overlap between the two groups. Further comments disputing the above paragraph's summary and supporting it devolved again to a digression irrelevant to the article.

CheeseDreams objected to only two religions.

General discussion: Consisting entirely of Slrubenstein's addition of merging tags for Jesus and textual evidence and Historicity of Jesus, and the unanimous disagreement with same (1).

Less wordy please

Slrubenstein thinks that when we define the word "messiah," of course, we should say that kings and priests were anointed, but annointed king and annointed priest is not acceptable and is meaningless.

Wesley asks

That the article not contain "original research"

To which CheeseDreams responds that

Slrubenstein has admitted in the mediation request that he has not cited his sources, and only has 5/6 books, implying he is committing personal research

Trust

CheeseDreams wonders whether Slrubenstein's claims to extensive and valid research should be trusted based on his claim elsewhere that Hinduism dates from the 18th century (as he claims is the majority opinion amongst historians)

Jayjg states

Slrubenstein's knowledge of scholarship of Jesus seems entirely accurate
Slrubenstein's opponents knowledge on the subject seems entirely ignorant

To which CheeseDreams responds that that is an unbalanced opinion in bad faith.

Wesley thinks that his past experience with Slrubenstein (of 3 years) has given him trust in him.

EDITS: Please read

The article was unprotected at this point, and FT2 tried to adjust it so as to take on board the votes, suggestions, and neutrality. A request was made that editors should, with regards to his changes,

review the article systematically
not make major edits to it

new round of revisions

Version #1 of rewrite

FT2 states

SIrubenstein - 1st temple era - I like, its neutral enough to stand, and informative.
SIrubenstein - persian era onwards - I worry if we have too much detail here. Its really needing to be an overview of history as background, rather than a full history. Some like the sanhedrin is relevant.
SIrubenstein - Jesus and after jesus - Some may be relevant. for example, sedition. But overall this is not really key to the article, and can be made more NPOV.

Wesley states:

He likes FT2s introduction as it seems to cover nearly all the points mentioned in the joint discussion.
(5) He has exception to the sentence by Slrubenstein which states The meaning of "Messiah" in Christianity, that of a godhead, a unique being who would save them in the sense of salvation, was not part of Judaism, though it may have formed part of the hopes or mystic beliefs of some cults or splinter groups. as he doesnt think this represents any version of Christianity very well.

Appropriate sources (r.e. other messiahs)

Wesley thinks that sources should be cited as it should be the consensus of historians, not the consensus of wikipedians. FT2 states that he has also documented over 125,000 hits on Google supporting in some way his case. Slrubenstein disputes the accuracy of Google (10).

Uh...

FT2's Ultimate Version

Criticism of FT2s version by Slrubenstein:

FT2 cut important historical contexts

it is a mess
the way to write a good article is not to accomodate all discussants;
the intro is a mess
Slrubensteins version is concise, accurate, and NPOV
Mentioning the Gospels as prime historic source is NPOV
the statement "law of the land was Jewish religious law, which was for the most part legislative and not harsh," is poorly written and unclear
"third, it caused religious and cultural difference to escalate into conflicts with the secular authority" is either dumb or really POV
if you think the Greek or Roman authorities were "secular" and had not religious and cultural agenda, you are ingorant.
The notion that the middle east is a "powderkeg" in which religious difference has to be contained by secular leadership just mimics the view most people today take towards the middle east.
Why focus on the Jewish notion that nakedness is an abomination?
The the real issue was that the Greeks thought circumcision was an abomination.
The statement "Politically as time passed, the foreign powers often came to view the wish of some Jews not to become integrated as a divisive and therefore political wish, and often considered it a personal affront to the emperor" might be true, but why not summarize Bickerman and Tcherikover's views
The Pearlman quote is inappropriate in in encyclopedia. He was not a scholar, he was a former Israeli army officer.
The view that there was a split between hellinized and "traditional" Jews is anachronistic and simplistic.
"Culturally the Jews were for the most part hard-working, God-fearing, deeply religious farming villagers," is tripe, how do we know what they did?
It is a little confusing to me to call the Hasmonean kingdom the second kingdom.
The statement "By 1 CE, the Roman Empire was somewhat more corrupt than it had been" is POV and unnecessary.
In the section "Jewish Revolt and aftermath," FT2 replaced an essential account for the background of Jesus, with a series of questions that were answered in the passages he deleted.
There is no evidence that the Mandeans were a messianic group in Judea (or the Galilee or Samaria) at that time -- why are they mentioned?
"The early Christians were often in conflict with groups they considered heretical" completely distorts the situation, and is utterly at odds with recent work by historians.
the sentence implies that "heretics" were not "early Christians" and that "early Christians" were not "heretics." What is really going on is that there were several groups with competing visions of Christianity.
To suggest that because ancient Israelites had a Temple and priests, and a Torah and scribes, and a King who ruled by divine right, that they therefore had a "dual core" consisting of a political and spiritual authority is another anachronism that ignores all current scholarship on Jewish history.
To say that the "Children of Israel" had the Mishnah is at best misleading, at worst very confused and sloppy. The Mishnah wasn't edited until 200 CE. The "Children of Israel" were long gone.
In the section on struggles with Hellenism you cut the stuff dealing with the implications of a universal God, and Greek interest in Judaism.
The word "apocalypse" was not borrowed from Hebrew or the Jews, it is a Greek word.
In judiasm the priesthood is more of an administrative role than anintermediary between Jews and God? nonesense!
The paragraph on the zealots makes it seem as if the sicarii were a subset of zealots, which is of course wrong.
To claim that Christianity is "more aeasier to digest" is just the worst kind of POV editorializing.
the sentence "It is hypothesised that to make it palatable, and draw a line separating them from the Jews (who were by now becoming politically dangerous associates due to their rebellion against Rome) many more of the restrictive laws were removed and the emphasis was shifted." is a poor one for an encyclopedia. Jews never believed non-Jews should obey Jewish law.
I have no idea what scholarship the section on Jewish reactions to cults and messianism is based on, it all seems speculative.
Ditto the section on the Jewish rejection of Christianity.
"Yohanan" is not Hebrew for Jonathan; the Baptist's name was "John" (or it's Hebrew equivalent, Yohanan).
The organization is an utter mess.

Slrubenstein thinks the above criticism makes things a lot easier to return to my version than to edit this version.

SIrubenstein edits

Slrubenstein responds

Scholars do not dispute Slrubenstein's text
FT2s version is full of inaccuracies, oversimplifications, anachronisms, sloppy scholarship, and lack of NPOV.

Slrubenstein thinks the nature of the Pharisees changed over time

Disputed NPOV

With respect to Slrubenstein's version, Amgine raises points

In the opening paragraph, biblical and western historians exclusively are cited.

Slrubenstein justifies this apparant POV by stating that there are only three points of view: Christians, sceptics, and critical scholars (6).

The vast majority of the text in the First Temple Era and Second Temple Era sections deals with the millenia prior to Jesus, and is not specifically relevant.

Slrubenstein justifies this as FT2s version goes back further, in addition, Slrubenstein thinks there needs to be detailed historical introduction to the background of the Saducees, Pharisees, Temple, Monarcy, and Torah.

The First Temple Era section discusses "ancient land of Israel" exclusively as a land of the Jews for the entirety of its history, and is simplistic and generalized as POV, followed by paragraphs of unsupported conjecture.

Slrubenstein states that the area is not originally or exclusively Israelite, but disagrees with the assessment of the paragraph.

The article has continuous use of Judea, etc. as regional terms which are historically inaccurate and on which consensus votes had determined Roman Palestine as the most relevant compromise term.

Slrubenstein states he used Judea when speaking specifically of Judea, that David was king of Judea before he was king of Israel, that Israel and Judea later became separate kingdoms, and that Galilee is not the same thing as Judea.

The statement "In most ancient societies sacrifice was the only form of worship" is totally disputed and thought to be factually inaccurate and lacking NPOV.

Slrubenstein says that the article says "most ancient Near Eastern societies" which is accurate.

Exclusively discussing the Sadducees and Pharisees continues the misapprehension that there were only 2 primary religious groups when in fact it appears to have been a multi-party system with 4 or more larger "schools of thought".

Slrubenstein states that the other parties (Essenes, Zealots, etc) developed at a different time.

The use of sections such as The Hellenistic Period to discuss the Hasmonean Period, and the The Hasmonean Period to discuss merely a lineage, etc., is both misleading and non-encyclopedic.

Slrubenstein does not comprehend the accusation, and thinks it is not the case

Slrubenstein requests that Amgine sums up in a sentence or short paragraph what he believes the point of this article should be. And states that since this is about "historical" background he organized it historically.

Slrubenstein

is not satisfied that earlier discussions were resolved adequately
does not see why "political situation" should be seperate to "religious organizations?"
does not see why "notable uprisings" and "messiahs" are in two different sections
does not comprehend why "major schools" and "prophets" are in a different section from "political situation"

Amgine thinks it amusing that, having discarded wiki process Slrubenstein now complains he is not receiving collaborative support. In addition

Political Situation in this usage he meant who was actually in charge
The use of force to put down uprisings is inherently an element of governance
popular figures might be opposed for other reasons
The separation of political and religious is a modern one, and one which our modern audience insists upon

RfC

Maureen arrives from RfC, Maureen also thinks the constancy of "some people...and some people..." is unpleasent.

Process Fetishization

Slrubenstein then states

CheeseDreams and Amgine were asked several times what their sources were and they either could not, or would not, answer him
he has always provided reasons and sources

Mpolo states

Amgine and CheeseDreams have lost good faith in Slrubenstein

Slrubenstein responds

Voting is irrelevant (13)

Amgine responds (to Mpolo)

Slrubenstein has consistently failed to collaborate
Slrubenstein appears unable or unwilling to follow process
Slrubenstein has refuted prior votes

In consequence, Amgine thinks of Slrubenstein's version

is fatally flawed
a personal essay

Mpolo thinks

Slrubenstein's version has better structure as it has an historical arc
FT2's version seems like an incoherent random collection of themes

Counterproductive disputes

JDG arrives, and states

CheeseDreams' stance is unreasonable
CheeseDreams' stance is obstructing Slrubenstein
CheeseDreams is unscholarly and fringe unlike Slrubenstein

Cheesedreams claims that (by virtue of reading User Talk pages) JDG is clearly Slrubenstein's mate and therefore highly biased. Slrubenstein states this is not the case as they "fought in the past".

Many people prefer FT2s intro as the more balanced, neutral, and appropriate one, Slrubenstein thinks others prefer his, and that they should be merged.

FT2 thinks the article is written from the POV of what interests Christians, which is not appropriate, Wesley doesn't think Slrubenstein is pushing such a thing, and Slrubenstein wants proof of this FT2s claim.

FT2 thinks that to understand how Jews react to Rome and Messiahs, it is necessary to go back as far as the Macabees. He also thinks that there should be mention of the commonality of child prodigies to show that Jesus' ability to converse on the law in the temple wasn't that special, just a bit cleverer than many. Slrubenstein thinks that FT2s evidence that Jesus' ability was fairly standard, and indeed partly expected, is rubbish, and 100 years too late. Wesley point out to Slrubenstein what the context is.

FT2 thinks that it is accurate to state that the lack of desire to integrate was seen as an affront. Slrubenstein states that Tcherikover claims this is not true, further, that the Romans were tolerant of beliefs but annoyed them with taxes. FT2 asks what situations did the authorities only get involved later in conflicts that jews had with non-jews. Slrubenstein replies that he doesn't know the exact details (1).

FT2 thinks it is necessary to include a quote from someone to present how jews felt rather than thought at the time. Slrubenstein thinks the quote does not reflect jews at the time, and a quote from Cohen (which does not express emotion, but does support Slrubenstein's view of the interaction between Judaism and Hellenism) should be used instead.

FT2 thinks that "X% lived in towns, Y% in villages" is demographic, and that most Jews at the time were hard working, God fearing, in villages. Slrubenstein asks for evidence. FT2 points out that in such circumstances there arent many "slackers", and that village people tended to be less hellenised than city people. Slrubenstein thinks FT2 is showing ignorance.

FT2 thinks that since early emporers thrived, but later ones tended to be murdered and were crueler, there was more corruption. Slrubenstein thinks this is not true. (2)

FT2 state that there was always 2 sides to Judaism - temple and halakhah/prayer. Slrubenstein thinks this is thick and ignorant, as prayer is a form of temple worship, and halakhah contains ritual. FT2 states that the temple worship (though not the temple) goes back to 1500-1300BC and Halakha went back almost as far orally. Slrubenstein claims most historians dispute that.

Slrubenstein thinks that the "Jewish rejection" statement is poorly written and made up, wheras FT2 thinks it is a general cultural description of factors which would have inclined the Jews to reject a variety of cults, groups and beliefs.

Slrubenstein disputes translating "Yohanan" as "Jonathan" rather than "John". FT2 points out how David's associate "Jonathan" is "Yohanan" in Hebrew, to which Wesley states that the New Testament is Greek. Slrubenstein states that "Yonatan" is "Jonathan" and "Yohanan" is "John"

FT2 thinks that purely an historical narrative is inappropriate, and difficult to understand. Slrubenstein states that history and culture are intertwined (though not so elegantly). Wesley thinks that a pure historical narrative is less interpretive and therefore easier to be NPOV.

Slrubenstein thinks that Jews never believed non-Jews should obey Jewish law, and that as many Gentiles turned to other religions with restrictive practices, there is no reason to think that these were in the way of appealing to gentiles. He asks for what he would see as valid evidence.

FT2 states that Early Christians had not made headway with what they felt their natural audience should be, namely the Jews, so they a) felt rejected and b) turned more to spread the Gospels amongst the Gentiles, so they seperated from the Jews, by throwing away many customs and beliefs the jewish-christians had perpetuated. Slrubenstein states that FT2 is being silly (6).

FT2 states that as a clear side effect, dropping more Jewish traditions made their beliefs more palatable. Slrubenstein says that the notion is illogical.

FT2 states that this separated them more from the Jews who had mostly rejected them, who were becoming seen as a 'problem' by Rome (it was politically useful not to in fact be Jews). Slrubenstein states that this is not true, and that even after Bar Kohba, Romans treated Jews better than Christians.

FT2 states that the replacement of halakhah by pure faith alone, simultaneously made them more accessible to gentiles. Slrubenstein counters that it is offensive, as an Orthodox teacher observing halacha does not mean that students will reject lessons in algebra.

FT2 refers to Sabbattai Lev in the 1400's, to show how Jews reacted to "other messiahs". Slrubenstein asks if he means Shabbatai Tzvi from the 1600s. Slrubenstein states that consequently FT2 has no business working on this article (7).

FT2 asks that given that Jews were under intense pressure from Rome (and we know what pressure does to Jewish sense of Identity from the Macabbes, all the way through to 1948), what would opinions be of people preaching non-mainstream beliefs. Slrubenstein says to have some evidence from the first century CE. Slrubenstein says that the above questions above are irrelevant.

FT2 states that the Jews as a group tend to be protective of their national identity and polarise under pressure. Slrubenstein states that FT2 is ignorant (8).

FT2 states that jews as a group back then tended to be conservative (confirmed in gospels and history books), sceptical of radical new interpretations, disinterested in afterlife/salvation stories (mainstream judaism, but variable), and political tensions, and since jews in this period were making all sorts of original claims, what Slrubenstein calls "the mainstream" did not clearly exist back then. Slrubenstein replies that FT2s reasoning is specious and ignorant (9).

FT2 asks to be reminded why Slrubenstein rejects his statements of reasons Jews rejected many cults. Slrubenstein states that this runs counter to the diversity of beliefs and practices that characterized the Jews in pre-Temple, first Temple, and Second Temple periods. Slrubenstein claims that FT2 is "making stuff up". Slrubenstein does not think FT2s responses are satisfactory or have valid evidence.

Comments on Slr's version

John Kenney thinks that Slrubensteins version

Takes too long to get to the time period of Jesus.
The emphasis should be on the general historical and cultural context.
Thinks that emphasising the context is odd because this was a daughter of Jesus.
The Hasmonaeans claiming first the high priesthood (under Jonathan) and then the kingship (under Aristobulus I) should be mentioned
Antipater the Idumaean ought to be mentioned, no?
There should be a discussion of Herod's reign
There are too many citations
Although Slrubenstein states that bias and inaccuracy in the gospels is demonstrated by the way Christianity and later forms of Judaism emerged, there is too much detail on the subject

Suggestions for next set of revisions

Slrubenstein thinks

2.4.1 is misnamed.
- It should be "Kings, Procurators, and the Sanhedron" OR "Local Governance under Roman Occupation"
2.5, on the Sicarii etc, should be made 2.4.4
2.5.1, on Jesus in this context, should be simply 2.5
FT2's intro is poorly written, but the content is good.
We must state that the Gospels are the major textual source for information about Jesus to demonstrate NPOV.
We must explain how historiography works.
He shares concerns about excess of historical info
There could be a better transition between the 1st and 2nd temple periods,
- which must stess that in both, the Temple and the Law were important.
- which must stress discontinuity in "legitimacy"
There can be more discussion of Herod's reign
- especially how Herod was an Idumean but also Jewish.
We can be clearer that the Pharisees developed under the Hasmoneans period.
We need to add more information about the Sicarii.
The major conflict was not Jews seeking political and religious freedom vs. Romans.
The Great Revolt was about poverty in the peasentry vs. the elite.
The primary target of the Sicarii were Jewish elites, not Romans.
The Sicarii rejected Roman rule but also rejected Jewish government.
There should be a section about economy and class inequality
There should be more (rather than less) views of historians about Jesus.

Response to FT2s Account

FT2 is partisan and resents criticism. These votes were not about style but about substance, and my objections were based on the historical record.

FT2, Amgrine, and CheeseDreams have done little or no research on this topic and are mistaken and ignorant about many things. In the meantime, FT2, Amgine, and CheeseDream continue to rely on a version riddled with the most ignorant errors. But FT2, Amgine, and CheeseDream add material that has no basis in fact.Slrubenstein

Just so that you're aware, theres a few inaccuracies up there. I haven't "resented" criticism. FT2 10:37, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Response to the Response to FT2s account

You have no right or reason to exclude or dismiss ANY wikipedian from commenting on this article -- for ANY reason. No matter what the reason, all editors have a right to comment and edit. Slrubenstein

I think CheeseDreams, FT2 and Amgine actually need mentoring on how to work in Wikipedia, but I don't think any of the old-timers want to get involved with them. I am not sure what to od. Above, I started a section on what kinds of changes are needed in the article. This talk page should be for talk on improving the article. Yet that hasn't happened at all. C, F, and A don't want to talk about content (I am not surprised as they don't know much 1st cntury history), all they want to do is repeat accusations. Slrubenstein

And Vanity. CheeseDreams 19:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Summary of Summaries

Contested points

NPOV (in this context) is representing the view that the majority think is neutral
This article is about Jesus in a historical context
Everything should be cite-d
NPOV (in this context) is representing equally all major views found in academia
Slrubenstein's version should be The historical Jesus not this article
Most things should be cite-able
This article is about what the background to Jesus was like
NPOV (in this context) is representing equally all views held by participating Wikipedians

Uncontested points

Herod should be mentioned

This verges on too much

CheeseDreams summarized what I wrote above thusly:

Slrubenstein disputes translating "Yohanan" as "Jonathan" rather than "John". FT2 points out how David's associate "Jonathan" is "Yohanan" in Hebrew, to which Wesley states that the New Testament is Greek. Slrubenstein states that "Yonatan" is "Jonathan" and "Yohanan" is "John". Slrubenstein states that FT2 is a nut, and questions whether FT2 is masturbating Slrubenstein.

First, it is a compelte misrepresentation of my point; I do not claim that Jonathan is Yohanan. Second, the link seems obnoxious and uncalled for. Slrubenstein

I wondered about that as well, but you did write "Ar eyou yanking my chain?....what you are saying here is a charicature of a nut" User:Tigermoon 11:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Yanking my chain" means, toying with me in order to waste my time and make me angry; it does not mean that he his stoking my penis with the intention of bringing me to orgasm. If CD doesn't understand the idiomatic expression, surely it was clear from context. Slrubenstein

And Ive just found this at the same place, also written by you "Yonatan is represented in English as Jonathan. Yohanan is represented in English as John." User:Tigermoon 12:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up -- as you make clear, I had explained to FT2 what his mistake was, and corrected him, long before he (finally) did his research. Slrubenstein

My research is not as shoddy as SIrubenstein has at times freely claimed. Specifically:

dictionary.com: "John - Middle English, from Old French Jehan, from Late Latin Ioannes, Iohannes, from Greek Ioannes, from Hebrew yôhanan, 'Yahweh has been gracious'..."
Nomenology Project: "John - DERIVATION: English, from the Hebrew name, Johanan, meaning, 'God is gracious.' Found in the New Testament as the name of John the Baptist."
Emtymology and History of Biblical 1st names: "JOHN - m English, Biblical English form of Johannes, which was the Latin form of the Greek name Ioannes, itself derived from the Hebrew name Yochanan meaning 'YAHWEH is gracious'..."

Thats the derivation of "John". Next time, a little trust and respectful talk beforehand would be in order.

Next time, a little research before you write in an article would be in order. Then, you may earn some trust. Slrubenstein

More to the point, not making a mountain over a single minor tiny item would also be in order. This is what has characterised the problem with this article all the way - no sense of proportion. The appropriate "fix" would have been to (a) check it yourself, or (b) just edit the one word you didnt think right. Not make a huge deal of it. I think this happens to be a good example why this article is in dispute. FT2 07:52, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

FT2 I appreciate that you have finally done some research, and your willingness to accept that John is Yochanan. I wish you had done this research before writing your version of the article. You are right -- in general -- that rather than make a big deal out of such mistakes editors should simply fix them. But you are disingenuous. I explained why this was an error and you mocked me. I wish you did your research then. Be that as it may, you have finally odne reseach, it is not shoddy, and I applaud your effort. But to the reall matter at hand: I didn't think I was making a big deal about this one point. Rather, I was listing this one point along with a dozen or more points that showed sloppy research or writing in your revision of my revision. Rather than go through each of these thirteen or fourteen problems in your version, I though it would just save a whole lot of time to revert to the earlier version, which was not plagued by this and so many other errors. Here is what it comes down to: I have done a lot of research on this period, and wrote a version that is to the best of my knowledge neutral (and which took into account virtually every single previous "vote" and discussion). It was clear to me that you had not done a lot of research. You say "check it yourself" and I say, well, let's do this before writing, it will save a lot of trouble. I did check such things before writing, but you did not. Why start with a very weak, error-prone version and spend a lot of time fixing it, when we can start with a relatively strong version and just improve it from there? Slrubenstein

fair points all of these. I think there was a difference, I wasnt aiming for perfect content - I was after 75% ok content. It had to be that way as so many people had added material. But poor factual information can be discussed, cited and fixed. I was after an approach and a broad view to get towards a consensus like "okay, so apart from these sloppy individual facts, and that occasional poor wording, basically we now have a direction to go forward from, and a version not written by either 'side'." I didnt think it was factually perfect, I was more interested to get reactions in general first. I figured simply saying "please leave it stand a while" would be enough, without a heavily detailed explanation. Hope that explains? FT2 18:07, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

FT2, I really don't question your intentions and if (in this specific instance) I said anything that questioned your intentions I apologize. Your intentions aside, I just felt there were so many errors and distortions in your version that it would be easier to go back to mine (which I must add was -- in my mind at least! -- built on your earlier work!). I understand that you did your best and did not claim it to be perfect. I just thought the previous version was better and made for a more practical continuation. Although I know your intentions were good, I do admit that it bothers me that you expected people to wait two days before editing work that you had not really researched, when you had just completely rewritten a draft for which I had spent considerable time researching. If anything, the principle should be that the more researched an article, the more time people allow themselves to think about it before editing; the less researched an article, the less time people allow themselves to think about it before editing. Slrubenstein

Suggestions for next set of revisions

Sooner or later the article will be unblocked. Here are some suggestions for the next round of revisions. SOme are my own, others come out of others' comments on the talk-page.. Slrubenstein

Didn't you think CheeseDreams summarised the above satisfactorially? (copied below) Tigermoon 12:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it should be summarized, which is why I wrote "summarized prematurely." These comments are not about what has happened, but what should happen. Slrubenstein

Format:

2.4.1 is misnamed. I suggest renaming it to "Kings, Procurators, and the Sanhedron" OR "Local Governance under Roman Occupation"
2.5, on the Sicarii etc, should be made 2.4.4
2.5.1, on Jesus in this context, should be simply 2.5

Content: People have raised issues about the introductory paragraph. I still think FT2's is poorly written, but he was right to raise other issues in that section. I suggest that we revise this to introduce people to the historiography of the period. First, be clear that the Gospels are the major textual source for information about Jesus. This should help clear up NPOV issues because there is no endorsement of the theological status or claims of the Gospels, only recognition that they are an historical source of central importance to historians researching Jesus and the first century. Second, a clearer explanation of how historians (as opposed to theologians or clergy or religious people) read historical texts critically. Third, an explanation of how historians go outside of a text to look at its context, which means looking at other historical sources and archeological evidence.Slrubenstein

If you are going to distinguish between historians and religious people and discuss their methods, you should specify what sort of historians you mean. On the one hand, a number of religious people employ the same historical methods to which you seem to be referring; on the other hand, some historians don't, including just about all historians before the Enlightenment and probably some other historians today. Wesley 20:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I mean historians using critical methods. By the way, such historians may be religious -- they just exclude religious claims from their historical research. Crossan may be such an example. Slrubenstein

People have raised questions about the amount of historical content, and continuity. I too share concerns about excess, although sometimes this is in the service of accuracy. That said, I think that there could be a better transition between the first temple and second temple periods. This transition should stress one important continuity: in both, the Temple and the Law were important institutions. This continuity is an important issue because the status of the law and of the Temple were central issues for Rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity; Jesus was read as having taken certain stands on these institutions; we need a general context for understanding what kinds of stands Jesus was likely to have taken and what their significance would have been. It should also stress a discontinuity in "legitimation" -- in the Second Temple period there were questions about the legitimacy of the Temple, and, the Torah having been redacted, the Law emerged as an increasingly important institution (which again had consequences during Jesus' time)Slrubenstein

There can be more discussion of Herod's reign (including how it got started, with a reference to Antipater). But I think we need to connect this to bigger issues at the time, especially how Herod was an Idumean but also Jewish, in other words, there was a reworking of "Jewish" Identity during the Hellenistic period.Slrubenstein

Some people still seem confused about the different movements at the time. We can be clearer that the Pharisees developed during the Hasmonean period. I think we need to add more information about the so-called "Fourth movement," the Sicarii.Slrubenstein

Adding more information about the Sicarii (and Zealots) will address another misconception, that the major conflict was between Jews seeking political independence and religious freedom, and Romans. This was indeed one issue, but the Great Revolt (and thus, tensions throughout the first century) were between poor Jewish peasants and rich Jewish elites. The primary target of the Sicarii were Jewish elites, not Romans. They had an anarchic philosophy that rejected Roman rule but that also rejected Jewish government as well.Slrubenstein

The above sections call attention to various religio-political movements at the time of Jesus. I think another section providing more basic information on the economy of Judea and the Galilee, the degree of class inequalities, and maybe something on taxationl, would also help. This should come before or after sections 2.4.1-4

The account of Jesus in this context is currently synthetic and I believe a very reasonable summary of what most historians would agree to. Nevertheless, I think we can now incorporate more specific material on debates/different views among historians, specifically: Brandon's view of Jesus as a political revolutionary; Smith's view of Jesus as a magician; Vermes' view of Jesus as a Galilean charismatic; Sanders' view of Jesus as an eschatological prophet. Slrubenstein

Meta-issues: What is the article about?

Issues seem to be - yes the gospels are the main source about Jesus. Thats needed to be stated in the intro. But Jesus is not the main source of this article, and thats important. Neither the history, nor the culture, is predicated upon Jesus, and that is a central issue for this article. Even matters impinging upon jesus and the Jews or Christians are not predicated upon the Gospels, but are generally available from non-religious historic sources. If we have to rely on the Gospels for evidence of something, and lack other credible sources, the odds are good it was not a relevant part of the culture and history. What does matter is where the Jews as a group were coming from, and the Romans, the politics, backgrounds and histories, so that readers can understand the isues and tensions which would have arisen for themselves. FT2 07:57, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I just do not understand your point. This aricle is about Jesus in his cultural and historical context. If we remove Jesus as a basic component of the article, let's just delete the article. I mean, you can't have a background without a foreground, a context without a text. What would be the purpose of this article? We have articles on the Pharisees, Saducees, on Ancient Israel, and Jewish history, and the Great Revolt. In any event, perhaps you misunderstand me or I misunderstand you. The Gospels are the primary sources on Jesus, but nothing in the article clais that the Gospels are the primary sources on Jewish and Roman history. Almost every section of the article relies on sources other than the Gospels. Indeed, this is the rationale for the article: given that the Gosepels give an incomplete account of Jesus' context, we need to look to other sources. Are you suggesting the article relies too much on the Gospels? Can you give an example (or am I misunderstanding you)? Slrubenstein

I think actually, simply put, the above 2 comments almost define whats up. Because the title isnt "Jesus IN his context". It's "The context of the period when Jesus lived".

Its not "look up Jesus' story, and relate it back to his period", its "look at the period and the forces which were playing at that period, and within which a person who preached a new message claimed to be a leader or messiah would have lived and by whose impact they would have been affected."

I think you or someone suggested above that we might actually in reality have two separate articles here, namely "Jesus in his historical and cultural context". The two arent the same and I think what we are gradually seeing is a recognition of that. (They are very similar but its the difference between, say, "what does knowledge of Jewish culture teach us about America" and "What does knowledge of American culture teach us about Judaism". You get a basically different result) FT2 17:42, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

The title of this article is "Cultural and historical background of Jesus" CheeseDreams 21:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I believe the purpose of this article initially (and what I personally would advocate as a meaningful purpose for it today) was to help reduce the excessive size of the Jesus article. That article had devoted a great deal of time to attempting to explain the forces at work in the society in which Jesus (allegedly) lived, in order to better understand what the actions and positions attributed to him in the Gospels may have signified to a first-century audience. I think this kind of coverage is likely to be useful to anyone, religious or non-religious, even including those who doubt Jesus' existence. Anyone familiar with modern historiography knows that it's important to understand facts within their cultural context. The Jesus of the Gospels, whether fictionally, semi-fictionally, or factually represented therein, is a character whose actions need to be understood culturally -- much that we may find strange or significant would have been less so to a first-century audience, and much that we may find normal or reasonable would have been most unusual to them. In order for this encyclopedia to offer good coverage of the meaning of Jesus in context, this article (or else an article much like it) needs to exist -- the Gospels are necessary in order to provide the material that needs to be placed into context. It will be difficult to write this article in a manner that pleases everyone, but not impossible, I think. As I note above, I think it's in everyone's best interests to have such an article. I don't know if this resolves much of the impasse here, but I thought it needed to be said if it hadn't been said yet (or hadn't been said since the last archiving). Jwrosenzweig 21:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this seems exactly right to me. In fact, I have a difficult time understanding how this is even controversial. john k 21:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Until the 2nd edit war and 2nd protection, the consensus on this talk page was that it was irrelevant what this article had previously been. The generally agreed position was This is not that article. This is an article about background. CheeseDreams 22:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was never the consensus on this talk page that the article's prior history was irrelevant, except possibly for some short span of time between when the claim was made and one of several who disagreed had time to log in and say so. That has been one of the major points of contention as long as this dispute has been going on for the past month or so. The question has repeatedly been raised in different ways, "If it's an article about background, what's in the foreground?" Wesley 02:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which is why The historical Jesus was mooted by Amgine above (and many others earlier) as a possible solution to this controversy. CheeseDreams 22:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All right, then. I'll just work on the article I mentioned at another title. :-) Good luck with this one -- it sounds interesting. Jwrosenzweig 22:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

JW Rosenzweig - don't humor CheeseDreams - as you said before, an article about context that ignores the text is simply gibberish. CheeseDreams - I would tentatively somewhat agree with you that the origins of this article should not determine its contents. But this article is an article about the background, or the context, for something specific - the figure of Jesus as presented in the Gospels. It is absolutely impossible to have a useful article on the background or context of something without referring to the subject to which it is supposed to be background or context - in this case, Jesus as depicted in the Gospels - and without making some effort to show how the background and context relates to the material which it is contextualizing. Once again, if any new article is to be created, you should create Cultural and historical background of 1st century Roman Palestine. Or, perhaps Roman Palestine in the 1st century AD. Or whatever. Yes, this article is supposed to be background. But background is not background unless it is presented in relationship to the material to which it is supposed to be the background. The article you want to write is a cultural and historical description of Jewish society in the 1st century AD. This article would provide useful information and background for someone interested in the context of Jesus and the Gospels. But it would not be an article about the context and background of Jesus and the Gospels. In the same way, History of Athens is an article which might provide useful information and background for someone interested in the context of, say, Plato, or the great Tragedians. But that does not mean the article is an article about the context of Plato or the Tragedians. Can you understand the distinction? john k 22:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, so much respect for people actually attempting to reach compromise. CheeseDreams 23:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All right, then, John -- makes no odds to me. I'm just tired of fighting with someone who's so convinced I'm biased that he won't even have a conversation with me to find out how reasonable I can be. I've fought too many of them in the last 18 months and I didn't care to fight CD, but as it's important, I agree that backing down so quickly probably isn't the right thing to do. I agree that, if this article removes Jesus and the Gospel assertions about him, it will inevitably lose its purpose...after all, we don't have a general article on the culture in any other century for that area. The only reason to have this one is that a remarkably important figure (fictional or no) reportedly existed in it, and we can't understand him as well without it. A correction, though -- the remark about "context" and "text" was made by Slrubenstein, I believe. Jwrosenzweig 23:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, my bad on that last. One thing that this article has convinced me of is that the doing away with of sub-articles isn't necessarily a good thing. john k 05:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Jesus must be mentioned in this article, but the focus of the article is the cultural and historic context in which he lived (if he lived etc. see other article for that discussison). These cultural, societal and historic forces acted upon all members of the society, and the forces as they acted upon any member of this society are the primary focus of the article, not Christianity, which essentially did not exist in Jesus' lifetime, and not Jesus, as during this period, Jesus was not a major figure, per se. The recognition of his importance came after his death, and the religion that grew from his teachings began, as the story goes, quite near his death. (you, Peter are the living rock upon which I will build my church) So my opinion is that Jesus is mostly not relevant to the article. Same with Christianity. The article is about the environment in which "a Jesus" and "a new religion" could have appeared. This is a daughter article to Jesus, yes, but it isn't a religious article or biography. Pedant 23:54, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

Jesus is absolutely relevant to the article, as his name appears in the article's title. However, I agree that this is not a biography of Jesus or the first part of the History of Christianity. I understand that the Church is traditionally held to have begun on Pentecost, shortly after Jesus' Ascension; however, one could argue that Jesus was (according to the gospels) already trying to spread his teachings and practices by sending out the seventy disciples to preach about the kingdom of God and to heal the sick, etc. But what I see this article doing is perhaps very briefly mention that in the Gospels Jesus is often addressed as Rabbi, and then discuss what a first century rabbi was. Briefly mention his interactions with the Pharisees, Sadducees and other groups and describe in more detail who they were. For that matter, tax collectors and zealots alike could be mentioned. So, Jesus himself would receive small mention and Christianity the same or less, but the stories about Jesus and about Palestine would at least in part determine what it is about first century "Roman Palestine" that makes it worth writing an article about, and more than that, arguing about so vehemently. Wesley 02:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this seems essentially right to me. I feel like the current article mostly does a good job with this. That is to say, the article is not about Jesus, or about early Christianity. But to do its job it needs to explain how the context under discussion relates to Jesus and early Christianity. Otherwise it's not an article about the context of something. john k 05:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig, please do not weary. I too am tired of CheeseDreams obstructionism. But the fact is you, John K, and Wesley are all pretty much on the same page and have a clear, reasonable understanding of what is going on (and I am sure I have left out some names, but not because I don't recognize their contributions.) To summarize:

The origins of the article are important. That doesn't mean the article is frozen in time and cannot change -- all Wikipedia articles are works in process. But of course the origins are important!
When Mpolo originally separated this as a daughter article of the Jesus article and gave it the title "Culturan and Historical Background of Jesus," he could just as well have entitled it "Jesus in his Cultural and Historical Background" Or he could have come up with another title. Daughter articles are strange in this way -- the article exists before the title. Usually it is the other way around -- and the contents of the article must strive to conform to the title. But with daughter articles, the trick is to come up with an appropriate title for an article that already exists. Now, I don't care whether we change the title or not, but certainly, we cannot fetishize it.
Pedant is right to raise the question of focus, but in this case misunderstands what the focus is. Many articles focus on a "thing" (e.g. "physics" or "World War II"). This article, however, focuses on the relationship between two things: Jesus, and the cultural and historical context in which he lived. It is the articulation or conjunction between these two things that is the topic of this article. Perhaps I disagree with John K. and Wesley over how much historical background is necessary -- but that argument (if indeed we disagree) is secondary; all three of us agree that whatever background is presented, it is to provide a historical context for understanding Jesus. In this narrow sense FT2 and I may agree (he provides the analogy, "what does knowledge of Jewish culture teach us about America" versus "What does knowledge of American culture teach us about Judaism". I believe he prefers the second one. If we had to choose between these two, I too would chose the second one. But I think in fact historians work in a more nuanced way. American culture is the totality of American social groups, institutions, and their relationships. You cannot understand American culture without including Jews (and Blacks, Irish, Italians, and so on). Similarly, a historical understanding of Jesus informs our understanding of first century Jewish culture. Nevertheless, this article begins with the point that, historians who do not believe in miracles must start with an understanding of Jewish and Hellenic culture and history, in order to understand Jesus' life. But in this sentence, "Jewish" and "Jesus" are still equally important in determining the focus of the article.
The point that Christianity did not even exist at that time is a red-herring. No one claims that this article is about Christianity. Indeed, in the original Jesus article this section explicitly provided the "historical Jesus" as a contrast to the Christian account of Jesus' life. The purpose for providing cultural and historical background is to show how a non-Christian interpretation of Jesus's life is possible. That said, the article needs to say something about Christianity, because the earliest primary source material on Jesus was written from a Christian point of view. Nevertheless, this article is not about Christianity and no one ever claimed it was.

I am pretty sure John K., JRosenzweig, and Wesley will agree with these four basic points -- if I am mistaken please let me know here or on my own talk page. I know FT2, Amgine, and Pedant may disagree with these points, although I hope that we are closer to some sort of consensus. At the very least, I hope that they think these points are understandable and reasonable. If any of you strongly object to any of them, however, I really do want to understand why and hope that you will take the time to explain it to me. Thanks. Slrubenstein

This argument is raised again.

1. The source of the article is irrelevant to its current status, in much the same way that certain letters which may have been written by member of the Swedish Royalty became irrelevant to World War I. The source is to be remembered, consulted, and considered; nothing more.

Why should it be remembered, consulted, and considered if it is irrelevant? You seem to be saying it is relevant, but that it is not definitive -- which is what I said. So you seem to agree with me. Yet the first sentence disagrees with me. I am confused Slrubenstein

The fact of its creation, why it was created, forces which were involved in its creation, etc. are relevant. But where it came from has very little relevance to the specific contents. - Amgine 19:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2. The title is the tool by which this article will be refered to by Wikipedia users. As such it should be neutrally descriptive of the article contents. In short, the article should address the cultural and historical background of Jesus, nothing more or less.

Your second and third sentences seem to be making slightly different points. Sentence two says the title should describe the article contents (I agree); sentence three implies that the contents of the article is dictated by the title (in the case of daughter articles, I disagree). These two sentences seem to contradict -- which is the cart and which is the horse? I am confusedSlrubenstein

The title determines who will see the article. Thus the content of the article should be specific to the title. - Amgine 19:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3. Cultural and historical background is a "thing". A highly nuanced view would (and does) make an excellent book; it would of course not be a useful encyclopedia article. A brief and compact overview of the currently prevalent views of the cultural and historical background in which Jesus would have lived seems most appropriate for an encyclopedia article. (After all, when we consider the source of this article, it was created due to too much information.)

I understand this point and I understand that we disagree. But I still wonder why, if people question Jesus' existence, we need this article at all? You write "A brief and compact overview of the currently prevalent views of the cultural and historical background in which Jesus would have lived" You use the third conditional (would have+past participle) which indicates something that did not happen. It seems silly to write an article in reference to someone that did not exist, when we could instead write articles about times when people really did exist. Surely we all agree Pontius Pilate lived. We all agree that Hillel lived. We all agree that Akiba lived, and that Herod Antipas lived. Why not write an article "Cultural and historical Background of Pilate" or "Cultural and Historical Background of Hillel?" Why do you advocate writing an article about the conditions under which someone could have lived, when there really were people who lived back then. Shouldn't the article be about the background of people who really did live? I am just trying to understand your position. Slrubenstein

You are mistaken about my usage. As an example, an engineering model of the Titanic crash would be used to examine the forces the ship would have experienced. The crash demonstrably existed; the engineers are studying it, just as a Wikipedia user looking at this article might be studying the cultural and historical background of Jesus.

I don't believe the question regarding the title of other articles is particularly relevant here; this article is being discussed as it is currently titled. As to the "silliness" of writing this article about someone who may or may not have existed - Wikipedia reports on the beliefs of people, and clearly this article is both extremely notable and relevant in this regard. This is an encyclopedic topic regardless of my personal credo (which I do not think I have expressed nor expect to.)

4. Strongly agree the point about the Christian church's nonexistence is a red herring.

- Amgine 18:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And I quote When Mpolo originally separated this as a daughter article of the Jesus article and gave it the title "Culturan and Historical Background of Jesus," he could just as well have entitled it "Jesus in his Cultural and Historical Background"

Therefore I have no objection to the article Jesus in a cultural and historical background existing AS WELL as this article CheeseDreams 19:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's completely ridiculous. The two titles mean the same thing. At any rate, I sincerely fail to understand how the current title precludes all discussion of Jesus? That seems completely absurd to me. Amgine, I don't necessarily disagree with the points you're making, but I don't really understand the conclusions you're drawing from these premises. Again I will ask - how can the article meaningfully be the background to something which is never mentioned in the article? The article you and CheeseDreams and FT2 propose seems to me to no more fit the title Cultural and historical background of Jesus than the article Yale University fits the title Educational background of George W. Bush. john k 20:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, John Kenney, I *don't* feel the article should preclude mention of Jesus and have consistently voted that way. This appears to have been a running misunderstanding. I feel Pedant's description of the article's focus is probably best, although I feel some mention of religion is necessary due to its importance in the culture at the time.

As to the secondary question, there's little doubt that a very accurate and useful description of my life and times, the cultural and historical elements which would mould me and my worldview, could be written without a single reference to me personally. This is undoubtedly why direct archaeological evidence of Jesus is extremely limited; he was not widely recognized in his own time. The primary difference is that after I am gone there will be very little reason to remember me, while the importance of Jesus grew after his departure. - Amgine 20:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amgine, I'm going to have to politely disagree with your final point. If I set out to write Cultural and historical background of Amgine, I think I could do a tolerable job describing the cultural and political influences affecting someone spending their adult years in the suburbs of, say, San Antonio, Texas. Of course, I have no idea if you come from there. In order for my article to be of any use to an amateur student of Amgine's life, I would have to at least identify the salient features of Amgine's existence in order to provide the proper context. Your religion, your social class, your nationality, your cultural heritage, your profession....all of these things would be important. The only difference with this article is that I think the assumption on the part of some editors is that we don't need to explain the details of Jesus' life because everyone knows them. We can't make that assumption. If someone who knows Jesus vaguely as "that guy who started Christianity, made some miracles, and died on a cross" comes to this article, they need to be given enough information about Jesus to make the background comprehensible. We all may think it obvious that Jesus is claimed by the Gospels to have been a rabbi who had issues with the Pharisees and Sadducees, who opposed the Zealots yet had at least one as an associate, etc. But our readers may not. We have to give enough information about Jesus in order to be sure that a reader will understand how the background connects. Yes, this article is primarily about the society and culture in which Jesus lived. But without enough detail about his life, it won't be clear to our readers how they are to make sense of this "background". Do you agree with me that this is a reasonable goal? I'm not clear as to how much you are opposed to such an idea. Jwrosenzweig 20:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to giving enough detail about Jesus' life. I believe specific asides are necessary and important for clarity, and should be qualified and verifiable (e.g. Blah blah as found in X, with Y also saying Blahdeblah.) However, (and this is just an example I do not actually recall anyone using) a discussion of how Jesus may fit a selection of prophetic criteria is not relevant to the cultural and historical background. Conversely, a discussion of prophetic criteria as perceived by the culture would be relevant. Do you see the difference? - Amgine 20:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do indeed see the difference -- more to the point, I agree with you. I think simply noting that the Gospels attribute Messianic claims to Jesus is sufficient on his end (perhaps citing a claim in specific, although I don't know if that's necesary for a general discussion). A more detailed description of what that claim might mean to a first century audience (both Jewish and Roman) would also be a good idea in this article. But trying to match Jesus to prophecy point for point wouldn't make sense -- sounds too much like proselytizing to me. If this is the level of detail we're arguing over, I think we'll come to an agreement quite soon. :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey - we actually seem to be getting somewhere! I generally agree with both of you, then. I agree that the article shouldn't be about Jesus. But I also think the article needs to provide the necessary background so the reader will know how the stuff being talked about relates to Jesus. To go a bit further, I'd note that articles that deal with subject matters related to this time period, without even having Jesus in the title, such as Pharisee, mention prominently the connection between their topic and the way it is portrayed in the New Testament. Surely an article which is specifically about the context of Jesus ought to emphasize this kind of thing at least as much. john k 21:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amgine writes,

a discussion of how Jesus may fit a selection of prophetic criteria is not relevant to the cultural and historical background. Conversely, a discussion of prophetic criteria as perceived by the culture would be relevant.

I too see the difference, and I too agree with Amgine, but with two ammendments. First, in addition to the relevance of prophetic criteria, I do think it is important to include a discussion of how historians re-evaluate Jesus in terms of what we know about prophetic criteria. Do you see the difference? Most people assume that the Gospels' claims about prophetic criteria (and a host of other things, such as the nature of the Pharisees) are true. But those claims may reflect Christian beliefs that developed after Jesus was executed. A discussion of prophetic criteria as perceived by the Jewish culture of the time might lead to a diffeent understanding of Jesus. I think that would belong in the article (if scholars have indeed discussed this). Second, I may disagree with Jwrosenzweig, at least as far as I understand his statement, (or maybe I agree and am trying to spell it out more specifically?)

I think simply noting that the Gospels attribute Messianic claims to Jesus is sufficient on his end

This gets to the crux of the problem, I think: what is the status of the Gospels as historical documents? Writing this article would be easy if we believed that they are entirely authoritative historically, or if we believed that they are entirely spurious. The problem is, most historians I have read take a different view: some elements of the Gospels provide partial evidence of historical events, while other elements express theological and doctrinal claims. For those historians, the trick is separating the two. And in this article, I think we should be concerned with the historical elements, but not the theological ones. "The Gospels attribute Messianic claims to Jesus." Well, if the verses in the Gospels to which John K. refers were written after Jesus' death, then they actually may not be relevant to this article -- not only may they not be evidence of historical and cultural background of Jesus, they may actually disguise or distort that background. Other verses, on the other hand, may very well reflect things people said, did, believed, while Jesus was alive. The basic method historians use is this: if a claim in the Gospel supports later claims by Orthodox Christianity, but have no parallel in Jewish texts from the period (100 BCE-100 CE, let's say), then this claim is not reliable historical evidence. On the other hand, if a claim in the Gospel is consistent with things found in Jewish texts from this period, then it may be reliable historical evidence. Example: there were many "healers" in the Galilee during this period. Now, that doesn't mean Jesus could actually cure a lame person. But it does mean that it is very likely that many Jews at the time believed that Jesus could do this. I am trying to get at a basic point about how "historical and cultural background" might actually be relevant to (informative of) "Jesus." To me, this approach puts historians ahead of the Gospel -- but allows for the fact that many historians selectively rely on the Gospels. I do agree with Jwrosenzweig that this should not be going over Gospel claims point by point. But I think I disagree with John K. -- in a certain way, I think this article is "about" Jesus (what I really think is what I stated above: the article is not about Jesus, nor is it about the Cultural and historical context; it is about the relationship between the two). It is NOT about the "Christian" Jesus or even the Gospels' Jesus. It is about a Jesus that historians have constructed out of historical evidence, which includes a critical reading of the Gospels in terms of all other historical evidence from the period. Slrubenstein

Slr, I don't know that you and I will ever be in perfect agreement about the status of the Gospels as historical documents. :-) I may be wrong, though. Personally I would apply a slightly less stringent test than the comparison with Jewish texts that you propose. However I am willing to allow this may be idiosyncratic on my part, and certainly arguing over that minute level of detail is not a hill I'm willing to die on. If we proceed as you suggest above, I wouldn't object, but I personally would contend that I think the scholarship in New Testament Studies supports dating the Gospels (in the form we now have them) essentially to the latter half of the 1st century AD (and where within those 50 years is anyone's guess). I'm not interested in tussling over such contentious ground, though -- readers can inform themselves if they like. Jwrosenzweig 22:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Summaries

What on earth is the point of all this summarizing? Why can't we just archive the old material and be done with it? The summarizing just seems to be just one more place where everyone can get into fights. john k 21:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I agree. Do any other talk pages have such summarizing? Slrubenstein

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 * [[/Archive 4]] - [[User:CheeseDreams|CheeseDreams]] 20:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * [[/Archive 5]] - [[User:CheeseDreams|CheeseDreams]] 21:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-* [[/Archive 6]] - [[User:CheeseDreams|CheeseDreams]]
+* [[/Archive 6]] - [[User:CheeseDreams|CheeseDreams]] 22:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 What happened to Archive 1? As of this writing it seems to be a broken link... [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 23:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 It appears to be deleted. I have gone back well before my archive edits and the link is still broken. I did not find it on the deletion logs, however. So I dunno - [[User:Amgine|Amgine]] 01:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 == Summary of Discussion upto 28th November 2004 ==