Wikipedia

Talk:Historical background of the New Testament/Archive 10

< Talk:Historical background of the New Testament
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

response to 'moving on'

Slrubenstein, I continue to support your general ideas for moving forward with the article once it is unprotected. I think the discussions of incivility and personal attacks are entirely off topic for this page, and a distraction from getting work done on this article, as they have little direct bearing on going forward with the article. By now, we have not only user talk pages, but abundant requests for comment and requests for arbitration pages to discuss such issues. Let's stick to the article here, please. Wesley 04:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

seconded! Pedant 19:02, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
I will try to avoid any form of incivility or personal attack. And I am gratified that Wesley supports my general ideas for moving forward. But I have made a number of specific suggestions and I fully expect other contributors to have criticisms/suggestions and so on. So far, CheeseDreams is the only person to comment critically on any of my suggestions. Should I ignore her, or respomnd to her criticisms? How do I respond to a criticism like, "the phrase "all of it, including the grammer" seems to me to be aposite?" If the page is unprotected, I do not want to make the changes I have proposed only to have them reverted, or to be accused of ignoring criticisms. How should I have responded to CheeseDreams' rejection of my suggestions? I am seriously asking for advice. Slrubenstein
Slr, I honestly don't think a response is possible. CD's objection is not sufficiently clear -- after all, changing everything including the grammar would be a major overhaul, and no suggestions are made as to what you should overhaul it to. You could counterpropose "Cheese is tasty - perhaps the Pharisees liked it" and have addressed the objection CD makes. I would offer you criticisms and suggestions that were more specific and constructive, but I have not researched the topic well enough to know whether or not your version is accurate. As far as making changes that are reverted, if the only objection to your proposal is that it is "all wrong, including the grammar", without any constructive suggestions or references that contradict your account, I don't see that a reversion is at all justifiable. If actual objections are made, then they need to be resolved, but if the current one remains alone, I'll gladly help defend your version against reversion. I hope CheeseDreams will offer more constructive feedback soon. Jwrosenzweig 21:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Israeli cheese does not taste very nice, so I doubt the Pharisees liked it. CheeseDreams 00:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

SLR, my opinion is that in the absence of specific objections or constructive criticism, you should go forward as planned. I'll probably have some specific suggestions and edits to make at that time, but hopefully we can all go forward from there and work out smaller differences as we go along. Wesley 04:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My objections are expressed by many parties (incl. me) throughout, and thus form part of the summary of the debate so far. They have not been addressed (check the (disputed) summary and see for yourself). CheeseDreams 00:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
CHeeseDreams, this has been a long and wide-ranging debate. If you have specific criticisms of Slr's version, please simply explain them rather than asking us to wade through the massive archive or the massive summary. It would cost you far less time (and would win you far more thanks) if you simply explained what is wrong with Slr's version rather than coyly replying to requests for specific objections in this way. Jwrosenzweig 00:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have not read the whole set of archives, but would like to comment on one specific point: the term "fundamentalist" for Christians who believe the Bible to be reliable and authorative is not a good one. Outwith the United States teh term is mostly used as a perjorative. Christians who hold teh Bible as reliable and authorative would usually describe themselves as evangelical if they are Protestant, though many orthodox and roman catholic Christians would hold similar views. None of those would chose willingly the term "fundamentalist"- outwith the USA at least- but woudl reserve this term for the more lunatic fringe. I do understan that the situation and use of the term is different in the USA. Refdoc 01:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams is, as he/she has pointed out, from the UK, as I am. Evangelicals are something different for us (born-again happy-clappy Christians as against conservative CofE types) and those who insist on the literal truth of the Bible are described by us as fundamentalists. It doesn't necessarily have a pejorative meaning for us, although because the UK is an enlightened European nation, we tend towards feeling fundamentalism is backward, whatever religion, creed or belief indulges in it.Dr Zen 02:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does this have any connection with how or whether the word 'fundamentalist' should be used in the article? If it's only about whether various editors are "fundamentalist," I would again ask that discussion be taken to the various users' talk pages etc., if only to avoid cluttering this page further. Wesley 02:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's an attempt to create understanding, Wesley. More understanding and less bullying and we wouldn't have the situation we now do. Dr Zen 23:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Even in Zen's short answer it becomes obvious that "fundamentalism" is something "negative" one "indulges" in, unless one is "enlightened" according to his POV. Which kind of proves my point. The Term fundamentalist does neither describe well about whom the article is talking, (traditional/orthodox believing Christians of various denominations, Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Greek/Russian Orthodox, pentecostals etc etc + it is meant (and causes) offense. So it should not be here. Refdoc 08:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't pretending it was anything other than my POV. However, those who believe the Bible is a fine source of evidence for the historicity of Jesus most certainly fit that bill. Dr Zen 23:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I see that the opening paragraph does use the word, so it is worth discussing here. Ok. In the U.S. at least, Protestant fundamentalism is a specific movement whose hallmark is generally believing in the "inerrancy" of the Bible, generally believing that every word should be taken literally and presumed to be accurate. "Evangelicals" generally prefer the word "infallible," meaning the Bible is true and authoritative, but not that every word must be taken literally. Both typically add some caveats about it being true "as found in its original manuscripts", allowing for human scribal errors after its initial allegedly divine inspiration. So, with this understanding, "fundamentalist" is too narrow and specific a term to describe people that think the gospels are generally reliable as historical records, though there intent was primarily theological and they may therefore contain minor factual discrepancies of little consequence. An example would be the difference in wording on the placard affixed to Jesus' cross; the wording may vary from gospel to gospel, but all agree there was such a sign and agree as to the general content of what it said, as one might expect if the gospel writers consulted witnesses a decade or three after the event. The usage with intent to offend that Refdoc noted is another reason to avoid the term. Wesley 17:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Exactly, what I meant to say, only much clearer. Thanks Wesley. Refdoc 18:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely unreal. There really is no way past the imposition of this POV. Dr Zen 23:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It appears that a week has gone by since Jwrosenzweig asked whether there were specific objections to Slr's version and approach. Are there any? I'd hate to be presumptuous. Wesley 03:03, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some people, especially fundamentalist Christians, take the Gospels to be a literal and accurate account of Jesus' life; - Most traditional believing Christians irrespective of their denomination will take the Gospels to be a reliable account of Jesus' life. Refdoc 18:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But do you not see the word "literal"? Dr Zen 23:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do indeed, But "reliable" is a better choice as it does encompass a much larger group - as described.

The aim of an NPOV article is to cover all views, not necessarily only those held by the greatest number. So you should add what you want to see, not simply replace the accurate sentence that is already there. I don't have the faintest idea what a "traditional believing" Christian is (mostly because I can't imagine what a "nonbelieving Christian" would be -- seems like a contradiction in terms to me: you can hardly be a Christian if you don't believe in Christ). My experience of Christians, which is fairly broad, having been raised as one, attending Sunday School and the like, is that most Christians take the gospels to be the story of Jesus's life and do not enquire too closely into their historicity (and see what I say below). I've never found most Christians to be doctrinaire about it -- as I say, it's only the fundamentalists who insist that it is even important that the gospels or any other parts of the Bible are literally true.
In any case, "reliable" is an awful word. Most Christians, it seems to me, will be aware of the contradictions among the gospels, and will consider them to be rather unreliable accounts of an actual event, told long after that event happened. I credit most Christians with the ability to understand that accounts of a thing written decades after it happened are not necessarily "reliable". Dr Zen 01:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am quite aware of NPOV. "Reliable" is a good term as it does not emphasize literal truth, but a general "trustworthiness" - similar to e.g. witness accounts in court, witnesses with each their own POV, but reliable nevertheless."traditional" - I agree it might not the best choice of words, but I do not find something better which describes the many, many christians of all different denominations who very much rely on the Gospels in their daily lives as being truthful and trustworthy, without getting all worked up about one particular way of reading it - something implied by 'fundamentalist'. "evangelical" it ain't as there are many catholics, copts, greek orthodox whatever, in that category, 'orthodox' is sometimes used with small 'o', but has other difficulties. ' conservative' implies political 'conservativeness' which is wrong. So, please, show me something better than "traditional believing" . Refdoc 09:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This has been a very long discussion over what should be an easy issue. Some Christians take the Bible literally; others do not. The first paragraph refers to the first group. What should we call them? I see no problem with getting rid of "fundamentalist" if this is not how Christians themselves identify the group. We need the accurate identification. Is "Many orthodox Christians ..." accurate? Or can Wesley and Refdoc suggest another term? By the way, I see no problem with adding "reliable" but I do think "literal" should stay, if only because one thing that does characterize critical scholars is that they do not take the Bible literally. Slrubenstein
I agree with Refdoc that 'reliable' is a much better word that would encompass a much larger group of Christians. The set of Christians who would describe themselves as fundamentalist and advocate a literal reading of the Bible is frankly rather narrow, at least from my perspective in the U.S. 'Traditional believing' to me means they believe the tradition that was handed to them for the most part, without attempting a new reformation or revolution of doctrine along the lines of someone like John Shelby Spong for instance, who says the Protestant Reformation didn't go nearly far enough. 'Traditional believing' also is not terribly specific as to denomination beyond what I just said; therefore it seems like a better term to use here. I think that keeping the word 'literal' potentially sets up a straw man argument. Wesley 18:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Wesley! Refdoc 21:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And you wonder why CheeseDreams describes you as a cabal of "fundamentalists"? You slap each other on the backs, all agreeing that your POV is the best thing to use in the article, and that to put any other in would set up "a straw man argument". "Traditional believing" doesn't even mean a thing to me. It's probably a buzzword. Wesley's explanation of it doesn't make much sense. Most believers in most religions could be described as holding the beliefs that are traditional among the sect they belong to. Most Moslems would believe what their fathers believed etc. This has nothing to do, though, with literalist readings of the Bible, which it seems to me are innovatory and not traditional. This is particularly so in the UK, where there is a clash in the established church between traditionalists, who are willing to accept that a lot of the Bible is allegorical or needs interpreting, and what you might call the evangelicals, who are not. The narrow interpretation of the Bible is innovative not at all "traditional".
You didn't even bother to address my discussion of "reliable". I'm not surprised. You know as well as I do that what I said is quite true. Most Christians are perfectly able to accept that the accounts in the Bible of Jesus's life are actually unreliable (though not many might believe that they weren't made in good faith -- although I saw an interesting show on TV the other night that suggested, for example, that the story about carrying Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod's wrath might have been interpolated to create a parallel with Moses), because they can clearly see that they do not describe the same events the same way. They have far more of the character of memoirs, which are not generally taken to be reliable, than of reportage. Well, no surprise. Most Christians are also aware that they probably weren't written at the time. Dr Zen 00:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As it is I am not part of a "Fundamentalist cabale" nor do I slap on anyone's back , but I simply agree with Wesley's formulation(whom I have 'met' first here on this article) who has said what I would have struggled expressing due to my poorer English language skills. "Traditional believing" is not AFAIk any 'buzzowrd', but my attempt to find a more appropriate formulation to something hard to formulate - "fundamentalist" does no justice whatsoever, while 'traditional believing' might just be sufficiently vague and non-denominationally constrained - tyhough I do not insist on it if you have something better. I am not sure what aspect of your concerns re "reliable" are not addressed. "Most Christians" believing the Gospels to be "unreliable" is a bit rash isn't it? "Most Christians I know" maybe, but where are your sources for the remaining billion and a half? But this is no numbers' game. The point I try to make: You try to divide Christendom into two groups - here the "fundamentalists", few, a bit thick, taking the Bible as literally true and completely uncritical - there the enlightened majority who knows better. This is a false divide and does the reality no justice whatsoever. Refdoc 10:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What it is that is wrong with Slrubenstein's version (and why FT2s is better)

Terminology

The area should be called "Palestine"or better still "Roman Palestine"

  • Palestine is the only term covering the whole area
When talking about the whjole area, the article does this. When talking about parts of the area (e.g. Judea, or Bethlehem) it is more specific. Slrubenstein

"pharisees were considered living saints" is not accurate or appropriate "at the time of Christ" (and similar) is an inappropriate phrase, "at this time" being an appropriate replacement for it

How on earth is this a problem with "my" version? Slrubenstein
I could see replacing this with "at the time of Jesus" to be more neutral, but otherwise doesn't seem to be a problem Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You are kidding, Wesley, surely? "At the time of Jesus" is not at all neutral. It implies the existence of Jesus. "At the time when Jesus is supposed to have lived" would be more neutral. "At this time" is a good shorthand version. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Methodology

There are too many citations

  • Citing makes the text unapproachable to a general reader
How many is too many? Slrubenstein
Citing is appropriate for verifiability, and to let the reader know where they can find more information. Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is us who does the verifying, not the reader! The idea of an encyclopaedia is that it is authoritative and can be trusted, not that you have to go check everything that it says. Many of the cites should be here on the talk page, not littering the article.Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is our responsibility to verify, yes. But citations are resources for readrs that belong in the article. To remove all citations from the article page would violate wikipedia policy. Slrubenstein

  • The Gospels are not prime historic source for this period
Again, how is this a criticism of "my" version, which relies on other historical sources? Slrubenstein
At any rate, surely the Gospels are a principal historical source for the period in their way. Obviously, if you want, say, a political history of the Jews in the Roman world, you'd read Josephus, and obviously one must look to Roman historians, archaeology, and then there's the epistles and the Book of Revelation, and the Mishna, and so on and so forth, but surely the Gospels are one of the principal primary sources on the Jews in the 1st century AD, even if it isn't reliable as literal history. Or am I missing something? john k 05:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You are definitely missing something. The Gospels are not a reliable historical source, full stop, any more than Genesis is a reliable biology text. They can be compared with Hard Times, if you like, although it has to be said, Dickens was describing his own time, not that of his grandfather.Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are right to emphasize "reliable," but NO historical source is 100% reliable. Critical historians do use the Gospels as historical sources. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Josephus is considered by scholars a significantly more reliable source about the period. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, what's your point? My point was that the Gospels are one of a very small number of sources on Judea and vicinity in the 1st century AD. Yes, we understood your (entirely unsubstantiated) point. As such, it is a valuable historical source, even if it is not a reliable history (which I admitted). So, let me get this straight. Even if the Gospels are entirely fictional, they are a "valuable historical source". And comparing the Gospels as a historical source to Genesis as a biology text is absurd. You simply didn't get the point. Let me explain. Genesis explains how God created the kinds of animals. It also explains how God created man out of dust. The science of biology suggests that man was not in fact created out of dust. I'm suggesting that Genesis's grasp of biology is rather poor. Now, the Gospels were written some time after the events they describe by people who had a vested interest in those events' being a particular way. They are in parts contradictory, and even where they are not, they do not always concur with other sources that lack their motivation to be one way or another. There are a very small number of sources available on the entire period, of which the Gospels are one. The Gospels are myths, man! That's my point. They are stories. They are not contemporary descriptions of life in what became Palestine. They are mystery stories intended to create the foundation for a religion. They *purport* to be witness statements, but nothing places their writers at the scene. As such, the Gospels are a major source, although of course they are not historical. So, John, just so we're clear. The statement you were disagreeing with was that the Gospels were not a prime historic [sic] source for the period. Go back and read it again. You've just agreed that they are not. If we only had, say, seven different major texts that discussed 19th century England surviving, of course Hard Times would be a major source, although of course it could not be read transparently as a factual account of what happened, just as the Gospels cannot be. Dude, if that were the case, and Hard Times disagreed with other sources or with our understanding of the world that we have built up from other sources, it would be considered extremely unreliable. We don't consider the Iliad to be a reliable source for its period of history, even though there is other evidence for some of its content. john k 21:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

in italicsDr Zen 23:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you being purposefully obtuse? The Gospels were written by Jews, about Jews, in the first century AD. Given the tiny number of sources of which the same can be said, of course looking at it critically is necessary for any historian of the period. At any rate, your description of the Gospels is a POV statement, which, as far as I am aware, most scholars of the New Testament would not agree with. Also, on what basis do you claim that the Gospels purport to be witness statements? Traditionally, they have been taken to be witness statements (or, at least, Matthew and John were - I'm not sure about Mark and Luke). But I'm relatively uncertain that this comes from anything directly stated in the gospels themselves. As to the question of the extent to which we can trust the Gospels as historical sources, obviously this is a matter of debate. Certainly they are not inerrant accounts of what happened. Only fundamentalists, and probably no serious scholars, believe that. On the other hand, as far as I am aware, the view that the Gospels are, as you say, merely "mystery stories" is a relatively fringe belief, as well. You may believe that the gospels are merely mystery stories with no historical content, and this may be true (except insofar as I have already discussed, that any lengthy document about anything in the ancient world can be used as a historical source, given the paucity of other data). But that is irrelevant - we have to represent what is the scholarly consensus, not what CheeseDreams and Dr Zen think, even if they happen to be right (of which I, at least, remain dubious). john k 05:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The gospels are accounts of Jesus's life and teachings ascribed to his disciples, who were purportedly present at the time of at least some of the events in them. Are you suggesting that the disciples are not taken to have been present at some of the events the gospels relate? I am clearly not suggesting by "witness statements" that they witnessed every part of Jesus's life, but I am suggesting by it that they were contemporaries, closely involved with Jesus, and have a privileged viewpoint because of that.

I'm confused. The Gospels have traditionally been ascribed to various people who were near contemporaries of Jesus - the first and last of them to the apostles Matthew and John, the second and third to Paul's associates Mark and Luke. But the gospels themselves do not contain such attributions. Nor do the authors of the gospels claim to have been present at events in the gospels, so far as I am aware (although perhaps you will find quotes to prove otherwise - pseudepigraphia was certainly common enough in the ancient world.)

You are right that they are not "inerrant accounts". Some parts are fantastic. Some things reported plainly did not happen. They have the "character" of stories rather than historical accounts. Why do most historians believe they cannot be "trusted as historical accounts"? Because they are at best memoirs, at worst plain fiction. Yes, memoirs can be historical sources of a type, but they are never usually taken to be reliable. See the description of the great fire of Rome, which is sourced to Tacitus, another source disputed because of lack of corroborating evidence. Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we're disagreeing here. I am not saying that the gospels can be trusted as an accurate account of what happened. Certainly Josephus is a more trustworthy source for such matters. However, any written text from the ancient world is a useful historical source, taken critically. For instance, the comedies of Aristophanes are used as a source for Athenian history during the Peloponnesian Wars, even though they, of course, do not provide accurate accounts of what happened. The gospels are a major historical source in the same sense. They must be read critically, but they can provide much useful insight into the time when they were written, which is not terribly distant from the time that they describe. Nobody here has, I think, asserted that the Gospels are to be taken as a reliable narrative of events. john k 17:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Which scholars of the NT or Jewish history on late Antiquity or Early Christianity believe this? Slrubenstein
Further, what on earth does this mean? What is the "historiography" of the Gospels? How is it dubious? Does CD actually know what "historiography" means? john k 05:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What did that piece of rudeness serve? You know what CD meant. This area is often called that and you're simply showing your ignorance in this rank incivility. Have a look at this as an example. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I still have absolutely no idea what is meant by this. The historiography of a subject is the history of sources written about a subject. So a discussion of the historiography of WWII would be a discussion of what has been written about WWII. Is this what CD is referring to? I'm not sure what this means, if so - some elaboration, at least, seems necessary. john k 21:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Oh dear. Well, if you prefer to remain ignorant, there's nothing I can do for you. Perhaps you could read the article though.Dr Zen 23:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What article? I don't prefer to remain ignorant. CheeseDreams' use of the term "historiography" is either, to be polite, idiosyncratic, or else I don't understand what her point is. On the surface, she seems to be saying that the historical work which has been done about the New Testament is dubious. Such a statement requires some elaboration and substantiation before it can be accepted. If she means, on the other hand, that the New Testament is not a reliable historical source, that has nothing to do with the historiography of the New Testament. john k 05:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article on historiography! CheeseDreams clearly means that the discussion of the gospels' has not been of a high quality.Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If that is what is meant, some substantiation is surely in order (which you attempt to provide below - CheeseDreams has still not said if this is what she means, I will note). john k 17:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I know what historiography means. There is even an article about it. Does anyone else using the term here? CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you do know the meaning, you are then just wrong to say the historiography of the NT is dubious. The scholars who have analyzed the NT are top scholars and their research is widely well-regarded. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You know, there are definitely times when I feel there is nothing more to be said to you than "bullshit". The historiography of the NT is dubious. Very little of the "research" involved looks for external corroboration. It tends to fixate on comparative analysis of the different gospels; IOW, to work from the POV that they are basically true but differ, rather than that they are in need of verifying as such.Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look at a mirror when you say bullshit. Your description of NT scholarship is simply ignorant. Crossan has been involved in archeological digs, and Ehrman and Pagels have made significant contributions to source criticism of the Gospels; Sanders and Fredriksen also take into account a wide range of research including archeological. Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Citations should (if they are going to appear at all) not just be from Christians or the west.

  • There are Jews, Muslims, Talmud Scholars, historians, archaeologists, and many others
How is this a criticism of "my" version? Slrubenstein
The answer to this is to add other sources. This was CheeseDreams' answer when discussing sources in some of the recently added Pauline epistles articles, where cited sources are primarily ranging from non-Christian to openly anti-Christian. Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The Mishnah existed in oral form before 200AD
and the Gospels existed in oral form before they were written. Do you really want to push back the dates of both? Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And the remarkably similar myths of Horus, Dionysus, and Mithras, existed in oral form, among many many more people (having significantly more adherants at the time).
Remember how many Jews there were, and how many original Christians. There were far more Jews to remember the Mishnah, than Christians to remember their story. Thus the Mishnah has higher chance of surviving accurately. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What is your evidence for the Gospels' existing before they were written? Do you have a contemporary source that notes their dissemination? Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just as there is historiography on the Gospels, there is a good deal of historiography on the Mishnah. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jesus and the Article(s)

This is about background not Jesus. It says so in the title.

  • The article should be about the background to 1st Century Roman Palestine with asides if something is needed to understand Jesus' life
You are misconstruing the discussion and the nature of the article. This article is specifically in reference to Jesus. Slrubenstein
Yada yada yada. We've been through this before. If the article is not going to mention Jesus, it is astonishingly POV to have it at this location. To title an article on the general history of 1st century AD Roman Palestine (or Judaea, or whatever) "Cultural and historical background of Jesus" implies that the only reason to look at the history of 1st century AD Roman Palestine is as a background to Jesus. Clearly this is ridiculous. For this article to be an NPOV background of Jesus, it has to contextualize the background with discussion of Jesus. Otherwise it's just a POV mess. john k 05:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. The article should simply never have existed. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are welcome to make a motion on the VfD page. But don't use other ends to get rid of an article you don't like. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now, I seem to be the one who originally suggested dropping Jesus from the title for precisely this reason. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is becoming absurd. We need an article which does what this article is supposed to do, because it was taken out of the Jesus article and needs some place to go. If we think it should be at another location, so be it. But this article without Jesus would be an absurdity. john k 17:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It is not about summarising Jesus' life, and cross referencing it to historical and cultural information about 1st Century Roman Palestine
And this is not what Slr's article does, seeing as there's only a small section that explicitly discusses Jesus, and the rest of the article discusses various features of 1st century Judea with occasional references to Jesus. john k 05:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This could become a non issue, by removing the "summary of Jesus' life with cross references to background" elsewhere
This is about the "background of Jesus". "Background" is meaningless without some "foreground" or point of reference. Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The phrase point of reference contains the word point not the phrase bloated large expansive area. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Glad to see our method of argument relies entirely on metaphor. This is constructive. john k 17:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Structure of the article

The historical narrative of Slrubenstein approach is 1 dimensional

  • it is written as if Christianity is the climax of historical events, which is POV
No, it does not. Why do you think this? It most certainly ode snot make this POV claim, nor does it imply it. Slrubenstein
I think CheeseDreams has a good point here but I'm certainly not going to get involved in discussing it with this editor, who is viciously uncivil.Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with CheeseDreams. What matters is why you agree. What are your reasons for thinking the article presents Christianity as the climax of historical events? If you have no reasons, your comments are useless as we try to improve the article (which is what talk pages are for). Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • style reflects only Christian views of what is important to discuss about the background
Where does my version of the article do this? Slrubenstein
  • far too much history
How on earth can an article explicitly on "history" have too much history? Slrubenstein
This article is not explicitely on history. The title starts cultural and..... CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Then add some "cultural" information, the other component of the title. Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You could take the point, Wesley. CheeseDreams has been asked to point out flaws in the article, so he/she does, and then you attack CD for not putting in cultural information! When he/she does, after his/her idiom, you attack him/her for that too! See how CD can't win with you?Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You miss the point. CheeseDreams has yet to point out a flaw. CheeseDreams is just attacking the article with random points and no reasons, nor evidence. CheeseDreams thinks the article is too historical, and I point out that "history" is in the title of the article. CheeseDreams has yet to explain, exactly, what she means. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) This article should not just be a historical narrative

  • The article should be structured into topics - this is an encyclopedia not an essay - e.g.
  • 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)
  • standard encyclopedia style is a series of topics, not a narrative like an essay or book
  • journalists consider this approach more approachable for the general reader
  • organised in line with the article's title which, apart from "Historical" ALSO contains the word "Cultural"

You are wrong Slrubenstein

It's a bit hard to see who is right or wrong in there. The person who suggests it should not be a narrative is correct though. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Encyclopedia articles certainly do not necessarily consist of a series of topics. For instance, a biographical article is essentially a narrative of a person's life, and acts as a mini-biography. An article on World War I will usually provide a narrative of World War I. And so forth. 05:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's not a "biographical narrative" though. That's the point, right there. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is NOT the point, Zen, since the article is clearly not primarily a biography of Jesus' life. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An article on World War I is an article on history. NOT CULTURE NOR BACKGROUND!!!!!. An article on The elizabethan era on the other hand, is not a narrative of events. It will also include sections about costume, food, medicine, housing, culture, theatre, religion, etc. not mixed in to an historical narrative whatsoever. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Historical narrative organization also better lends itself to NPOV, whereas topical structuring runs a greater risk of entrenching one POV in the article's structure. It's easier to agree on a sequence of events and even of general trends, given the historical record. Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's rank bullshit. I wish you wouldn't use "POV" and "NPOV" in this way. All articles are selective. Suggesting that it's "POV" to select topics is ridiculous, because it goes without saying that it is. But so is a "historical narrative" because you choose what to include and what to leave out in just the same way. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would like to know what POV you think could possibly be entrenced in the structure supported by FT2 and Amgine? Culture, history, religion, politics. Now what horifically offensive POV does that entrench exactly? CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, it implies that these factors are easily extricable and basically unrelated. I'm not sure if that's POV or not, but it's wrong. john k 17:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There's no heading called "Jesus's life in this time"? No heading called "Miracles and those who performed them"? Am I on the right track?Dr Zen 23:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's distribution of information is inappropriate to an encyclopedia

  • "political situation" means who is in charge, and should be seperate to "religious organisation"
This is absurd. It is impossible to discuss the political situation of a place like Judaea without referring to the religious authorities, who held considerable political power. Would you suggest that a discussion of the political situation of the Holy Roman Empire omit any mention of the ecclesiastical states, because these form part of the "religious organisation" instead? john k 05:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You clearly missed the point again. Referring to the religious authorities as political entities is one thing; referring to them as religious entities another.Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you understand John's point. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I understand Dr Zen's. john k 17:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "uprisings" are politics not religion
Not if they are religious uprisings!Slrubenstein
Indeed. Witness the Protestant Reformation for instance, which had strong elements of both politics and religion. Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The uprising is a political event, not one intrinsic to the religion. Plenty of Protestants didn't support religious uprisings in favour of Protestantism. E.g. Elizabeth I, who supressed them. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So what is the point of your statement? How does it apply to this article? Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Although seperating politics and religion is a modern thing, so are the audience of the encyclopedia
A modern reader of a history article expects to learn about the past. One thing they need to learn is that politics and religion were not so easily distinguished then. Slrubenstein
Darling reader, this is not a history article. It is about Cultural and .... CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't call me darling, bubelah. Now, bubelah, the inseparability of religion and politics is an essential element of Jewish "culture" and must be made clearly in the article. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • putting "notable uprisings" and "messiahs" together only makes sense as an essay, not an encyclopedia
Can you explain why, or is this simply dogma? john k 05:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Because this is an encyclopedia, a compedium of facts, not a compedium of essays on titles like How Judaism led to Jesus. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you could have a stab at why you think they should be together, John? Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Piece of cake. They should be in the same article because they are linked in Jewish culture and history. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you John? That explains a lot!Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are accusing me of being a sock puppet? If so, have the guts to take this to the Arbitration Committee. Accuse me again and I will file a complaint as false accusations are violations of civility. You have criticized me for not providing reasons, but when I do, you dismiss me as a sock puppet? Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Introductary Paragraphs

The article should not make assumption of historicity or non-historicity

  • There is a seperate article for that question.

The following introduction was the result of general consensus discussion, and approved by votes, Slrubenstein's version rode roughshod over it.

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 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.
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.
there was disagreement, not consensus. Slrubenstein
Well, the introduction above is excellent, NPOV stuff, although not wholly grammatical. I could certainly live without the Biblical scholars' being listed in the first par.Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zen, why do you think the current paragraph is POV? Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The emphasis is not as NPOV as it is in the paragraph above.Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, can you explain more clearly? Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Prior History of Palestine

Stating that in most ancient near-eastern societies sacrifice was the only worship is

  • derogatory
Why? Slrubenstein
It implies they didn't have complex religions. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It implies they are barbaric. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Does it? The Romans sacrificed and we think of them as being civilised. Dr Zen 23:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

YOU are once again using language suggestive of racism, or at leat ethnocentrism. YOU are the one judging, recklissly and with prejudice, that sacrifice is "simple" or "barbaric." Many scholars see them as very complex and sophisticated. Examine your own prejudices before you ascribe such to others. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, you're being silly. What we are saying is that it *implies* to readers who have that sentiment that they are barbaric or do not have complex religions.Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you are saying that racists will read this in a racist way ... Okay, but I don't see what we can do about it. We certainly shouldn't whitewash history. That others have prejudices isn't our problem. Maybe we need a link to an article on sacrifice that goes into just how complex and civilized the practice and attendant beliefs are (e.g. Gerard, Bataille) Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is Dr Zen suggesting that, since some people have the sentiment that, say, having a queen is backwards and retrograde, to state that Queen Elizabeth II is head of state of the United Kingdom would be POV because it implies that the UK is backward and retrograde? This seems to be the thrust of the remarks here. If the statement about sacrifices is not true, that is another thing entirely. john k 17:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • POV
Which POV? Slrubenstein
The POV of those who believe that Judaeo-Christianity is superior because it is more complex, one would assume.Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where in the article dies it claim that it is superior or more complex? Where? Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can express a POV without outright stating it. Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Where? Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Why? Slrubenstein
  • not true
Why? Slrubenstein
I thought that 'blood libel' had to do with accusations of human sacrifice, not sacrifice in general. The statement being questioned seems to be highly defensible. Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Then defend it. Simply saying "I agree with Slrubenstein" isn't actually a defence as such.Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excessive detail about the "First Temple" Era and the "Second Temple" Era is irrelevant

  • There is no known source for the 1st Temple period which is not suspect of having political spin
  • It is not even known from non-Biblical sources if there was a 1st Temple period
The article makes claims that are supported by sholars of history. Why do you want to remove Jewish history from an article on a part of Jewish history? Slrubenstein
Darling reader, this is not about Jewish history, this is about Cultural and historical background..... CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bubelah, the Temple history is part of the backgrouns. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not to Jesus it is not.Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IF part of the background to Jesus is his critique of Temple practices, or if early Christians were Jews who, as their texts suggest, both drew on and distanced themselves from Temple traditions, then yes, it is. Also, if priests were important actors at the time, as everyone here seems to agree was the case, then a bit about Temple history explains the sources of their authority, and the limits of their authority. Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If we eliminate all historical sources that are suspected of having political spin, we wouldn't have very many left at all. Historians are used to trying to identify political and other kinds of spin, and trying to factor that into their interpretations of historical data. Ignoring data one doesn't like is also a kind of spin. Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Was Jesus alive in the first temple era? This article, as you keep ramming home, is supposed to be about the background to his life. I agree with CD that this is far too much ancient history. Also, do you mind providing cites from these "sholars" who support your claims? Biblical scholars don't count in this context. They must be archaeologists, nonaligned historians -- IOW, scholars who do not simply cite the Bible as "evidence".Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

YOU just wrote "the background of his life," which implies that he existed, which reveals your POV. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is not "the history of the Jews up until 0AD". It is "Cultural and historical background to Jesus", i.e. the period around 0AD, not the whole of prehistory. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Having a Temple, Torah, Priests, and Scribes, together with having a King ruling by divine right implies a "dual core"

  • religion supported by monarchy
  • monarchy supported by religion
Is this an argument or interpretation made by a majore scholar (late antiquity Jewish/early Christian history, critical Biblical studies)? Who? Slrubenstein
Is the "King ruling by divine right" referring to Caesar, or the local king of Judaea/Roman Palestine/whatever? I ask because I think it is clear that the local "king" was supported by Caesar, not by the priests and scribes etc. This argument appears to lack internal cohesion. Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's a common enough system, Sl. The Roman Empire itself had a state religion. Wesley, you're way off track and I think just muddying the water. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This view, that separates the political and the religious, is a particular POV. I have a right to ask which scholars make this distinction. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Any scholar who describes the Papal States as the "temporal" realm of the Pope. HTH.Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Common, be serious. Which scholars of this period? This is not an article on papal states. It is on the cultural and historical background -- i.e. Jewish/Hellenic culture and history in lat antiquity. Which scholars of this culture and history hold these views. Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There does not need to be detailed background to Saducees, Pharisees, Temple, Monarchy, or Torah.

  • These each have their own seperate articles
  • This overemphasises religion, in an article also about other aspects of history, and of culture, and of the history of that culture and background.
These could probably be summarized with links to the longer articles, sure. Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There ought to be discussion of the Hasmonians

  • Taking over the priesthood should be mentioned, as should taking over the monarchy
  • The Hasmonians are not the second kingdom

Right, once again you seem to support Slrubenstein's version over FT2 ... Slrubenstein

Totally disputed. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, you ropinion is worthless. What is of worth are your reasons for having this view. SR's version mentions the Hasmoneans' relationship with the Priesthood, which you ask for. It also does not refer to the Hasmoneans as the second kingdom, as you ask. Thus, your two points support SR's version. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Herod's reign should be mentioned
  • There should be mention of forced conversion to Judaism of the Edomites (the Idumeans)
Not sure why these couldn't be added. Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Governance

Whether the greeks gave a damn about Judaism or not is irrelevant.

  • The romans were in charge
  • This is not an article about the greeks

P.s. the greeks already worshiped a universal God, known officially as the Unknown God.

What the Greeks thought would be relevant from the standpoint of the influence of Hellenism on the region during this time period. Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but "Hellenism" and "the Greeks" are not the same thing. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There was a split between hellenized and "traditional" Jews

  • In the same way there is a split between muslims who wear the burkha, and Jemima Khan
I suppose some historians argue this, although most today do not. What are your sources? Slrubenstein
What are yours? You cannot conceivably be suggesting that there were no hellenised Jews, so are you saying that there were no "traditional" Jews?Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My source is Shaye Cohen, the preeminant historian of late antiquity Judaism. Who is your source, now? Have you researched this? Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does Shaye Cohen say there were no "traditional" Jews? Could you give a quote? What are these people talking about? I know they're not whizzbang scholars but they clearly think there were some who resisted hellenisation? They even cite Cohen!Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cohen says that the divide between traditional and hellenic jews is false; that all Jews at this time were hellinized, and that "hellenized" refers to a heterogeneous and complex set of cultural transformations. I provided a quote earlier in the discussion, CheeseDreams archived it somewhere. You can look through the archives for it, but if I have time later I will try to find it for you. Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know many historians who argue Jemima Khan in comparison to burkas. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The middle east is and always has been a "powderkeg"

  • It forms the bridge between persia, greece, and egypt
  • Its position between major empires, throughout history, inevitably gives it this status
Good point. Finding a period in history when Palestine was not a "powderkeg" would be difficult. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is silly. When people called the Middle-East a Powderkeg, it was for two reasons: the possibility that a war there might lead to a US-USSR hot war, and the disruption of oil. Uprisings and war in Roman Palestine in no way threatened the economic base or political stability of the empire. The empire withstood many uprisings and three major wars with no critical threat to the empire. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Middle East encompasses more than Palestine.Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is not about the geographical region that stretches from Morocco to Iraq. It is about a much smaller geographical area. Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A discussion of the status of sedition is important

Jews had religious and political tensions with Rome, not class war

  • It is necessary to understand the Macabees to comprehend how Jews react to Rome
Which is why my version spends time talking about the Maccabees. Slrubenstein
Dear reader, Slrubenstein's version talks about the generations of the Maccabees, not what the important issue is, i.e. why they came about in the first place. Specifically, the Maccabee revolt. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

SR's version does this. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • The desire by Jews not to integrate was seen as an affront by Romans
Evidence? Slrubenstein
I had thought the Romans got over it and even gave the Jews permission not to sacrifice to the Roman gods. Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quite right, Wesley Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Early emporers thrived, later ones were cruel and murdered, which demonstrates that there was more corruption
The second emperor was cruel, the third emperor was cruel and murdered, the fourth emperor was murdered, and the fifth emperor was cruel and a suicide. The sixth, seventh, and eighth emperors were either murdered or suicides after very brief reigns. The ninth and tenth emperors seem to have done well enough, and the eleventh emperor again was both cruel and murdered. It seems to me that both the cruelty and the murder aspects are pretty evident from pretty near the beginning of the empire, including the emperor who reigned at the time when Christ supposedly lived, Tiberius (the 2nd emperor). I recommend watching I, Claudius again if you think the early emperors "thrived". And, of course, the period before Augustus was a period of rather bitter civil war. john k 05:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Corruption was rife in the Republic too, anyway.Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So, now, we all agree that the period was seriously corrupt, and cruel, which was the crux of the point. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It would be demented not to agree that the period was corrupt. Among the few things known about Pilate was that he was corrupt!Dr Zen 23:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Religious Groups

There were always 2 sides to Judaism - temple vs. halakhah/prayer

This vastly oversimplifies and distorts Judaism. Slrubenstein
Oh look dear reader, vanity statement, with not a single shred of argument AS TO WHY. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I gave the reason before. The Temple provided and provides a model for prayer, and Temple practices constitute a good deal of Halacha, so you cannot provide these as "two sides." Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Although Halakha contains ritual, it is specifically prayer-related
What? You are wrong. Slrubenstein
Oh look dear reader, vanity statement, with not a single shred of argument. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bubelah, all you need to do is read the Talmud. Read Baba Batra and Baba Kama which are not prayer related, and read all the parts of the Talmud that discuss the rules concerning sacrifice in the Temple (Maot). You are simply bullshitting, to quote Zen. You are ignorant and just can't stand the fact that others know so much more than you. Your statement is like saying the capital of England is Dusseldorf. When I say "no you are wrong" do I really have to tell you the capital is London? Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • Prayer is independant to temple worship (which had to occur 3 times a year)

Temple worship occurred far more often than 3 times a year. Prayer developed in relation to Temple worship. Slrubenstein

Dear reader, this is an attempt to obfuscate facts. Jews were required to attent the temple a minimum of 3 times a year. Abraham prayed to god, but that didn't require a temple. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, but it did require sacrifices. Also, we see you rhypocracy -- you complain about "too much history" and suggest the first temple never existed. Then, to "prove" one of your absurd points, you bring up Abraham who, if he lived, lived 2,000 years before the events of this article, and perhaps never existed? Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Temple worship (but not the temple) goes back to 1500-1300BC

Proof? Slrubenstein

An especially odd claim for somebody who also says that there may not have been a First Temple. john k 05:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
John, even you can understand that there can be a temple without there being a Temple. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Now, remind me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember the Torah as claiming that Moses and co. set up a temple. On some mountain. The same one that the Samaritans still used. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, you may be thinking of the Taernacle which is not the Temple. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"A" temple. "A" temple. Not "The Temple". Do you see?Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. If I am wrong, you'll have to provide a citation to convince me. Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Halakha goes back orally before it was written down

In Judaism, the priesthood was more administrative than acting as intermediary between Jews and God

I don't even know what you mean here. Priests offered sacrifices which were a crucial part of how Jews related to God. Slrubenstein

It's clear what CD means. The distinction between RC priests, who are active intermediaries between man and God, and Methodist ministers, who are not, is not lessened any by saying yes, but Methodist ministers still give a sermon. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your point is only a silly diversion. It is clear in this context that we are talking about Jewish priests only. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You can't see what CD means and it's a "silly diversion" to explain it to you? Okay. Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hsve no idea what you are trying to say. CheeseDreams claims Jewish priests at this time were not intermediaries. I claim that they were. Now what is your point. Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There was a multi-party system with at least 4 large "schools of thought"

  • As testified by Josephus
  • It was not the 2 party system (with minor others) Sadducees vs. Pharisees

Josephus doesn't call them "parties," he calls them "schools,"

Now someone, dear reader seems to have failed to read my quote above which stated "schools of thought". One has to question if this was deliberate, which would be pathetic, or ignorant. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

and says there are three (but later mentions a fourth). SR's version covers all of these. Slrubenstein

Darling reader, Slrubenstein's version implies that there was a 2 party system, with the other "schools of thought" that Josephus mentions as minor. Which is not accurate. Josephus states 3 (plus one) not 2-and-a-small-ignorable-one-over-there-and-an-even-more-ignorable-one. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bubelah, bubelah, I realy on considerable research by historians, archeologists, and Bible critics. Not just one biased source. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • Essenes developed at virtually the same time as the Pharisees

Wrong. You are ignorant. Slrubenstein

Oh look, dear reader, personal attack, absolutely no counter-argument. Very grown up. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again,k your statement is as obviously silly as a claim like "rainbows are made of cheese." Everyone knows it is wrong. My telling you you are wrong is not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact. Counter-argument? The Pharisees developed early in the second Temple period, the Essenes, later. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Nice, civil discussion as usual. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Sicarii were a fanatical underground militant wing of the Zealots

Wrong. You are ignorant. Slrubenstein

Oh look, dear reader, personal attack, absolutely no counter-argument. Very grown up. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not a personal attack, a statement of fact. Counter-argument? Just read any history book. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another reason for believing that Slrubenstein should receive the same punishment, if any, as CD. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zen, you fail to recognize that I have researched the topic and have shared the results of my research, whereas CheeseDreams is bullshitting and just wasting other people's time because she is ignorant of this topic. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I repeat, I believe you should receive the same punishment as CD, if any. You are repulsively uncivil, indulge in repeated personal attacks and do not seek compromise. All of which is from time to time true of CD! No angels here.Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go tell it to the AC, bub. Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other Messiahs

Other groups who believed in different Messiah figures should be mentioned in detail

Which groups believes in different messiahs? What is your source? Slrubenstein
The article on Messiah references some. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The only opposer when this was voted on (8 supported it) was Slrubenstein
It doesn't matter what the vote was -- we cannot put something in the article if it is false and non-verifiable. Where is the evidence? Slrubenstein
  • As a non-messianic Jew, Josephus' statement that these were not messiahs is a statement of faith
  • nethertheless, Josephus still states that other people thought them to be messiahs

Where? Source? Verify your claims. Slrubenstein

You accept the gospels as a source but don't allow Josephus???Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I allow Josephus. Josephus doesn't call these other people messiahs. Didn't you know that? Or are you too bullshitting? Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are being obtuse, dude. Josephus notes them and then says they weren't messiahs. CD correctly notes that this is a statement of faith rather than an observation of fact. Are you suggesting that Josephus does not say that people thought them to be messiahs?Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bingo. Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now, I apologise if this is a silly suggestion, but surely Josephus is a good enough source for Josephus? CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Apparently not. We are led to believe that the Gospels are a good source for Jewish history in this period but Josephus is not.Dr Zen 23:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Josephus, like any source, must be read critically. Slrubenstein 00:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, okay. But that's not the same thing as picking and choosing, is it?Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have never "picked and choose," I draw on all sources and critical readings of them. Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? CheeseDreams says something, and sources Josephus. SLR says Josephus never said that, and asks for a cite. Then SLR is attacked for not accepting Josephus as a source? This is not an argument being made in good faith. john k 05:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
SLR is not saying Josephus did not say what CD claims. Read this carefully: CD says Josephus says that some people believed there were other messiahs. CD says Josephus denies they were messiahs. SLR says that CD must source Josephus as saying this. Are you denying that Josephus claims that people thought there were other messiahs, although those beliefs were false? Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Josephus never says anyone thought of these guys as messiahs. CheeseDreams claims Josepohus does say this, and I ask for a citation. That is the entire argument. Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Contemporary understanding of the meaning of messiah should be included
  • It is important to state that kings and priests were anointed
  • Sabbattai Lev (circa 1400) shows how Jews found "other messiahs" troublesome and offensive

Who was Shabatai Lev? Slrubenstein

  • According to historic recordc, as a group, Jews at the time
  • were conservative

Proof? Slrubenstein

  • were sceptical of radical new interpretations

Proof? Slrubenstein

  • were disinterested in afterlife/salvation stories

Perhaps. In any event, SR's version doesn't claim otherwise Slrubenstein

  • were making many original claims
By the way, dear reader, proof of the above is in the historic record. E.g. the Talmud. Odd how that part of my statement seems to have gone unread. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where does the Talmud make these claims? Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the articles Mosiach and Messiah explain the understanding of the term

  • the expectation of a messiah was the expectation of a saviour of Israel

In part, there was more to it. Slrubenstein

Dear reader, this is not true. Someone clearly hasn't even read Mosiach or Messiah. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The phrase "Son of Man" is not always apocalyptic
  • 'Many historians claim that Jesus himself did not claim to be a messiah in any way different to other messiahs.'
  • many considered the Romans to be the judgement of God

All of this is consistent with SR's version. Slrubenstein

  • Dear reader, note how Slrubenstein's version frames the above, clearly denegrating the position. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mandaeans first came into existance in the 2nd/3rd centuries BC and later Mandaeans considered John the baptist a messiah

Source for the date? Evidence? Slrubenstein

Here are some possible sources. Apparently, the Mandaeans do claim this and do claim that John the Baptist was one of them. There's plenty on the web about it.Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) These are not historians, not scholarly sources. Do some REAL research, bubi, Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IOW, only scholars who agree with SLR are allowed through the door. Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, IOW most web-pages are not great sources for writing a web-based encyclopedia article, and the web-pages CheeseDreams provides are not critical historical sources. Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • E.g. apollos (as testified by the book of Acts, as still following John AFTER Jesus died)
  • In addition to others mentioned by other texts
  • John the baptist was Nazorean

According to whom? Evidence? Slrubenstein

Now, if we are to discount references from the bible, dear reader, then who is John the Baptist at all? CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You misunderstand my question. Where does the Bible call John the Baptist a Nozorean? Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Mandaean was a dialaect at this time
  • Mandaean is a modern synonym for Nazorean
  • Mandaeans refer to themselves as Nazorean
Miscellaneous contemporarial details

The Jesus in the temple conversing on the law needs to be put in context

  • It was fairly standard that young people were able to converse on the law in the Temple
  • As evidenced by the oral law preserved in the Talmud about expected ages of scholarship of the torah


"X% lived in towns, Y% in villages" is too demographic

  • most Jews at the time were hard working
  • in the circumstances of the age, there are not many "slackers" in village life
  • most Jews at the time were God fearing

Evidence? Slrubenstein

  • most Jews at the time were in villages
  • village people are less likely to be hellenised than city people

This misrepresents or distorts (or ignores) what historians mean by "hellenised" Slrubenstein

What do they mean by it in your opinion? If the villagers did not speak Greek, did not follow Greek customs, did not wear Greek clothes and did not pursue Greek arts, in what way can they be said to be "hellenised"?Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Read Cohen, or read the article. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I asked for your opinion, not Cohen's. You speak on behalf of all historians, not just one whose words you will not cite for those of us less scholarly than your own good self.Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MY opinion is not the issue here. Editors' opinions don't belong in the article. What is important is that we research the scholarship on an issue. As I said, I have provided the Cohen quote before. Slrubenstein 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Development of later religion

"Later forms of Judaism" followed the Pharisees rather than "Rabbinic Judaism"

  • As voted for on a 3:1 ratio

Again, it doesn't matter what the vote it -- the article has to be accurate and verifiable. After the destruction of the Temple Rabbinic Judaism emerged. Slrubenstein

You say so. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I say that all historians of this period of Jewish history say so. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) Since I say "all" you can just read any history on the period. Are you claiming that any do not? What is your obligation to provide a citation? But okay, a source -- start with Cohen. Neusner will also characterize this periond (200-600) as "Rabbinic Judaism." Also Boyarin. I have given you three sources. Can you give me just one source to support your claim? What research have you done? Slrubenstein 14:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But cite none of them.Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Later forms is much more accurate. It is guaranteed to be true. Whatever the later forms were. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of the subsequent development of Christianity and how it connected to the gentiles belongs elsewhere not here

  • This is about background, not consequences

Anything later than bar Kochba is irrelevant

The non-Jewishness of Christianity

Early Christianity was Jewish, although most Rabbis considered them Jewish seperatists. Slrubenstein

Darling reader, Saint Paul was SO Jewish, so much so that he grew up in and was proud of his birthplace, Tarsus, which was the most non-Jewish place in the whole of the meditteranean world. So much so that he said that the Mosaic Law was superseeded. So much so that he disliked rituals. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At that time, Jews could say these things and still be Jewish, of course. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because you deny that there is any difference between being ethnically Jewish and culturally Jewish, you do not take CD's point here. At least you are consistent, even if wrong.Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, Zen, I am trying to take you on good faith but do not understand what you mean. Read Daniel Boyarin's A Radical Jew. Tosefta Hullin 2:24 also provides an example of a Rabbi who was arrested by Roman authorities for being Christian; the reason was that he was seen listening to, and enjoying, a discourse by a Jewish Christian. Slrubenstein 14:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Jewish revolt was about seeking political and religious freedom vs. Romans.

  • It was not class war
  • Jews at the time were under intense pressure from Rome
  • The Macabbee revolt indicates that Jews violently do not like their sense of identity threatened

Source? Slrubenstein

  • As a group, Jews at the time tended to polarise under pressure.

Proof? Slrubenstein

  • As a group, Jews at the time tended to be protective of their national identity

Proof? Slrubenstein

Darling reader, it is unfortunate that I must repeat a point made earlier

  • It is necessary to understand the maccabees to understand the Jewish reaction to Rome
Now, can anyone remember how the Jews reacted under the Macabbee revolt? CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The ideas of how Romans treated early Christians in comparison to Jews is predominantly later Christian propaganda
  • There is absolutely no historical evidence (aside from Christian claims) that Nero burnt rome and blamed it on Christians

The article doesn't claim that he did. Slrubenstein

I though the "blamed it on Christians" bit is pretty clearly in Tacitus (Annals 15.44.2-4). Is Tacitus now a Christian? Or was this (rather unflaterring) comment about Christians interpellated by later Christian writers? Whether or not Nero burned Rome seems to remain an open question - there is no particular evidence, so far as I am aware, that he did, but those that say he might have are not necessarily doing so out of Christian apologetics. john k 05:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the whims of writers. I was referring to archaeological evidence, which would leave a distinct burn line in absolutely all the deposits from that period in Rome, especially as Rome was quite a large set of buildings, which would leave a lot of burnt remains. This is not only not the case, but there is absolutely no evidence of any burn line from this period whatsoever. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's true. There is some evidence of a fire at that time.Dr Zen 23:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So the whole fire never happened? Surely Tacitus, who was writing in living memory of Nero's time, could not have gotten away with making up a story about a fire burning down Rome. And he is backed up by Suetonius and others who relied on independent sources. At any rate, pretty clearly Tacitus and Suetonius did not make up a story about Rome burning down as part of Christian propaganda, which was the original statement. john k 05:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I hope that wasn't a reply to me. I say there is some archaeological evidence of fire at that time. Why could Tacitus not have "got away with it"? There is no source extant to confirm or deny it! Sadly for your excellent thesis, Suetonius was not even born when Nero died, so his report of Nero singing and playing the guitar has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Tacitus was himself only a boy and had his reasons for lying. Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Note how suspicious the argument "but he built it back in 3 days" is. You might as well say that Napolean existed.
Misspelling Napoleon doesn't inspire confidence, CD. john k 05:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's neither here nor there to CD's point, which is a good one. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's not a point at all. I love how you tell others "Just saying 'I agree with SLR' is not an argument," and yet your entire argument consists of "I agree with CheeseDreams." john k 05:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In this one specific, I agree with CD and don't think your attack on his/her spelling added anything.Dr Zen

Christians deliberately shifted away from Jewish law to make themselves disassociated with the Jews Your source? Slrubenstein

  • or were gnostic, thus didn't support ritual
  • The jews were becoming politically dangerous due to rebellion against Rome

Judaism's restrictive practices prevented non-Jews from converting to it or similar religion False. And ignorant. Slrubenstein

Can you give numbers of converts around this time? Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Its odd, isn't it, how Judaism remained in Palestine, and never spread outside it, unlike you would expect if Judaism didn't dissuade non-Jews from converting. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Umm...except that Judaism, uh, did spread outside Palestine. Like, you know how there were Jews all over the Mediterranean World during the Roman period? Plus, all those Jews in Babylonia. And so forth... john k 05:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Jews, not converts.Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Christianity being easier to digest is POV
  • it is logical that dropping more Jewish traditions made Christian beliefs more palatable
  • Replacing halakhah by pure faith instantly made Christianity more acceptable to non-Jews

Proof? Boyarin argues that it made it more meaningful to many Jews. Slrubenstein

Proof? I can cite authors showing that early Christians kept many Jewish practices and rituals, in many cases altering them somehow instead of discarding them. For instance, the Didache tells Christians to continue fasting twice a week, but not on the same days as the Jews. Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Didache was dismissed as non-Canonical by the church. That should tell you how they felt about it. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's one ritual. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to the evidence (which most Christians tend not to be aware of), i.e. most scholars think, either

Proof? Slrubenstein

  • Gnostics were the original christians; or

Proof Slrubenstein

  • Essenes were the original christians

Proof? Slrubenstein

  • much of the evidence points to the Ebionites being a sect of the Essenes
Gnosticism pre-dates Christianity by most accounts; some gnostics incorporated bits of Christianity leading to much modern confusion. The others are red herrings since they mention Jesus' writings, having little connection with the apostles. Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think CD's point is that gnosticism predates Christianity, Wesley, thence the wording "were the original Christians". Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What I meant was that Gnosticism predates not only Christians but Jesus Christ; so originally, they were a religion unconnection with any form of Christianity or even Judaism. Later, some gnostics borrowed some ideas from Christianity, or substituted prominent names in Christianity for various figures in their mythology, and were therefore later mistaken for Christians because of these superficial similarities. Wesley 17:55, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Non sequitor. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Eh?Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just because something comes first, does not make it a cause. Hume made this point about false arguments about causation. Slrubenstein 15:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the Ebionites have an extremely huge conection to the Apostles. The Jerusalem council (the foundation church which the apostles set up) was based, oddly enough, in Jerusalem. In the late 2nd/early 3rd century, a search party for them was sent out by the official Christian church (i.e. Irenaeus and co.) to see if they had missed out any teachings, or objects. All the search party found in Jerusalem were the Ebionites, which disturbed them. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Also note that Jesus' rabbinical teachings match the Essenes remarkably, the apostles could very easily be a group of Essenes. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The early Christians were often at odds with groups they considered heretical

  • Historians think the situation was "Iranaeus, Eusebius and Co." vs. "Anyone who disagreed with Iranaeus, Eusebius and Co."

CheeseDreams 21:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All of the comments by CheeseDreams are evidence of three things.

  1. It looks like she did not read the protected ("my") version of the article very carefully, because many of the things she claims I do wrong, I do not actually do.
Okay.Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You should check the history of this talk page very carefully. You will see that most of claims outlined above are not by me, and in fact are by FT2 or by Amgine. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Even if FT2 or Amgine made the claims originally, you are reasserting them by listing them and signing your name to them, to say nothing of defending at least some of the claims when challenged. Please take responsibility for your edits instead of passing the buck. Wesley 17:55, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  1. Although she often makes strong assertions of fact, she never verifies them. Some people (FT2, Pedant) trust her claims and have suggested that she and I really agree about much. FT2 has told me that he has not done much research in this time-period, and I suspect that Pedant (with all due respect) hasn't either -- because if they had, they would not trust her so easily. Since I have done a fair amount of research on this time period, I know that she is wrong about many things -- indeed, wrong about many things that someone who just took an introductory level college course would know.
I don't see much sign of your being righter or wronger. I see lots of your asserting that you are. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have and can again give sources for all my claims. If you really don't know that my claims are right and hers wrong, it can only be because you know litte aout Judaism especially during this period. If you want to be a judge, do the research nedcessary. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am judging you on what you present here, using my knowledge of the period. I don't claim to be an expert and I have no intention of undertaking a course of historical research just to make fair comment on your assertions. I have not disputed any of the more recherche elements of your thesis, only your means of pushing your POV and CD's of presenting his/hers. Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've yet to see you ask CD for a source. Slrubenstein 15:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  1. Based on the preceeding two points, it seems to me that whatever position I take, CheeseDreams simply takes the direct opposite. I know that she held biased and misinformed views before she and I began discussing this article, but it seems to me that she now adopts as her own -- and vociferously argues for -- ignorant and false views solely as a way of arguing with me.

Forget her bias, forget her illogic, forget her inability to take criticism or to learn from others -- forget all these things and one truth remains: she is ignorant of this subject and has nothing to offer here. Slrubenstein 18:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I look forward to the day this unpleasant editor receives his due punishment for this pisspoor attitude. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to complain to the AC. My attitude is not pisspoor, it is admirable: I stand up for the credibility of Wikipedia by insisting on good research, rather than bullshit. Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good research = anything that agrees with my POV. Bad research = anything that doesn't. Gospels = reliable source. Josephus = unreliable source. Madness.Dr Zen 07:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You miss my point. It isn't about my POV, it is about representing the results of decades of critical research in the article. Slrubenstein 15:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I reiterate that Slrubenstein should read the arrogance and vanity articles. CheeseDreams 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams, thank you for listing your objections here. I have commented above, but to keep it brief, I still think SLR's version is the better one for going forward. At least some of CheeseDreams' suggestions and changes could and perhaps should be incorporated into it, as I mentioned above. Other comments from other editors? Wesley 22:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I entirely disagree with Wesley. We should proceed with FT2's version, but incorporate what is good of the two others' views. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why? Tell me what in my version is wrong? Slrubenstein 00:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) Slrubenstein

How much more do you need? Simply yelling "I'm not wrong" doesn't make the very long list of things wrong with your version go away, you know. Dr Zen 00:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good Question. Here is what I need: a well-informed interlocutor who can point out specific errors in my work. Believe it or not, some people who contribute to Wikipedia are not bullshit artists. Some actually do research and present well-informed points. I have veen debating with CheeseDreams for almost two months and she has yet to provide any evidence against anything I have written. I virtually always provide sources, and you are being very unfair to me to suggest I am simply shouting "I'm not wrong." And in the few examples where I simply tell her she is wrong, it is because I am referring to common knowledge. For example, CheeseDreams asserts that although halacha has some ritual, it is primarily about prayer. This is so wrong that it is just impossible for CheeseDreams to have read this anywhere. She is simply making it up. Don't you know this? Don't you know anything about halacha? If you don't, what can I tell you? Read the major source of halacha from this particular period, the Mishnah (which CheeseDreams too has invoked as an important source; I am not being controversial here) and just read it! You will see halachot about prayer, sure but also lots of halachot about rituals and many halachot about other things besides prayer. What more can I tell you? This is the source: read the Mishnah and see for yourself. Danby has a decent enough translation into English, if your Hebrew is rusty. Slrubenstein 01:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way, you seem to think FT2's version is better than mine. here are several objections I have to FT2's version. Why do you find these problems and mistakes acceptable in an encyclopedia article? Slrubenstein 01:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • FT2 deleted a great deal of important content on the historical context. He claimed that it was "too much" but all of my content introduced crucial elements of the article, like the relationship between the saducess, the pharisees, the Temple, and the Torah. Every historical paragraph I added served to explain these four variables, crucial to understanding the context of Jesus. FT2 actually starts the historical section far too early, with the original settlement of the area (which is something historians and archeologists are still trying to reconstruct, and the current summary here is woefully inadequate -- and unnecessary) which is not relevant to the article.
  • 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. The law of the land was law which was legislative?. Moreover, "religious law" has no meaning in this context. We are not quite sure what the laws were at that time but we can be fairly sure they were based on the Torah which includes civil and tort law.
  • "third, it caused religious and cultural difference to escalate into conflicts with the secular authority" is either dumb or really POV. I assume the "secular authority" is the Greek or Roman authorities, but if you think they were "secular" and had not religious and cultural agenda, you are ignorant (CheeseDreams seems to agree with me in this one point, as she characterizes these conflicts as "religious."). Moreover, much of the conflicts were not caused by religious difference but by economic and political differences. This notion that the middle east is a "powderkeg" (a word used in the intro of FT2's version) in which religious difference has to be contained by secular leadership just mimics the view most people today take towards the middle east. I am not evern sure it is an accurate view today, but I am sure it is a bad way to interpret history. What scholars claim this?
  • Why focus on the Jewish notion that nakedness is an abomination (by the way, any evidence?)? I thought the real issue was that the Greeks thought circumcision was an abomination. You present (or mirepresent) a Jewish view and ignore the Greek view -- lack of balance, no NPOV.
  • 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 it is not really how most historians explain the Maccabean revolt and the Seleucid oppression that preceeded it. Why not summarize Bickerman and Tcherikover's views? Why present this speculation which seems unfounded?
  • The Pearlman quote is inappropriate in in encyclopedia. He was not a scholar, he was a former Israeli army officer and wrote many popular books that could at best be described as whiggish history, if not nationalist history. If you want to write an article on "how Jews in the late 1900s saw their own past, ideologically," by all means quote Pearlman. If you want to analyze the Hasmoneans, cite real critical scholars.
  • The view that there was a split between hellinized and "traditional" Jews is anachronistic. Perhaps this was Therikover's view (I am not sure) but most historians today reject it as simplistic.
  • "Culturally the Jews were for the most part hard-working, God-fearing, deeply religious farming villagers," do we have clear evidence for this? This sounds like Readers' Digest prose, not encyclopedia prose. There are many other sentences like this that just seem to trivialize the project (people prayed to their many gods -- tripe, how do we know what they did? This isn't a novel).
  • FT2 deleted much of my text because he considered it irrelevant, but I do not see how all the detail on Menalaus and Jason is at all relevant context for Jesus
  • It is a little confusing to me to call the Hasmonean kingdom the second kingdom. Is this some historical convention of which I am unaware? What historian uses this? Cirtainly, one could easily call the Hasmoneans the thrid kingdom (not that anyone does) or fourth kingdom. Why second? (Here too, CheeseDreams seems to support my version as she insists that it is wrong to call the Hasmonean kingdom the second kingdom, as FT2 does)
  • The statement "By 1 CE, the Roman Empire was somewhat more corrupt than it had been" is POV and I think unnecessary. By what criteria? How do you measure corruption? Who says the empire was more corrupt in 1 CE than in 50 CE? How is this relevant to the article? You don't think Jews were pleased by Roman occupation in 1 BCE, or 10 BCE, or 20 BCE, do you?
  • In the section "Jewish Revolt and aftermath," I provided an essential account for the background of Jesus, which FT2 deleted. He has replaced it 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? (CheeseDreams invokes some websites, but no scholarly sources to support this claim)
  • "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. This 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. Each one considered itself orthodox; each one considered the others to be heretical. This sentence implies that those Christians who, in the second or third centuries, were most like Christians of today (or of the fifth century) were the real Christians, and all the others were heretics (or considered to be heretics) is totally POV. There are a number of sentences in this version that are similarly POV -- POV because they read the past through the lense of the present (e.g. the Pearlman quote, which is pure editorializing)
  • 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 this is a dual core is to suggest that "spiritual" and "political" are opposed. This is indeed true today, in the post-Enlightenment modern West that distinguishes between religion and politics. But how do we know that ancient Israelites made this distinction? There is no evidence that they did; indeed, all evidence suggests that they did not distinguish between the spiritual and the political, at least not in any modern sense.
  • To say that the "Children of Israel" had the Mishnah is at best misleading, at worst very confused and sloppy. Usually shcolars use "Children of Israel" to refer to the twelve tribes, during the time of the two kingdoms. The Kingdom of Israel (9.5 tribes) was destroyed around 722 BCE (almost a millenium before the mishnah); by Roman times the ones who were left were called "Jews" not Children of Israel. 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 I put in on having to deal with the implications of a universal God, and Greek interest in Judaism. Why?
  • 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"? What nonesense! First of all, priesthoods are always administrative (ever visit the Vatican)? Second, the Israelite priesthood was just as much an intermediary with God, through sacrifice, as any other priesthood. What was the basis for this claim? What scholarly reference can you give?
  • The paragraph on the zealots makes it seem as if the sicarii were a subset of zealots, which is of course wrong. At least, this needs to be rewritten for clarity and accuracy.
  • 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. Who hypothesized this? In any event, the "hypothesis" makes no sense. Jews never believed non-Jews should obey Jewish law. No Jew, including early (Jewish) Christians, would have demanded that gentiles obey Jewish law. Nothing had to be stripped to make things easier. By the way, many Gentiles did turn to other religions with very restrictive practices, so there is no reason to think that "restrictions" were what got in the way of appealing to gentiles.
  • I have no idea what scholarship the section on Jewish reactions to cults and messianism is based on, but I have read lots of scholarship and what is here all seems speculative.
  • Ditto the section on the Jewish rejection of Christianity. An earlier section already touches on this (citing scholars like Fredriksen and Boyarin). But this section seems to assume one form of Christianity, when in fact Christianity was heterogeneous and in flux during the first two centuries. Thus, the section also conflates a complex historical process and makes it seem as if the "rejection" were one simple decision. It reads as if it is mostly speculation.
  • "Yohanan" is not Hebrew for Jonathan; the Baptist's name was "John" (or it's Hebrew equivalent, Yohanan). This is trivial but such an obvious thing I believe it shows just how sloppy FT2's version was
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_background_of_the_New_Testament/Archive_10&oldid=925768418"