Talk:Historical background of the New Testament

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) summary of events fso far. If you have less than half a day to spare, you are advised to ignore the summary and skip to the last 2 or 3 sections.

CheeseDreams 21:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

However, if you want to see what's really going on, I recommend you read the whole thing, and not rely on the summaries written by parties involved in the conflict. CheeseDreams seems very proud that this talk page is growing so fast... Pedant 20:37, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

The next move

The article that was FT2s version

/OriginallyFT2

Editors contributing to this version

The article that was Slrubensteins version

/OriginallySlrubenstein

Editors contributing to this version

An alternative version

/fromScratch1

Impasse

Well, it seems that we're at a complete impasse. One long list of objections for each 'version', no willingness to compromise or move forward. Shall we just leave the page protected for a while longer? Wesley 04:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, this is very discouraging. At the moment, it still appears that unprotecting would just lead to obnoxious edit warring, rather than actual progress, so perhaps waiting is in order. john k 07:07, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I presented the long list above only to give Dr. Zen an oppotunity to explain why he prefers FT2's version over mine. I really do not want to leave this at a permanent impasse; I want to explore ways to move forward.

Given the length of my objections, I really would prefer to work from the current, protected version. But I certainly don't see that version as a finished product. In comments CheeseDreams has since archived, I proposed a few changes I thought necessary; Wesley and another editor suggested changing the word "fundamentalist" in the opening paragraph. I am sure there are other changes that need to be made. Wesley, I think you specifically have said you find merit in some of CheeseDreams' points. Would you mind being more specific, maybe summarizing those points you agree with and find value in? I admit that there is so much in what CheeseDreams says that I disagree with or am even offended by, that I might often miss what is of value. I don't know if this is going to make anyone any happier, but I honestly do want to see progress made on this article. Wesley, I went over your comments and as far as I can tell, the only points CheeseDreams raises that you agree with is that there should be more information on the forced conversion of the Idumeans, and more info about Herod -- and I too agree on these points. What else? Slrubenstein 20:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But I do have to make one thing clear: although I am quite willing to compromise readily when it comes to style, I take quite a different view when it comes to facts and scholarship. In such cases I really believe discussion towards some consensus is more important than compromise. Look, if I say that the Pharisees emerged at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, and someone else says they emerged at the end of the Hellenistic period (this is just a hypothetical to illustrate my point, I am not saying CheeseDreams or Dr. Zen have claimed this), then some compromise like "The Pharisees emerged in the middle of the Hellenistic period" or "Some say the Pharisees emerged in the beginnign of the Hellensitic period, others say at the end" would be wrong. In this case we would need to look at citable sources and figure out that would be right, not just seek some phrasing that tries to please everyone at the expense of verifiable accuracy. I say this only because many times CheeseDreams, Amgine, and FT2 seemed to think that compromise means I give in on one point, and CheeseDreams gives in on another. That may be a good way for politicans to compromise on budgets, but when it comes to encyclopedia articles ... we need to look at the substance of and sources for the claims, and not just make superficial compromises.Slrubenstein 18:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Ben Standeven's comments on SLR's version of the article

I will discuss the other version later. I have divided the comments into minor and major errors; the minor errors are grammatical and stylistic ones (they might as well be fixed now, by an admin), while the major ones are organizational or factual. (not so easy to fix.)

Minor points on SLR's version

Jesus lived in the Galilee and Judea (modern day Israel and Palestine)

I would change this to "Judea and the Galilee". (Also, didn't this region include part of modern-day Syria and Jordan, too?)

Some, people, including

The first comma needs to go.

In ancient Israel, as in most ancient Near Eastern societies, the institution of the priesthood was closely tied with the monarchy.

Many societies period!

Among the Children of Israel priests claimed descent from Aaron of the tribe of Levi, and were believed to have been chosen by God to care for the Tabernacle.

Was there still a Tabernacle in the monarchic era?

In 539 BCE the Persians conquered Babylon and in 537 BCE, inaugurating the Persian period of Jewish history. Cyrus the Great allowed Jews to return to Judea and rebuild the Temple (completed in 515 BCE).

First period should be a comma, I think.

This provided the condition for the development of various sects (including Josephus's "schools of thought"),

I think it's a bit too early to be talking about Josephus.

Moreover, many individuals unaffiliated with a politico-religious movement claimed a special relationship with God, in the tradition of the Nevi'im. In the south (especially Judea), this tradition was epitomized by prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah, who claimed to speak for God, and who primarily addressed issues of collective (national or communal) concern.

In the north (the ancient kingdom of Israel, including the Galilee), this tradition was epitomized by Elijah andElisha, who claimed be able to heal people and perform miracles, and who primarily addressed issues of individual (private or personal) concern (see Crossan 1992: 137-167).

I wouldn't have put these paragraphs in "Roman Era" myself.

During this period another class of prophets emerged

This clause is a bit too far removed from the previous reference to prophets to make sense.

These groups took onm different forms, with different methods, in the north (primarily the Galilee) and the south (primarily Judea.

What? Is this supposed to mean that northern and southern groups used different methods? Isn't very clear. Also, note the typo "onm", and the missing parenthesis.

The Sicarii, or "dagger-men" were urban terroriss

another typo.

It is unclear whether their leaders made messianic cleaims.

and another. I won't bother listing any more.

Menahem was a sicarii who

Shouldn't that be "sicarius"?

Jesus grew up Nazareth and began healing and preaching in agricultural and villagers and fishermen ...

Huh?

Once Jesus established a following (although there are debates over the number of followers) he moved...

The parenthetical can be deleted, as it is hardly relevant.

However, many of his teachings echoed the beliefs of the Qumran community (which was probably a branch of the Essenes); he may have engaged the Pharisees on matters of Jewish law; and his declarations that the kingdom was at hand echoed the Zealots.

Some of his teachings echoed those of the Pharisees, as well.

Many scholars argue that it is more likely that, like most Jews,

More likely than what?

All of these are very reasonable comments. When the page is unblocked, it should be pretty easy to incorporate/respond to these in the article. Slrubenstein 20:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Major problems with SLR's version

Specifically, they reject supernatural elements including miracles; argue that the Gospels were written from the point of view of, and in order to support, an orthodox Christianity that was emerging between the second and fourth centuries CE; and that an account of Jesus' life must make sense in terms of his historical and cultural context, rather than Christian orthodoxy.

Most of this is irrelevant; we only need the last clause, since the discussion is about the background of Jesus, not of the new testament.

I disagree -- in part because the Gospels remain an important source for historians, and in part because it provides more information on how critical historians deal with such sources. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the 1st century CE, when Jesus was supposed to have lived, most Jews were poor, politically marginalized peasants. Various elites and social movements, however, argued over the status of the Temple, laws and values embodied in sacred scriptures, and the restoration of a monarchy, Jewish sovereignty, and the kingdom of God. These institutions and issues all have their origins in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, around 1000 BCE.

This is a strange way to begin "The First Temple Era." We should either move this paragraph into the opening, or rewrite it.

Well, here is the issue: I believe this material (on the First Temple Era) provides important context for understanding the Second Temple Era in which Jesus lived -- it helps explain the relationship between kings and priests, and the importance of the Temple and scripture. Some people have argued that none of this material is relevant. I added the paragraph in question as a way to show how this section related to the article as a whole, i.e. to explain why this context is important. I think this is valid, but if you can think of a better way to achieve this, please make a suggestion. But the bottom line is this: the article is about Jesus in his historical and cultural context. We can debate how much context is required, but whatever context we provide, it has to be clear how it helps us understand Jesus. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've changed it to this:

Throughout history, most Jews were poor, politically marginalized peasants. However, in the 1st century CE, when Jesus was supposed to have lived, various elites and social movements argued over the status of the Temple, laws and values embodied in sacred scriptures, and the restoration of a monarchy, Jewish sovereignty, and the kingdom of God. These institutions and issues all have their origins in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, around 1000 BCE.

I think this is a bit less jarring as an initial paragraph.

In most ancient societies sacrifice was the only form of worship. Unlike many other religions of the time, however, the Children of Israel had sacred texts (later edited into the Torah, or Five Books of Moses) which contained moral stories and teachings, as well as laws,

What other religions of the time didn't have these things?

I agree this needs work. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the prophets (Biblical political and religious reformers who came from other tribes than Levi).

So Ezekiel wasn't a prophet?

Good point. We could rewrite it, "... who came from a variety of tribes" or something else. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done.

The Near East, especially during the Hellenistic period, was cosmopolitan. Several languages were used in the Levant at this time, and the matter of the lingua franca is still subject of some debate. The Jews almost certainly spoke Aramaic among themselves. Greek was at least to some extent a trade language in the region, and indeed in the entire eastern portion of the Roman empire. Pontius Pilate, as a Roman from Rome, would most likely have spoken Latin privately with his wife, but would probably have used Greek to handle day to day business in the province, though it is also possible (though perhaps improbable given his character) that he used Aramaic for this. Scholars debate whether Jesus himself spoke any other languages than Aramaic and (as a Jew) Hebrew.

Why is this in the "Hellenistic Period"? It seems to be about the Roman period, after all.

The cosmopolitan character begins in the Hellenistic period, although you are correct that most of this is about the Roman period. Would you suggest dividing it into two and redistributing it? Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes; I've moved the Pilate section onward into the Roman period.

Although the Hasmoneans were heroes for resisting the Seleucids, their reign lacked the legitimacy of the Davidic dynasty of the First Temple Era. It was around this time that the sages and scribes congealed into a political party known as the Pharisees, or "separatists." This term may owe to their rejection of Hellenic culture or to their objection to the Hasmonean monopoly on power. The political rift between the Saducees and the Pharisees became evident when Pharisees demanded that the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannai choose between being king and being High Priest. This demand led to a brief civil war that ended with a bloody repression of the Pharisees, although at his deathbed the king called for a reconciliation between the two parties. Alexander was succeeded by his widow, Salome Alexandra, whose brother, Simeon ben Shetah, was a leading Pharisee. Upon her death her elder son, Hyrcanus, sought Pharisee support, and her younger son, Aristobulus, sought the support of the Sadducees.

This seems overly detailed; this is an article about Jesus, not the Saducees and Pharisees.

I don't object to cutting it down, but let me explain my rationale. First, there has been considerable debate on these pages over who the Pharisses and Saducees were. Some participants in this debate think they were simply different religious movements. I think it is important to emphasize that they had their origins in political parties, otherwise people might think that politics and religion were more spearate in those days than they were. Also, this explains how the Romans ended up in the area, which is crucial to the context for Jesus. As I said, I agree it could be shorter. Can you suggest cuts while still conveying the important points? Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest something like:

Although the Hasmoneans were heroes for resisting the Seleucids, their reign lacked the legitimacy of the Davidic dynasty of the First Temple Era. It was around this time that the sages and scribes congealed into a political party known as the Pharisees, or "separatists." This term may owe to their rejection of Hellenic culture or to their objection to the Hasmonean monopoly on power. During the reign of Hasmonean king Alexander Jannai, a brief civil war erupted, which ended with a bloody repression of the Pharisees, although at his deathbed the king called for a reconciliation between the two parties. His elder son, Hyrcanus, sought Pharisee support, and his younger son, Aristobulus, sought the support of the Sadducees.

Throughout the history of the region bandits or brigands had long been active. ... During the Great Revolt Josephus was sent to command the Galilee in 66 CE. He raised an army that consisted primarily of local bandits. ...

So what? What have bandits got to do with Jesus? (Or Sicarii, for that matter?)

Three things: first, several editors on this page have argued that these bandits were actually messianic movements, and it is important to show how and why they were not. Second, they reveal that unrest in the region was not only religious in nature. Finally, one way to understand the importance of Jesus was how he was different from these (and other) elements. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Between 67 and 68 CE, these peasants, perhaps led by bandits, formed a new political party called the Zealots, which believed that an independent kingdom should be restored immediately, through force of arms. It is unclear whether their leaders made messianic cleaims.

OK, Zealots I can see. But we should still try to make the relevance clear to the reader.

Fair enough Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Two, Menahem ben Judas and Simon ben Giorasse (who was killed after the defeat by the Romans) had messianic claims. Menahem was a sicarii who entered Jerusalem to break off a standoff between the rebel aristocrat Eleazar, and his father, the loyal aristocrat Ananias. Menahem killed Ananias, and Eleazar then killed Menahem (the remainging sicarrii fled to Masada. Simon ben Giora took commeand of Jerusalem. Although he successuflly fought off the yrian Legate, Cestius Gallus, he also turned against the Jewish aristorcracy.

I don't see any support here for the claim that these people had "messianic claims." I do see several typos, which I won't even try to list.

I agree with you completely. I resisted including these, and it was because other editors insisted that I felt the need for more explanation of the Zealots and Sicarii. But if you think it should be cut or rewritten, I am completely with you on this. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've cut it for now.

The Gospels provide two accounts of Jesus' birth: according to one account, he is the son of Joseph, a descendant of David; according to the other account, he is the son of God, and divine. Christians do not view these two accounts as irreconcilable, but most critical Bible scholars suggest that these accounts were developed after Jesus' death, in order to substantiate the Christian belief that Jesus was the messiah. The first account, that Jesus was the son of David, would have substantiated the claim that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. The second account, including the Virgin Birth, substantiates the claim that Jesus is the Christian messiah.

I don't think most of this is relevant.

I think it is because it relates to two different notions of what "messiah" means; and contention over the meaning of "messiah" is a crucial issue in debates between Christians and Jews and in the historical analysis of the time. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to the Gospels, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It is possible that this claim was made by later Christians who wanted to stress ways in which Jesus fulfilled Biblical prophecies.

Either way, what difference does it make?

Gets to how historians read historical sources. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Once Jesus established a following (although there are debates over the number of followers) he moved to the Davidic capital of Judea, Jerusalem, and began preaching in the wildernesses of the Negev and Jordan. He went to the River Jordan to meet and be baptised by the prophet Yohannan (John) the Baptist.

Order here is backwards; he was baptised first.

Okay (I didn't write this) Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've fixed it now

Since Christians believed that Jesus had already replaced the Temple as the expression of a new covenant, they were relatively unconcerned with the destruction of the Temple. When Christians failed to attract a large number of followers from among the Jews -- perhaps because, in the aftermath of the revolt, Jews were afraid that talk of a new king and a new kingdom would provoke Roman wrath, or because most Jews did not feel that the destruction of the Temple signified the abrogation of their covenant with God, or because Jesus' central teachings (to love one's neighbor, and to love God with all one's heart, soul, and might) were also fundamental to Jewish teaching -- they turned to Gentile converts, distanced themselves from the rebellious Jews, and emerged as a new religion. Paul reasoned that if, thanks to Jesus, Gentiles do not need to be physically circumcised or obey other laws in order to have a relationship with God, then Jews no longer need to be circumcised or obey the law either. Unlike Judaism, which holds that it is the proper religion only of the Jews, Pauline Christianity claimed to be the proper religion for all people.

This is oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy. Paul was already dead at this point, there already were Gentile converts, and it was not the "Pauline" but the "Johannine" Christians which "distanced themselves from the rebellious Jews".

I think this can be handleed by moving the section, "Paul reasoned that if ..." earlier. It is an important point that helps explain how Christianity began to deiverge from Rabbinic Judaism. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK; the last sentence is in the previous paragraph; the next-to-last is gone (it's mostly superfluous.).

The section on Rabbinic Judaism should be drasticly reduced in size, since it is mostly irrelevant. (The Talmud is hardly part of the historical background of Jesus!)

I haveno problem with cutting the section down. I agree that it is not part of the "background" -- but it is part of the context (context involves what comes before and after the text in question) and important in explaining why so many Jews and Christians have an understanding of Jesus that is at odds with the views of critical historians. It shows how the period in which Jesus lived was able to give rise to very different forms of Judaism, which later became different religions. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments on "Earlier material from article"

In general, this material is superfluous, since it just duplicates the first half of the article.

But the "Religious Factions" section provides important information on what each faction beleived in Jesus' day; material which is rather lacking in the first half.

Ben Standeven 03:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On John

Ihave two problems with the John section. The NT presents John as a prophet, not as a messiah. What sources claim that he was a messiah or candidate for messiah? The paragraph as is is vague. Since this is a contentious claim it has to be verifiable. What can we cite? Also, why is mandeanism relavent here? Mandeans did not come into existence much later, and I think in Iran. Slrubenstein 20:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to the Mandaeanism article, Mandaeans claim John the Baptist as one of their greatest teachers. The same article claims that Mandaeanism as a religion goes all the way back to Adam, the first man. I really don't know how reliable any of it is, but I suspect that's why Mandaeanism is being brought up in this article. Wesley 03:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think plenty of Jews in the first century also considered John a great teacher. It is only the claim that he was a messiah that I question. Also, I know of no evidence for Mandeanism existing in 1st century Palestine. The article on Mandeanism doesn't provide much verification either. Slrubenstein 18:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree the evidence for this section appears to be weak. Does anyone object to it being deleted for lack of support? Wesley 17:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ben Standeven's Comments on FT2's version

As before, I have divided this into Major and Minor sections. The latter should be fairly short this time, since I have fixed most of these errors myself. (I didn't feel comfortable fixing the major mistakes without some discussion, though.)

Minor Points

For those who believe in his existence, Jesus is generally taken on the authority of the Gospels and early Christian history to have lived in Roman Palestine (modern day Israel, Palestine and Jordan, historically the central Levant, which included Judea) from 6 BCE - 30 CE. It was in this place (and within a century after this time) that Christianity is alleged to have arisen, and the writings of its early leaders place Jesus and his peers in locations such as Galilee and Jerusalem within their recent past.

There are people who believe Jesus existed, but don't believe that he lived in first century Roman Palestine?? Who? Is there any serious question about whether Christianity arose in this time period?

Apparently theer was a comment on an earlier talk page some believe it originated in africa or something? Not sure. FT2 08:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

There are actually some groups who believe Jesus was black. These groups tend to exist in parts of central africa. They do have a name, but I don't remember what it is. CheeseDreams 17:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Academics and historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, tend to agree that one cannot fully understand the origins of Christianity or current societal norms, or Jewish, Christian, and Western history, or Jesus himself and the story of the Gospels, without a good understanding of the complex and volatile powder-keg of religion and politics which formed the cultural and historic context of those turbulent and formative times.

Seems a bit overwritten. I would change it to:

Academics and historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, tend to agree that one cannot fully understand the origins, history, and societal norms of Christianity (and hence Western civilization), or Jesus himself and the story of the Gospels, without a good understanding of the cultural and historic context of this era.

Is it important to make clear, that it was a very turbulent era? That itself is a key part of understanding the background, that it wasnt simply (as a reader might think) calm and stable, there were many tensions? FT2 08:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

so words borrowed from Judaism such as "Messiah", "Saviour", "Messianic Era", "Apocalypse", "Apocalyptic Era" or "End of the World"

Very few of these words were borrowed from Judaism.

It's important to recognise that the Jews thought about many things in a fundamentally different way from the new christians, and so words borrowed from Judaism such as "Messiah", "Saviour", "Messianic Era", "Apocalypse", "Apocalyptic Era" or "End of the World" probably had very different meanings to the Jews of the time, than they did to the later Christians. Other groups may have had Messiah-type figures, beliefs or legends too. The cultural-religious legend of "someone special who will come at some unknown time to put everything right" is very widespread. So it is important to understand when a term is used what exact kind of being, mission, role, origin, or nature was signified, and what exactly would happen to the world as a result.

This writing in this whole paragraph seems a bit off to me, but I can't think how to improve it.

Seems partly POV to me, basically the phrasing different way from the new christians should be different way from SOME of the new christians. There were plenty of Jewish christians. See Jerusalem council and Ebionites. CheeseDreams 17:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(There is little historical evidence that the Pharisees were more popular during this time: this is a view held by older historians but disputed by more recent historians).

This is stated twice: once in Religious Allegiance, once in Saducees and Pharisees.

Of all the major Second Temple sects, only the Pharisees remained (but see Karaite Judaism). Although they had accepted the importance of the Temple, their vision of Jewish law as a means by which ordinary people could engage with the sacred in their daily lives, provided them with a position from which to respond to all four challenges, in a way meaningful to the vast majority of Jews.

The "challenges" were mentioned ages ago. Also, the time frame of this paragraph isn't clear. Is it 200 CE (as stated in the previous one)?

Should be around 74AD. The Kairites claim they have continuous existence through this period and so dispute the description, though most scholars discount the Kairites' claims. The but see... should be changed into although Kairite Judaism disputes this and claim they themselves also remained, a claim disregarded by most scholars.

Christians generally believe Jesus lived and preached to the agricultural villagers of the Galilee and the hill city Jerusalem at this time.

Which time? Surely not 400 CE, when the Talmuds were compiled?

Religion was part of daily life, however the region was a blend of religious law and civil law, and broadly secular in politics, with religion interspersed throughout daily life.

This sentence is incoherent.

How about The region had its religious and civil laws intimately entwined together, and though the political establishment was broadly secular, nethertheless, religion was interspered throughout daily life.

Roman citizens whose countrymen were fomenting rebellion against the Empire.

Most Jews weren't actually citizens.

Some Jews would have been scared of the consequences of even a slight appearance of disloyalty, and this could hypothetically have lead to groups that appeared to preach provocatively being negatively perceived or even persecuted by some

"Hypothetically"?

Safer wording. The issue of this statement is basically that "the fear of retribution could have led to certain activities by jewish splinter groups being negatively perceived or persecuted". It makes sense, and its almost certainly accurate, but its not been easy to pin down a specific example, hence "hypothetically". FT2 08:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Without assuming the accuracy of the New Testament, examples are difficult, and thus the term hypothetically. Equally could hypothetically can be replaced by , according to scholarly opinion, CheeseDreams 17:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is very easy to pin down a specific example. According to the NT, bewfore his conversion Paul persecuted Christians. Slrubenstein 19:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Major Points

The original inhabitants of Roman Palestine were non-Jewish tribes such as the Canaanites and Philistines. According to legend, the Jews entered the region around the 13th - 14th century BCE, subduing the pagan tribes and around 1000 BCE forming the first Jewish kingdom under Saul, then David and then a succession of lesser kings, prophets and priests.

I would have said the "original inhabitants of Roman Palestine" were Neanderthals, or specimens of Homo erectus. Does anything in this paragraph really matter?

Good point. Only as a starting point. How about: "Judaism arrived in this region around C13-14, subduing the existing pagan tribes and..." FT2 08:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Each of these empires in turn started benign and later gradually became intolerant, both culturally and religiously.

What evidence is there that the Achaemenids ever became intolerant of the Jews?

Culturally the Jews were for the most part hard-working, God-fearing, deeply religious farming villagers, mostly self-governing, with a hereditary priesthood and kingship, though the succession of hereditary kings with actual authority had ended with the Babylonian exile.

Seems POV to me. How about reducing it to:

At this time, the Jews were mostly self-governing, with a hereditary priesthood and kingship, though the succession of hereditary kings with actual authority had ended with the Babylonian exile.

(other tribes surrendered their beliefs when conquered).

Actually, they were usually allowed to retain their beliefs.

Allowed yes. But in practice...? FT2 08:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Around this time, the sages and scribes congealed into a political party known as the Pharisees, or "separatists". It is not clear whether the term signifies their rejection of Hellenic culture, or their objection to the Hasmonean monopoly on power. The political rift between the Saducees and the Pharisees became evident when Pharisees demanded that the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannai choose between being king and being High Priest. This demand led to a brief civil war that ended with a bloody repression of the Pharisees, although at his deathbed the king called for a reconciliation between the two parties. After the death of Alexander and his widow Salome, the elder son, Hyrcanus, sought Pharisee support, and the younger son, Aristobulus, sought the support of the Sadducees.

This paragraph needs to be shortened, IMAO. I suggested a replacement in my comments on the other version.

By 1 CE, the Roman Empire was somewhat more corrupt than it had been; the overseers of Roman Palestine were capable of great brutality and some had become ruthless dictators, answerable to nobody except the distant Senate in Rome for their actions. Political murder was commonplace - some Roman governors killed their own children to prevent uprisings, slaves were torched as novelty fires for events, Herod imprisoned many leaders of the community with orders they should be slaughtered when he died, and a large number of the non-Roman classes (Jews and non-Jews equally) lived their lives, many were desperately poor, and prayed to their various gods.

Er, what? This paragraph is terribly written! How about:

These overseers were capable of great brutality, and some had become ruthless dictators, answerable to nobody except the distant Senate in Rome for their actions. Political murder was commonplace - some Roman governors killed their own children to prevent uprisings.

That seems all that can be salvaged.

Yup, works for me FT2 08:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Christianity arose in the first centuries after this revolt. At first it existed side by side with Judaism as a sect within it; later, especially after the expansion of proselytism among non-Jews by followers of Paul of Tarsus, it became a separate religion, though the structures that would characterize later Christianity developed only gradually.

This is a very creative timeline... Most history books say that Paul lived before the Bar Kochba revolt.

The First Temple Era should be in the History section, since it is about history, rather than contemporary events. Better yet, it should be deleted, thereby eliminating the rubbish about other religions not having priesthoods or holy texts. We can keep: The religion of ancient Israel, like those of most ancient Near Eastern societies, centered on a Temple, served by a caste of priests, who sacrificed offerings to their god. Among the Children of Israel priests claimed descent from Aaron of the tribe of Levi, and were believed to have been chosen by God to care for the Tabernacle.

Similarly, the Second Temple Era should be reduced to: The reconstruction of the Second Temple had provided the condition for the development of various sects (which Josephus called "schools of thought"), each of which claimed exclusive authority to represent "Judaism," and typically shunned social intercourse, especially marriage, with members of other sects. The Pharisees and Saducees were two such groups, though there were very minor groups aside from these.

In most religions, the priests are the mediators between man and God. They act as spokesmen for God, a very powerful position, with near-ultimate authority in a theocracy.

I can't think of any religion like this, except for some branches of Christianity, and arguably Tibetan Buddhism (but there the priests are Gods).

Most pagan and tribal religions are this way. At that time, the number of religions where priests were *not* powerful and sole divine intermediaries seems small. FT2 08:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

What is your evidence? This may be true of states, but I can't think of any tribes where this is the case. Slrubenstein 19:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Originally the intent of the new believers seems to have been to preach to the Jews. Some but not all requirements of strict Judaism 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. 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.

More timeline problems. The original christians were followers of "strict Judaism". The gentile converts to Christianity were not required to follow the full Law, however. This was due to the arguments of Paul, not any consequence of the revolts.

Paul reasoned that if, thanks to Jesus, Gentiles do not need to be physically circumcised or obey other laws in order to have a relationship with God, then Jews no longer need to be circumcised or obey the law either.

Where did he do this? It doesn't seem to be in the Biblical canon.

General Comment

Again, there seems to be more material on the development of Rabbinical Judaism than on Christianity; that just isn't right...

User:Ben Standeven

Ben, I appreciate your comments on both versions. It seems you have worked directly on the current version, and I thank you for your work. Do you believe there is anything that is in FT2's version that ought to be in the current version? Slrubenstein 18:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes: I think the FT2's Maccabee section is better than the current one (well, not exactly; there is no section in the current article!), and the "Linguistic terminology" section should be added (preferably under a more decsriptive name):

The Jews thought about many things in a fundamentally different way from the new christians, and so words and concepts borrowed from Judaism such as "Messiah", or the end of the world, probably had very different meanings to the Jews of the time, than they did to the later Christians. Other groups may have had Messiah-type figures, beliefs or legends too. The cultural-religious legend of "someone special who will come at some unknown time to put everything right" is very widespread. So it is important to understand when a term is used what exact kind of being, mission, role, origin, or nature was signified, and what exactly would happen to the world as a result.

I've done a bit of rewriting, but others might want to do more. Ben Standeven 03:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Separate side note, I have reviewed this article after a long break, Ive simplified it a lot of places but deliberately not changed the content or layout, just cleaned up a lot of wording. It was starting to read in part like a textbook - unwieldy, excessive less necessary detail, and turgid in style, rather than an encyclopedia. I havent changed much, but Ive made a lot of sentences read better and more focussed in small ways, I think) FT2 09:34, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus' birth in the Gospels

I dispute the claim made concerning the Gospel accounts of Jesus' birth:

The Gospels provide two accounts of Jesus' birth: according to one account, he is the son of Joseph, a descendant of David; according to the other account, he is the son of God, and divine. Christians do not view these two accounts as irreconcilable, but most critical Bible scholars suggest that these accounts were developed after Jesus' death, in order to substantiate the Christian belief that Jesus was the messiah. The first account, that Jesus was the son of David, would have substantiated the claim that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. The second account, including the Virgin Birth, substantiates the claim that Jesus is the Christian messiah. Most of the material in the Gospels focus on the last year of Jesus' life, and most scholars focus on this period.

Matthew and Luke both claim that Jesus is divine, the Son of God, and that he was born of a Virgin. One of the two provides a genealogy that includes Joseph, but qualifies it by saying Jesus was generally thought to be Joseph's son. The other genealogy I believe is Mary's. Wesley 17:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this should be cut, but it could be reworded. Everyone agrees that Matthew and Luke have Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary and God. But E.P. Sanders and other historians see the geneologies as evidence of another view of Jesus that was muted as Christianity took shape. How would you phrase this? Slrubenstein 17:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I tried rewriting it, please check it, Slrubenstein 19:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the KJV, Luke traces back from Joseph (who is, indeed, "supposed" to be Jesus's father). Matthew traces forward to Joseph, husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus. The two genealogies are entirely different after David (in Matthew it goes through the Kings of Judah to Zerubabbel, and so forth, in Luke it goes through David's son Nathan, and then through various unrecognizable names) neither genealogy goes through Mary. john k 21:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

explaining some changes

I am reverting some (not all!) of FT2's changes. For example, I do not see how "it should also be considered in the context of his historical and cultural context," using the word "context" twice, is an improvement in style. Second, the issue in the first paragraph is not the emergence of Christianity, it is the emergence of orthodox Christianity. Third, the clause, "religious and political institutions argued over the status of the Temple, the laws and values embodied in sacred scriptures, the restoration of a Jewish monarchy, and Jewish theology" doesn't make sense (institutions do not argue). Fourth, the name of the tribe is Levi, not Levites. Fifth, "ideally" is better than "in principle" because the Kings of the Kingdom of Israel did not accept the principle of Davidic kingship. Sixth, the sacred literature of the kingdoms of Israel and Judea were most definitely not the Tanakh; it was not even the Torah (most scholars believe the Torah was redacted during the Babylonian Exile). Sicth, I don't know of any evidence that the sages of the Second Temple were ever called "reb." Where does this come from? There are other errors of fact. Seventh, to say that Jews under Seleucid rule longed for freedom from foreign domination and a return to Jewish rule is redundant and poor style. Also, there is no evidence that everyone longed for a theocracy. Eighth, FT2 calls the Maccaberan kingdom "the second Jewish Kingdom" which is flat out wrong. This was discussed before -- I and others asked FT2 what evidence he had for calling it "the second Jewish Kingdom" and he could come up with none. Slrubenstein 18:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ancient societies and law

In what other ancient Near Eastern societies did people worship their Gods through laws? I know that such societies (e.g. Babylonia, Sumeria) had written myths and also written laws, but were these for the purpose of worship? Slrubenstein 15:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Following Ben's comment, I have added more information on the origins of the Maccabean revolt, and on "messiah." I did not use all of FT2's material only because the article is getting long. I'd appreciate it if Ben and others would look over what I added. Slrubenstein 17:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)