Talk:Historical background of the New Testament/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Historical background of the New Testament. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Responses to SIrubenstein

Okay, lets try quick comments to the points you make:

Let me first say that I appreciate your finally responding to me. I wish you would respond above, in the section on FT2's Ultimate Version (unless you do some of that here!). But I appreciate the gesture. Slrubenstein

1 Seems that the intro is felt by more than one or two people not to be "a mess" but to be a more neutral and balanced version, introducing the topic appropriately. See above.

ANd there are a number of people who prefer my intro. Look, if it really is eavenly divided, maybe we can merge them. Still your first sentence seems awfully complex.Slrubenstein

Thats clean-upable. What that 4 para intro is, is neutral. Can we shorten and simplify yes. My impression in editing wikipedia is that the hard thing is to get something neutral. Once its neutral it can be made less clumsy. Lets start with that and see if we can simplify *without* losing the neutral approach and wording. FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

2a You're assuming a Christian outlook in your writing, that is the main problem people have.

"The main problem people have?" Excuse me? Are you speaking for others? Who else criticizes my Christian point of view. Also, I hope you will explain what the Christian point of view is. Slrubenstein

I'm speaking for those whose opinion in the edit war this article was in earlier, that some felt you were ingoring others in favour of a view which was a little too religion-oriented and not appropriate to the article. If Im wrong, and I'm imagining others having thought that at times, perhaps you'd explain the NPOV tag I didnt put there and the comment I didnt put there with it? FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

As an admitted Christian, I honestly don't think Slrubenstein is trying to push a Christian POV. Some parts of what he presents regarding the emergence of Christianity are rather at odds with how many Christians view that century. Is it considered too Christian to presume that Jesus existed? That would make Christians out of an awful lot of Muslims and Jews. Wesley 00:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You wrote that I am assuming a Christian outlook in my writing. I want to know why you believe this. I would like you to explain to me what my Christian outlook is. It is not my responsibility to explain an NPOV tag that I think is unwarrented -- you will have to ask whoever put it up. I know you didn't. I am not asking you to explain the silly NPOV tag. I am asking you to explain why and how you think I am expressing a Christian outlook. Slrubenstein

2b Your statement was that "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 problem is that actually a lot of context needed to understand those times is not one of those four. Reducing it to these four shows a gross simplification, and a poor understanding of several other dynamics. For example, one cannot understand the Jews reaction to Rome, nor to Messiahs, without understanding the recent past at least as far back as the Macabbees, nor can one understand Jesus' approach to questioning his elders without an understanding of the child prodegies of which there were many at the time. Not everything comes back to elements of the Gospels, and this is a major criticism others had of your present approach.

Are deliberately being unfair? You know I was responding to AMgine who was critcising me for putting in too much material, dating back to 1000 BCE! You are being disingenuous -- I do not reduce the whole article to the Saducees, Pharisees, Temple and Torah -- this was must my explanation to Amgine for why I went as far back as Ancient Israel and Judah. You certialy know that I do not reduce things to these four variables -- you well know I have extensive sections on prophets, millenial prophets, the Essenes, Sicarii, bandits, and Zealots.. By the way, what is your evidence for child prodigies in the first century, and what is its relevance to this article? Slrubenstein

Its reported in the Talmud, the ages at which a child is supposed to know Torah, Gemarrah, Mishnah amongst the Jews. The ages 8 and 13 are the relevant ones I seem to remember. A quick search on Google brings up this text: "Mishnah Aboth 5:21 - He used to say: five years [is the age] for [the study of] Torah, ten for Mishnah..." So an ordianry student was expected to begin studying Torah from age 5, Mishnah at 10, Talmud by 15... what would a brilliant student achieve? I think if you view Jesus amazing people with his mastery of law as a young man, you'll find why this section on child prodigies is actually relevant and why jesus' ability was simply not unheard of for jewish society at that era. Anyway thats the source of that one. FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

So you're speculating that if everyone starts studying a given subject, there will be numerous child prodigies in that subject? That might be reasonable if there's statistics to show that x% of a student population studying a random subject turns out to be prodigious in that subject, but if so, surely the article should mention that that's the basis of the statement? Wesley 00:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does this mean you concede my point about the four variables? Slrubenstein

As to youth and study, my advice to you is not to accept a google search as a substitute for research. My recollection is that Mishnah Aboth 5:21 says that there are four kinds of scholars -- I forget all four but it is something like a funnel, a sponge, a seive, one other. This quote is describing adult scholars and has nothing to do with child-scholars. I believe you are referring to the Talmud, not the Mishnah. Well, the Talmud was compiled in Babylonia is 500. If Jesus was a child in the Galilee in the first century CE, please tell me what on earth a quote from four hundred years later and 550 miles away has to do with the "Cultural and Historical Background for Jesus?" Moreover, the Talmud is not describing how people actually behaved but rather an ideal for behavior. You are misusing it as an historical source. Finally, the Gospels tell us little about Jesus as a child. So what is your point about Jesus being a child prodigy? I have no idea what you are talking about. The issue is not that Jesus was questioning his elders, they issue is that like any adult Jesus was discussing Torah with other adults. What is the poing about a child prodigy? You confusion about the mishnah and the talmud is just one more example of why I distrust your scholarship and question your edits. Slrubenstein

I owe you an apology -- I am mistaken about Aboth 5:21 -- I was remembering 5:15 (I think) and you are correct on the Mishnah. However, my main point stands: you are quoting ben Tama's position, which is not necessarily an accurate account of Jewish practice; his position is 100 years after Jesus; it is about education, not child prodigies. No one contests Jesus' knowledge of scripture, but there is no reason to claim he was a prodigy either. Slrubenstein

I think this is in reference to the story in Luke 2:41-52, when Jesus traveled to the Temple with his family but remained behind when his family left. Verses 46-47 read, "Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teadchers, both listening to them and asking questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers." FT2's point seems to be that while such a story may be true of a 12-year-old Jesus, that other 12-year-old Jewish children would have also astonished people by their understanding and answers. Wesley 03:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3 The comment "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" is more than "might be true. As a historic statement it is accurate to state that in each case (persians, macedonians, and romans alike) the rulers began benign and it gradually became as described, conflictive. If this was not true for any of these three, please state which it was untrue for.

Well, many of the conflicts started as conflicts between Jews and gentiles, in which Imperial authories only got involved later. And of course if we are talking about the Maccabees, what you say here completely contradicts Tcherikover. The Romans were very tolerant of Jewish beliefs -- most conflict started because of Jewish resentement of taxation, not Roman resentment of Jewish difference! Anyway, how would you deal with Tcherikover? Slrubenstein

Which were the gentiles involved in the persians and macabees and romans then, where the imperial authorities "got involved later"? Just out of interest? FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know of conflicts where the Persians got involved, but if there were any it would have been conflicts between the returning Babylonian exiles and gentiles then living in Judea -- perhaps Philistines. You just wrote Macabees but above you wrote Macedonians. Do you know what you are talking about? In any event, when the Macedonian Imperial authorities got involved in conflicts it would have been between Jews and gentiles living in the Decapolis or other Hellenic cities. When the Romans got involved it could have been in conflicts between Jews and gentiles living in Ceasarea. Don't you know this stuff? If not, why are you trying to write the article? And you still haven't explained to me why you reject Tcherikover. Slrubenstein

4 Again, the article is on the historic and cultural background. Jewish views, whatever they are, are germane to that background and essential for its understanding. The quote is an accurate representative of typical Jewish views. It is not possible to accurately represent the cultural origins of the time of Jesus without accurately in their own words stating where the jews were coming from in recent memory at the time. (If you are still concerned that this is not clear, the remedy is to explain the quote's origins)

So please explain the quote's origins. You think all Jews are alike. I don't deny that that quote illustrates "a' Jewish view, I just say it is a view that has no place in an encyclopedia article. It odes not reflect the view of Jewish historians, and it does not reflect the jews of th first century. Slrubenstein

Its a statement by a Jew, attempting to summaruise how he feels jews felt at that time. FInd a better one that captures it and use that, or summarise a range. The purpose of the quote is to show how jews felt (emotion) not thought (conceptual). FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I am not convinced the article needs a quote. But if you want a quote, please do not use this crappy non-authoritative quote. Look for one from a real historian. How about this:

All the Judaisms of the Hellenistic period, of both the diaspora and the land of Israel, were Hellenized, that is, were integral parts of the culture of the ancient world. Some varieties of Judaism were more hellenized than others, but none was an islandunto itself. It is a mistake to imagine that the land of Palestine preserved a "pure" form of Judaism and that the diaspora was the home of adulterated or diluted forms of Judaism. The term "Hellensitic Judaism" makes snese, then, only as a chronological indicator for the period from Alexander the Great to the Macabees or perhaps to the Roman conquests of the first century BCE. As a descriptive term for a certain type of Judaism, however, it is meaningless because all the Judaisms of the Hellenistic period were "Hellenistic." Cohen 1987: 37 Slrubenstein

5 Again, you miss the point. Saying "X% lived in towns, Y% in villages" or some such would not be a "cultural" description. It's a demographic one. Culturally most Jews at the time were hard working. Culturally most were God fearing. Culturally most lived in villages.

"culture" involves all spheres of meaningful human activity, see culture. In any event, please provide the evidence for "most Jews were hard working," and the evidence for "most Jews were god-fearing" Slrubenstein

One speaks of the middle ages as "superstitious" because that is the general sense of the era. The general sense of the era was poverty and village life. Anthropologically in such circumstances there arent many "slackers". Boys start work helping their fathers, girls their mothers, from a young age, more so when money is scarce. God-fearing - "sense of the age": they were not as a rule hellenised, village people tended to be less hellenised than city people. I can look up the stats, but I dont have them here, can you check that one for me? FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

The "one" you talk of is not an historian and should not be writing encyclopedia articles. In fact, the whole purpose of an enecyclopedia article is to correct their ignorant views -- to educate them. See the above quote. Slrubenstein

6 Corruption is measured by most historians standards. Earlier emporors lived and thrived. Emporors and rulers of 1 CE era tended to be murdered, lived shorter reigns, were by any standard crueler than their predecessors of 150 years earlier, tended to polarise more between military rulers and hedonistic ones, and the like.

Who makes this argument? And what do you mean about earlier emporers 150 years ago? We are talking about the Julian emperors -- the very first dynasty of emporers. It's not like there were many more emporors before them. You think Tiberius or Caligula had a shorter life than Mark Anthony or Pompey? really! Where do you get this stuff from? Slrubenstein

Look at the trend. But okay, perhaps I over stated. I am thinking of the emporers maybe 100 or 200 years later perhaps, round 200-300 CE, when rome had declined some. I'll concede this one could be inaccurate. FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

7 Again, there is a cutoff point on the article. The matters which are cultural and historic background are relevant. Perhaps you can indicate which exact items you mean, by a link to the edit which removed them? Then I can check this.

Sorry, I do not understand your point here. Slrubenstein

8The Mandeans were mentioned because that is compromise, and a basis for discussion. Others mentioned them, your view is not the only one to count.

Oh for goodness sake, don't you knwo what an encyclopedia is? So what, soemone else mentioned them. Okay, here goes: "There is micoroscopic life on Jupitor." There, I mentioned it. Now, for the sake of compromise, will you put this in the article? I hope not, because that would be a stupid thing to do! Microscopic life on jupitor has nothing to do with this article, even if I insist you put it in. Just because another contributor likes the mandeans does not mean it goes into the article. THIS IS NOT WHAT COLLABORATION MEANS. Collaboration is people who ahare one goal: improving the article. The criteria for improvement are in our policy: NPOV and verifiability. Mandeans simply have no place in this article. There is no evidence they existed in 1st century palestine or had anything to do with John the Baptsits or Jesus. I know my view isn't the only one to count. But the principle is NOY that all views must be included, it is that all views must be taken into account. Well, we took CheeseDreams' view into account: we considered it, and saw that it had not value or merit. Finito! Slrubenstein

Thats why I left it in. To see if it would be justified or consensus'd out. Its an odd point to make, so I wasnt sure what it signified. So I didnt assume. FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

It didn't strike you as strange when I asked CheeseDreams for sources or evidence and he couldn't provide any? And don't you think that if you are going to contribute to this article you have some responsibility to do research? You edited together a version. Take responsibility for your edits. I take responsibility for mine. Slrubenstein

9 Likewise the next comment - it was a contribution by others, left in to be discussed. Perhaps relevant or accurate, perhaps not. But it was a statement which might have meant something, so it was left for discussion (remember thats what I said needed to happen next? Mediation means giving others a say-so). In other words, ask first.

Okay, I am discussing it. Let's discuss it. I have serious reservations. Lwet's discuss it in the talk page before putting it in the article; after all this is what talk pages are for. Slrubenstein

fair enough. I'm, ok with that. I left in what seemed odd enough that it might have had some point, for others to consider too. FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

10 Again, read any book on Judaism. A good one. The Jews always had two sides to their religion, temple worship, and halakhah/prayer. That is historically factual, and the reason the Jews did not vanish with their temple.

Are you being thick, or mean? You know very well that the Children of Israel -- meaning those who lived up until the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians -- di dnot have the mishnah. Period. To make this claim is ignorant. Or are you refering to the dual heritage thing? You mention temple worship and then halacha and prayer. But you know that prayer is a form of avodah and comparable to temple worship, and that halacha involves civil, political, and ritual elements. To reduce this to "two" sides is an insult to Judaism. Slrubenstein

No insults please. When you say "always" you dont mean back to antiquity. When I used "always" I meant "for many hundreds of years". Apologies if thats caused you to misread it. But the temple worship goes back to sinai (1500-1300 BCE) and the temple itself (950 BCE0. Halakhah and the studies that belong to the oral traduition and became the Mishnah go back almost as far. They had an oral version. I didnt say they had it in written form, is all. But Mishnah (or what became mishnah) existed in oral form for hundreds of years prior. FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

That is a particular POV. It is a legitimate POV but it is only one POV. But most historians would say you are wrong. The Temple wan't constructed until 900+ BCE. Before that time Jews had various sacred places. There is no historical substantiation for the account concerning the Ark in the desert in Numbers. The first evidence of the law is quite some time after that. I mean, if you want to be NPOV and not merely assume an Orthodox Jewish POV. In any event, you seem to be missing my point which is that these things do not reduce to "two" dimensions. That is what I was objecting to. Slrubenstein

11 "Children of Israel" ... again, that is someones wording used out of respect. It is not an edit I made, it is one retained because someone else used it, whose words presumably were thought through. The correct way to address that is to 1) comment as requested and 2) seek consensus.

12 "Apolcalypse" - if this is borrowed, then fix it or comment. Its a minor point.

That is why I deleted it when I revised your version. I didn't think you'd object. Slrubenstein

I'd have liked others to have a chance in case we were mmistaken. You deprived them of that. FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Do you really mean this? Please think about what you are saying. The implication is no one should edit, because as soon as someone edits they deprive someone else the right to have made that edit. Slrubenstein

13"Hypothesised" - if you don't know... ask first.

I asked this several times in discussion over the past week or so and no one could give me any answer. Since no one ever had a justification, why put it in? And okay, so, you put it in and then I asked. I asked. Now answer, please. What is the answer? you are being evasive by not answering my question. Slrubenstein

14 "Seems speculative". Seems like this translates "I dont know but I dont really want to bother finding out". Again, ask first.

Again, I did ask first, in the two or three weeks prior to your writing your version. I never got an answer. Well, okay, you wrote your version. So now I ask. Yup, I aksed. SO what is the answer? Again, you are being evasive. You know the questions I am asking, you are writing all this supposedly to respond. So answer my questions. Slrubenstein

15 "Jewish rejection"... again, the section on rejection was very specific. It was not "jewish rejection of Christianity", was it, as you say. It was a general cultural description of "factors which would have inclined the Jews to reject a variety of cults, groups and beliefs". But again, you mis read and didn't ask first

You miss the point. It is a poorly written statement that conflates a historical process and never specifies which Christianity is being rejected. Seriously: did you just make this stuff up? I really want to know. Slrubenstein

See below. FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

16 I like this: "Yohanan" is not Hebrew for Jonathan; the Baptist's name was "John" (or it's Hebrew equivalent, Yohanan). Does anyone else spot the illogic?

You are kidding, right? In your version you translate Yohanan as Jonathan. That is just false. If you can't even admit when you have made a mistake, what kind of human being are you?

See below. Remember Davids friend "Jonathan"? David and Jonathan? Universally called "Jonathan" not John? Yohannan? Check it out. "John" is not hebrew...... FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't look illogical to me. So, what was his name? How was it first written? What's the Aramaic version? The New Testament was first written in Greek, though some think there was an earlier version of Matthew in Aramaic. I don't know of anyone who thinks it was first written in Hebrew. Did some other groups write about him in Hebrew? Wesley 00:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What on earth are you saying? There are two Hebrew names: Jonatan and Yohana. Yonatan is represented in English as Jonathan. Yohanan is represented in English as John. Are you making fun of me? Ar eyou yanking my chain? Waht does "Jonathan" have to do with "Yohanan? John the Baptist was not names Jonathan -- Jon is not John. Jesus, are you seriously trying to argue this? Do you know anything? I am seriously starting to question your competence here and I really am serious, not trying to be rude, because I know you have made some reasonable edits to other articles. But what you are saying here is a charicature of a nut, you must be making fun of me somehow ... Slrubenstein

17 The organisation is clean. Culture and history has several aspects. It is important to be able to view cultural factors separate from historic, to understand cleanly what each institution was and what it signified, and the like. A historic narrative fromat aloneis inappropriate - its not just "a history of the holy land 200 BCE to 200 AD". The intent is to give an understanding of the cultural tensions, issues, backgrounds too.

There is no human history outside of cultural frames, there is no culture except as historically specified. Haven't you done any research? Slrubenstein

It seems to me that a chronological organization stands a much better chance of being NPOV. Organizing it into topics is much more of an interpretive task, which risks getting a POV embedded into the organizational structure. Wesley 00:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, you wanted specific responses. Thats them. FT2 17:57, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture. I find most of these unsatisfying. But you still won't answer my questions. Let's try one more time:

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. Please answer my question: Who hypothesized this? On the basis of what evidence? How do they handle the problems in their argument I point out? I am asking, please answer. Slrubenstein

I have no idea what scholarship the section on Jewish reactions to cults and messianism is based on, it all seems speculative. Please tell me what scholars make this argument. I am asking, please answer. Slrubenstein

Both are fair questions - I dont have the reference books for either (some things you read, remember but dont necessarily remember the exact source):

1. Did you notice that you in fact completely mis-read this one? I didn't write "Jews believed other people should obey Jewish Law". Writing that sentence out in full, what it says (or should say is:

Early Christians had not made headway with what they felt their natural audience should be, namely the Jews. (they evangelised to both, but its clear initially they expected the Jews would listen more)
So they a) felt rejected and b) turned more to spread the Gospels amongst the Gentiles.
So It is hypothesised that they drew a line separating themselves from the Jews, by divesting themselves of many Jewish customs and beliefs the early jewish-christians had perpetuated into early christianity.

This hypothesis makes no sense. You could have had Jewish Christians obeying Jewish law, and Gentile Christians not obeying Jewish law. This hypothesis is so silly it is hard for me to believe. So if I am wrong and it is a legitimate hypothesis I want to know who made it. Slrubenstein

As a clear side effect, dropping more Jewish traditions made their beliefs more palatable to the Gentiles (they could have converted anyway, buty there is no denying that just because some would convert, removing restrictions encouraged others)

Not logical. The whole notion of a "Judeo-Christian ethic" is that gentiles found some ideas of Jews appealing and accepted them even though Jews observed practices that the Gentiles had no interest in practicing. Keeping or dropping Jewish traditions had no affect whatsoever on the teachings of Jesus they would have preached to Gentiles. Slrubenstein

And this happened for two key reasons,

a) it separated them more from the Jews who had mostly rejected them, and who in any event were becoming seen as a 'problem' by Rome and therefore christians might have been caught up in coming conflict (it was politically useful not to in fact be Jews), and

Wrongo. Even after the Bar Kohba rebellion the Romans treated Jews better than they treated Christians. Slrubenstein

b) The removal of various beliefs laws and rituals which early christians would have kept, basically the dismissal of halakhah and its ultimate replacement by pure faith alone, simultaneously made them more accessible to gentiles.

Why? Are you saying an Orthodox Jew can't be a high-school teacher in the US, because the fact that s/he observes halacha means that students will reject lessons in English, algebra, or U.S. istory? This is offensive -- but just plain wrong. Slrubenstein

I don't think as paraphrases go, thats entirely misrepresentative of some fairly common academic views. My apologies though if it was poorly worded.

2. For some Jewish points of view, Jewish reactions, you actually have to go to Jewish sources. Now lets try asking the same question the other way:

Given what you know of the Jews, how they are now, what documented evidence says they felt towards other "Messiahs" such as Sabbattai Lev in the 1400's,

Do you mean Shabbatai Tzvi? He was in the 1600s. Once again, you cause me to doubt that you know what you are talking about, and you cause me to question your ability to edit factual substantive claims in this article. By they way, you cannot possible believe that Jewish belief did not change in a 1500 year period! If so, you have no business working on this article which is all about historical context. An example from the seventeenth century has no bearing on the first century. Slrubenstein

Given what their books and traditions say of their reactions to offshoots of Judaism which acclaimed one person as divine,

First century messiahs and prophets never claimed they were diving. Slrubenstein

Given Jewish reactions both biblical historic and Halakhic all the way back to the Golden Calf,
GIVEN that they were under intense pressure from Rome (and we know what pressure does to Jewish sense of Identity from the Macabbes, all the way through to 1948)....

What do you imagine Jews would think of people preaching non-mainstream beliefs, whether Christ-centred or otherwise?

(Hint before you answer - consider how many non-mainstream Jewish cults were accepted over the millenia, and how many rejected? And why rejected?)

Hint: Let us have some evidence from the first century CE. This is called historical research. This is what writing an encyclopedia article is all about. Don't give me your own speculatiojns -- that is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not for orginal research. Your questions above are irrelevant. Slrubenstein

Research that first.

Then notice what the section actually said, and that it was deliberately not Christ-specific. It is generic Jewish reaction, and quite representative. Specifically it said jews tended historically to reject many new cults, beliefs and messiahs because:

Jews have considerable law on false prophets (confirmed)
Jews as a group tend to be protective of their national identity and polarise under pressure (accurate)

You are ignorant of first century historiography and making an anachronistic claim. Slrubenstein

Major reasons for non-mainstream acceptance of any new interpretation would likely be for certain key reasons, including that jews as a group even back then, tended to be conservative (confirmed in gospels and history books), sceptical of radical new interpretations (are you denying it?), disinterested in afterlife/salvation stories (mainstream judaism yes, but variable), and political tensions (accurate).

You just utterly miss the point. Jews in this period were making all sorts of original claims; what you call "the mainstream" did not clearly exist back then. The Rabbis who came to dominate Jewish culture were making radical claims! Your reasoning is specious and ignorant. Slrubenstein

Remind me which exactly of these statements of "reasons Jews rejected many cults" are you saying is inaccurate?

This runs counter to the diversity of beliefs and practices that characterized the Jews in pre-Temple, first Temple, and Second Temple periods. You are making stuff up based on an ideal from a certain ideology. This is not the result of NPOV research. Slrubenstein FT2 21:12, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I do not think you have responded to any of my objections satisfactorally, with evidence from serious historical research. Slrubenstein

Appropriate sources

Two brief remarks about the process here. First, I think historical research should be consulted and relied upon as much as possible. I say this even though I disagree with many of the conclusions of these "critical historians". Better to cite these academics then let any wikipedian make stuff up, myself included. Second (and related) point, if we want the article to represent "consensus", it should be the consensus of historians, not the consensus of wikipedians. We editors should not ever be in the position of voting on what is and isn't historical. If we did, next thing you know we'll be voting on whether the earth is round or flat, or on whether the Holocaust happened. Is there any way we can agree on what appropriate sources are?? Wesley 04:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have documented over 125,000 hits on Google regarding other messiahs, some of them quite scholarly and all of the relevant articles indicating the widely accepted opinion of biblical scholars that multiple messianic figures were active in the region during the first century.

Google is no substitute for books. The best current historiography is in books and articles, not the web. Slrubenstein

Darling reader, historiography is about books. CheeseDreams 00:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have also examined several texts by historians, each of which also used the term messianic to describe rebel leaders, prophets, and purported miracle workers in the context. This wide acceptance is due to the primary historic texts outside the Gospels by Josephus. However, Slrubenstein has repeatedly stated Josephus, considered authoritative by most historians, is not acceptable as a citation.

First, I never ever said Josephus is not acceptable as a citation. Where did I say this? I think you are lying. Second, most historians do not think Josephus is an authority. They thin his work is an important historical source but must be read critically. See Cohen's book on Josephus for starts. Slrubenstein

Slrubenstein previously had the following in his comment As a matter of fact, Josephus is my source for claiming that some people CheeseDreams listed as "messiah's were not messiahs (because Jesus calls them prophets, and never calls them messiahs) however it was removed by John Kenney at 01:07 on 24th November - either John Kenney is a sock puppet or his is editing people's comments to change the appearance of the person CheeseDreams 01:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I am a sock puppet. Or, perhaps, I added a huge number of comments interspersed through another section and hit edit conflicts three or four times. Although I made efforts to incorporate everything, I could not find where this comment was supposed to be when trying to incorporate it. I apologize for the removal. john k 01:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Therefore, and among other reasons, I question this article's supposed devotion to historians if our self-proclaimed most studied contributor does not, in fact, follow their lead.

Fortunately, I have secured access to ATLA, an index to the primary biblical and historic journals regarding this field of study and am currently researching a supported framework of sections for a rewritten article. - Amgine

I have added a few sources and a citation to the FT2 article, and will add more tomorrow.

Comments on Slr's version

In the interest of trying to lay out my opinions, I thought I'd try to quickly (although this may turn out to be not so quick) lay out my criticisms of both of the competing versions of the article. I'll start with Slr's.

I do feel as though it takes rather a while to get to the period of Jesus. I'm not sure if this can be avoided, though - most of the information seems relatively salient.

You should know that some contributors, such as CheeseDream, feel that Jesus should not even be mentioned in this article. Most contributors felt that it was okay to mention Jesus, but that the emphasis should be on the general historical and cultural context. I was trying to accommotdate their views. Slrubenstein

Well, it's fine to emphasize the context. I just find it odd to write an article that is entirely context for another article, without even referencing the subject of that article other than in the introduction. This is much more a problem in the other version of the article, though. john k 23:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should the issue of the Hasmonaeans claiming first the high priesthood (under Jonathan) and then the kingship (under Aristobulus I) be mentioned? This seems significant given discussions of the messiah and all that.
Antipater the Idumaean ought to be mentioned, no?
There should be a discussion of Herod's reign, given that he appears in the Gospels and is rather famous
It ends rather oddly, with a lengthy discussion of the emergence of rabbinic Judaism, which seems somewhat extraneous to the topic at hand, at least at this level of detail. How does the Bar-Kochba revolt or the Talmud relate to the context of Jesus decades or centuries earlier? Certainly, it seems odd that the "Emergence of Rabbinic Judaism" section is longer than that "Emergence of Christianity" section.
There are various copy edits (some of which I have done, and some not)
I do wonder if “Cultural and historical background of Jesus” is appropriate as the title. It seems more like a “Cultural and historical background of Christianity,” especially given that it goes past the destruction of the 2nd Temple.

I think the real solution is to have as little post-2nd Temple material as possible. However, I think there is a need for some post-2nd Temple material for two reasons. First, many historians writing about Jesus refer to that material as relevant to understanding Jesus' historical horizon. Second, the way Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism emerged helps explain many of the anachronisms and much of the bias in the Gospel accounts of Jesus. Slrubenstein

I would agree that there should be something, it just seems like too much at the moment. john k 23:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Occasionally (especially in the first paragraph), it seems as though an excessive number of sources are being mentioned. Is it really necessary to mention five different historians in the intro, for instance?

Next I'll try to go through the FT2 version. john k`

Comments on FT2/Amgine's version

I will now do for the latest version of FT2/Amgine's version of the article what I did for Slr's version.

"For those who believe in his existence" is a terrible opening - "According to the Gospels" seems a lot more NPOV to me.
Surely Christianity did arise in Roman Palestine - it was not merely alleged to do so.
Some think it arose in Rome, and was retroactively made to have originated in Jerusalem, particularly due to the apparant lack of any early christianity in Jerusalem or its surroundings (as would be expected), except perhaps for the Ebionites who were very different. Ive just noticed no-one has mentioned them in the article -maybe they have too much to do with the history of Christianity rather than Jesus.
I would agree that some discussion of the Ebionites would make sense. At any rate, can you cite some historians/religious scholars who think that Christianity arose in Rome, and why people in Rome would choose to create a religion based on someone who is purportedly a Jew who was executed by the Romans in Palestine?

Christian tradition has it that the Christians were forcibly driven out of Jerusalem early on, which led to its early expansion. This might also explain the lack of evidence for early Christianity in Jerusalem. Wesley 04:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The second paragraph is weird and unencyclopedic. Encyclopedia articles should not have to justify their existence.
Id like that cut, but I think many people (see early discussion in the archives) wanted to keep it. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, I'd be interested to see if anyone currently involved will defend this stuff. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ditto the third paragraph
Can't remember what that is. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
More of the same... john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I generally prefer Slr's parenthetical reference to the Historicity of Jesus article than it's getting an entire paragraph to itself.
Everyone else preferred the other version. (And it took ages to determine what that ought to be). CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, I don't feel incredibly strongly on this one. If a strong majority really prefers a wording like this, it doesn't seem unworkably awful. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
History does not overlap and is entirely separable from culture, religion, and politics?
It should be seperated as much as possible, this isn't an essay. Its a text to look things up in. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, individual articles on Saducees, Pharisees, Prophets, Messiahs, and so forth are useful for looking things up in. I don't see why this article should essentially be a bunch of mini-articles stuck together. this article should try to form a single piece discussing the "Cultural and historical background of Jesus". john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that these four (history, culture, religion, and politics) need to be discussed separately. They are all tied together, and dividing them up like this will only lead to unnecessary repetition
It is entirely possible to seperate them, and reads much more clearly as well. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I imagine that we won't be able to get anywhere arguing about this, because I don't see how this way of organizing the article makes any sense at all, and certainly I can't begin to imagine how a version that essentially consists of taking apart Slr's version and randomly separating out different paragraphs from it into different sections of the article can be considered to read better than the actual article as he wrote it. The FT2 version of the article is constantly giving completely out of context information in what appears to be an exquisitely random article. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why on earth are we discussing Canaanites, Philistines, and King Saul?
Slrubenstein went into the "history" excessively, prompting FT2 to insert more "historical" material into the concensus version. I have no objection to removing much of the detail from the earlier history sections.CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, that's something, sort of. I think both versions probably include too much early history, but Slr's is mostly to the point and relevant, while most of this seems to be FT2's ramblings. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Did "prophets and priests" really rule the "first Jewish kingdom" along with kings? Also, isn't "Jewish" an inappropriate term to refer to the Israelites in the First Temple period? Also, what about the Kingdom of Israel?
(a) See Judges
The book of Judges predates the first Temple and the monarchy. You are mixing up two very different periods. Slrubenstein
Indeed. The Judges were certainly not contemporary with the later kings. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Readers should note that the dating of the book of judges is put by most scholars to around 600BC or later. CheeseDreams
Sure. But the events that it describes are clearly said to occur before the establishment of the Kingdom. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(b) Are you claiming they were not Jews?
Most historians would agree they weren't Jews, although I think it is okay to use the word "Jew" when talking solely about members of the tribe of Judah. Slrubenstein
I could see using "Jew" to talk about people in the Kingdom of Judah, as well. Using it to refer to people from the northern Kingdom seems extremely dubious. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Readers should note that Jew doesn't mean Judahite. CheeseDreams 00:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But that's exactly what it derives out of. The inhabitants of the northern Kingdom are never called Jews, nor are the Israelites as a whole during the united kingdom period. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(c) What about it? CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The implication of the current form of the article is that there was a single Jewish kingdom before the Babylonian captivity. This is, of course, incorrect. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you call the Kingdom of Judea the first kingdon, and the Hasmoneans the second kingdom, what do you call the kingdom of Israel? It is an obvious question, and you should answer it (and maybe explain why you don't understand it). Slrubenstein
I seem to remember someone accusing me of sock puppetry when I apparantly responded to a question directed at another user. CheeseDreams 00:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah, so you are suggesting that Slr is your sockpuppet? That would be rather unlikely. At any rate, this is hardly a defense of the question.
Why no discussion of the Second Temple and the Persian period? The idea that there was a continuity between the First Temple period and the Second Temple period seems highly dubious to me.
Yes I noticed that too. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Glad to see it. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Intertextual note: This is the problem with splitting up all the different aspects, rather than trying to present a single unified narrative. You either leave out stuff that makes the section seem incomplete (as in this utterly inadequate history section), or you repeat stuff you've already said.
You were stating earlier that the history section should be cut down. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I thought the earlier history should be cut down. I certainly don't think that it should be cut out of the history and put into a different section. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think Slr's discussion of Hellenistic influence is far superior to the one in this article. (Also, don't the hundred-odd years of Ptolemaic rule deserve a mention if we're going through all the empires)
Who is the "Emperor" who found himself personally affronted? Macedonian rulers were kings, not emperors.
I don't understand the need for a lengthy dicussion of the Maccabean Revolt
Because it enforces the understanding of why there was a strong cultural idea of independance, and that the Romans were a recent re-imposition of non-independance thing.
Well, obviously it should be mentioned. I just don't see the need for all the detail. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This "strong cultural idea of independence" is at best a vast oversimplification and probably just wrong; it certainly shows real ignorance of Jewish history and the historiography of this period. Slrubenstein
Readers should see the article historiography for the proper use of the term. Also they should probably see the article on Arrogance and Vanity if they exist, for context. CheeseDreams 00:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah, ad hominem. Well done.
The Saducees, as well as the sages and scribes, seem to appear out of nowhere in the discussion of the Second Kingdom.
Once again, there is no discussion of Herod
I seem to remember it was in one of the history sections, though the link to Iduma seems to have dissappeared.Maybe you are looking at the wrong version of FT2s text?
I think in Slr's version there was some text on Herod at the bottom. I added a bit into that version about Herod. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Christianity is not mentioned at all in the historical overview!
Christianity HAD NOT HAPPENED. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, considering the article is titled "Cultural and historical background of Jesus," the historical overview should attempt to, you know, lay out how Christianity, or at least Jesus, fits into the whole thing. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I once again protest the way this article is organized. Going back from the post-Rebellion period to the first temple era seems pointless, and is based around a bizarre idea that history and culture are unrelated.
I once again refute the protest. It is based around the idea that history and culture can be discussed seperately - see Historian and Anthropologist which are not the same by any means. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No. I don't say that they can't be discussed separately. Of course they can. I just find this way of doing things to be ridiculous. Have you ever heard of "cultural history"? It means the history of culture. A discussion of the culture of Roman Palestine in the 1st century AD and the centuries preceding would fall under such a rubrik. Separating out culture implies that the cultural development is unrelated to the political development, which is ridiculous and misleading. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why the mention of Orthodox and Reform Judaism? That seems utterly irrelevant and unhistorical.
Because Slrubenstein won't accept "later forms" and insists on "Rabbinic" even though he was the only one objecting to "later forms". CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm saying that the whole mention of later forms of Judaism is entirely irrelevant to this article. And the idea that the Saducees and Hellenized Jews have much in common with modern Reform Jews seems absurd. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I objected because it was unhistorical -- so now you defend a claim that is even less historical? Slrubenstein
Dear reader, making one accusation is not the same as defending ones own position, thus objecting to the term "later forms" (agreed to by the other parties) is not the same as justifying "Rabbinic" (disapproved of by the other parties). CheeseDreams
Who are all these "other parties" involved here? You will forgive me if I am not terribly willing to believe that you are accurately summarizing the views of others on this article. At any rate, if something is wrong, it is wrong, whether or not a majority approves of it. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why on earth is the discussion of Judea and Galilee as client states put into the culture section? This is ridiculous.
Because it is predominantly a demographic and political feature. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So politics isn't part of history, either? What is history, then? john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah, now on to key institutions - once again, I don't understand the way this article is being organized.
Once again (maybe twice), Anthropologists are not Historians. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, but historians certainly talk about institutions and culture. That you seem to think they don't suggests you have a rather strange view of what history is. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't like these kind of "most people don't understand this topic" sentences like "The Jewish priesthood is often misunderstood by non Jews."
That derives from Slrubenstein's text - you will have to take it up with him. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Readers should note the presence of the word derives (and look it up in a dictionary). CheeseDreams 00:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, this material isn't present in the version of the article currently under protection, which is Slr's version with some minor changes and additions by me. In what way does this derive from his text? john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a lie. I never wrote this sentence. Slrubenstein
The sections here are tiny. I still don't see why this material should be stripped from the historical overview.
So? Its an encyclopedia not a novel with nice evenly spaces sections. Some articles are HUGE others are tiny. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't see why we need sections that are essentially references to other articles. A link will do just as well. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Religion and Cults - once again a discussion of the Saducees and Pharisees. This is ridiculously repetitive.
From the point of view of their religious nature. This is not a repetition. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not exactly a repetition. But various material on the Saducees and Pharisees that should go all together has been split up so that it ultimately becomes incomprehensible. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Uh...Jesus?? This article is even more unfocused and less connected to Jesus than Slr's version. There is no discussion of how the Gospel story fits into the larger context - the article seems to essentially assume that you've read the gospels. Surely at the least Pontius Pilate deserves some mention - after all, he is the key personage tying the gospel story (and the Christian faith) into the thread of classical and Jewish history. Both Apostles and Nicene Creeds specifically mention Christ suffering under Pilate. More broadly, the article assumes that we know everything about Jesus already, and thus doesn't make any effort to explain how the stuff in the article connects to the Gospel story.
Information on Jesus can be found at Jesus, New testament views of Jesus, Christian views of Jesus, Miracles of Jesus, etc. The importance of NOT detailing Jesus was agreed by all but 2 of the earlier contributers, and all but 1 (Slrubenstein himself) of those that Slrubenstein had not asked into the debate. As Pedant said (and I have paraphrased)THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT JESUS IT IS ABOUT BACKGROUND, IT SHOULD ONLY MENTION JESUS IN PASSING WHERE NECESSARY, AND GO ON TO EXPLAIN THE DETAIL OF THE ASIDE NOT OF JESUS. FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO REFER TO A STORY ABOUT JESUS TO MENTION THAT RABBIS OFTEN TAUGHT ON STREET CORNERS TO GATHER A CROWD CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article started as a daughter article on how historians view Jesus (not whether he existed or not, but rather, what he did and the meaning of his words and deeds). There is no other article on how historians interpret Jesus' life; this is that article. Slrubenstein
Exactly. The point of the article is to give context to help people understand Jesus. If you want to write an article about 1st century Palestine, write that article, but that's not what this is. I agree with CheeseDreams that the article should not use stories about Jesus to explain the context of 1st century Roman Palestine. That would be ridiculous. But the point of the article is to use the context of 1st century Roman Palestine to explain Jesus. Some explicit references to how the various things discussed in the article relate to Jesus seems to me to be entirely necessary, or else the article has nothing to do with its supposed subject matter. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dear reader, Slrubenstein made this claim many many other times in the past. Repeatedly it has been condemned by the others because This is not that article, this is not The historical Jesus. if you want an article on the views of historians, write the article The historical Jesus, this is not that article. CheeseDreams 00:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"The Historical Jesus" is indeed not what this article is. But it is an article which is supposed to put Jesus in context. That requires mentioning Jesus now and again. For instance, would it makes sense to have an article called Cultural and historical background of the French Revolution which spoke entirely about trends in ancien regime France without ever relating this to the French Revolution itself? john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Does this suggest a compromise? I would have no objection to making FT2's latest version of the article the article "Cultural and Historical Background" IF CheeseDreams and others wimply want to take my version (the one currently protectses) and re-title it "The Historical Jesus." Slrubenstein
I would certainly consider that an offer for compromise. I could not address its relevance or accuracy for that title, but I'm sure that would be discussed in that fork. I would recuse myself from involvement in that article - I would not want to accidently be a source of contention. (I would suggest, however, that Slrubenstein remove the draft notes after the Sources section.) - Amgine

This strikes me as an awful idea. In the first place, Slr's version is clearly not an article on the historical Jesus - it's an article on the historical context in which Jesus arose. In the second place, FT2's article is just as clearly not an article about the Cultural and historical background of Jesus. I'm not sure what it is, but that's very clearly not what it is. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is, however, a reasonable and traditional (on Wikipedia) method to develop two separate articles which are stopping all progress on either. Generally the articles begin to converge as each is given an opportunity to develop, and eventual merging of the two may occur. Sometimes the articles diverge, and develop to address separate core concepts, in which case they would of course continue on their separate trajectories. There are of course other potential outcomes, but these are the most relevant to this particular discussion.

More importantly, I believe this is a reasonable response to an impasse, which I think is evident to most of the participants of the past 3+ weeks of discussion. - Amgine 01:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree, splitting this into two articles for a while could be very helpful. To succeed, participants need to agree (or at least agree not to fight over) titles for the two articles, and the topic and scope of each article. Is this worth pursuing? Wesley 04:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The whole Jewish reactions to cults and messianism section seems deeply POV.
As did Slrubenstein's version. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No one ever explained why my version was NPOV. I did however raise the question of verifiability. My version is verifiable; CheeseDream's is not. Slrubenstein
Dear reader, no-one ever claimed Slrubensteins version was NPOV. The statements were that it was POV. CheeseDreams 00:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right, I meant to write, "no one ever explained to me why or how my edits lacked NPOV" Slrubenstein
It's clear enough what he means. Slr gave references and explanations in defense of his version. The version in FT2/Amgine's version of the article was attacked on various grounds earlier in the talk page, and no convincing defense of it has been made. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At any rate, there's a start. I look forward to responses. john k 17:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments on Mediation

Don't you find it interesting that Slrubenstein is now slagging off the Mediator? CheeseDreams 21:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't seen that evidence, but I believe this is the inappropriate venue for such a discussion. - Amgine 21:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First, what do you mean "slagging off?" Second, what do you mean "mediator? I am not sure if the mediator has been agreed on or chosen yet, but so far the mediator has made no comment on this page. Slrubenstein

This is not the appropriate place for this discussion, please use Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation to communicate with mediators, or user talk pages. - Amgine 23:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its in the recent edits since a few days -

"please do not use this crappy non-authoritative quote"
"I went through his version carefully. I found it full of inaccuracies, oversimplifications, anachronisms, sloppy scholarship, and lack of NPOV"
"Are you being thick, or mean?"
"Haven't you done any research?"
"really! Where do you get this stuff from? "

CheeseDreams 00:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FT2 is not a mediator in any reasonable respect. Certainly by creating his own version of the article, he has abdicated any right he may have had to be considered a mediator. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1) by the comments of him, others, and Slrubenstein to him, in the earlier part of this talk, EVERYONE treated him as the mediator

2) he did not "create his own version" of the article. He applied the consensus and issues raised in the talk of this page TO the article.

CheeseDreams 01:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

None of these statements were addressed to the mediator. Also, what do you mean "slagging off?" I really do believe that FT2 (the contributor to whom I addressed some of these) hasn't done any research, used a crappy, non-authoritative quote, etc. What do you mean "mediator? I am not sure if the mediator has been agreed on or chosen yet, but so far the mediator (Llywrch) has made no comment on this page. Slrubenstein

This is not the appropriate place for this discussion, please use Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation to communicate with mediators, or user talk pages. - Amgine 23:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the article while you work out a compromise wording. I have not reverted first, I rarely do that onlt in the case of vandalsim or crystal clear POV pushing with no discussion, and as far as I can see people are talking here. I hope (nay expect) to lift the protection very shortly. If you all come to a compromise before i remember to check this page please let me know and I'll lift the protection straight away. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 22:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions for next set of revisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FT2s Version

We should start work, after unblocking, on the consensus version constructed by the mediator of this talk page.

It was not a consensus version, and it was not written by the mediator -- and a mediator wouldn't do something like that anyway. Slrubenstein

Further, any view among so-called-historians about Jesus rather than about background should be in The historical Jesus.

Because, as Pedant and others have stated

THIS IS NOT THE ARTICLE The historical Jesus. THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT BACKGROUND

CheeseDreams 16:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pedant is only one view, and his is a minority view. Slrubenstein

First, FT2 is as far as I'm aware a self-proclaimed mediator of this talk page. While I appreciate all the work (s)he put into that version, putting a lot of work into a version does not by itself merit special status. Carefully combining the views of all the editors is also not the best way to get a good article or even a NPOV article, particularly if half or a large minority of the views so included are both factually wrong, and not representative of any significant group of people or historians. Wesley \

FROM THE VIEWS EXPRESSED EARLIER, Everyone treated FT2 as a mediator. ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE. That only changed when Slrubenstein discovered that the consensus was against him. CheeseDreams 21:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stop screaming. He was never mediator; I never treated him as mediator; the "consensus" is not against me -- only you, Amgine, and FT@ have disagreed strenuously with me (and without ever providing evidence to support your points). Give up the delusion that whatever "you" think is "the consensus." Slrubenstein

Second, if this article is to avoid "history" but focus on "background", I'm curious to know how we should learn about that background? Should we learn about it from the historical record as analyzed and interpreted by secular historians and "critical" historians? from Christian tradition? from Jewish tradition? Gnostic tradition? We need to have at least one acceptable source of information on which to base what we know or think we know about the background. Wesley \

Whom we learn about it from is irrelevant. If the marquis de sade had researched it and published a paper on the matter, his evidence would be just as acceptable. CheeseDreams 21:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood your point and it's not the history to which you object, but discussion of Jesus. If that's the case, I would remind you that the great majority of wikipedia editors here, like the great majority of scholars, agree that someone named Jesus who at least vaguely resembles the Jesus described by the four Gospels did exist in history, and the complete denial of the existence of the man Jesus is a radical, fringe view held by a small minority. Wesley 20:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would remind you that Christianity was once a radical, fringe view held by a small minority. Situations change. Truth always finds a way out. This is only the beginning. CheeseDreams 21:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So you acknowledge, then, that your goal here is not to create an encyclopedia showing the current state of human knowledge, but to advance your own radical fringe POV? john k 01:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What I am doing by writing the above paragraph is to remind you that claiming "Jesus did not exist is a radical fringe view held by a small minority" is a personal attack on those who hold that view, and does not in any way whatsoever affect the validity of the viewpoint. CheeseDreams 01:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No one has claimed that this is n article about Christianity. It is an article about Jesus in his historical context. That CheeseDreams cannot tell the difference between the two provides another explanation for why he is incapable of intelligent contributions or discussion. Slrubenstein

THIS IS NOT The historical Jesus IT IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT BACKGROUND. THIS IS NOT THAT ARTICLE. IF YOU WANT TO WRITE AN ARTICLE ABOUT The historical Jesus DO IT THERE. THIS IS NOT THAT ARTICLE CheeseDreams 01:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you believe that calling a belief a "radical fringe view held by a small minority" is in your words "personal attack on those who hold that view", and you also remind us that Christianity was once a "radical, fringe view held by a small minority," should I conclude that you are intending this to be understood as a personal attack on all Christians? Or only on the early Christians, back when Christianity was a radical fringe view? Wesley \

Stating that Christianity was once such a position (which is historical fact - it didn't appear with world acceptance and 1,000,000 followers overnight) is not a personal attack as it has neither apparant nor actual bearing on the argument, wheras the statement by John Kenney was an attempt at an ad hominem.CheeseDreams 08:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, IF I treated FT2 as a mediator in some way, it would have been as an informal mediator, someone who was admittedly trying to find compromise. I personally did not intend such treatment to implicitly grant him any formal, special rights or privileges as a mediator. Of course he should be granted the same respect granted to any wikipedia editor. Wesley \

Honestly, it is beginning to sound more and more as though you see your belief in Jesus' non-existence as the truth (which is fine of course), and that you expect Wikipedia to present this belief as the truth rather than one POV among many, which is not fine. I hope that this isn't the case, and that you will correct this misperception of mine. Wesley 02:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Compromise discussion

Yesterday Slrubenstein brought up a possible method to avoid a re-initiation of the revert wars which are plaguing this article. This suggestion, that the article should be forked into a version tentatively titled "The Historical Jesus" and the Cultural and historical background, imo has the potential to allow the articles to develop separately rather than the current impasse of neither version gaining strong edits/contributors due to the wars. I know at least two of us responded to this as a reasonable resolution, and two opposed (one as an unnecessary addition since one of the current versions is clearly superior; the other opposed the tentative title of the additional article.)

Would anyone else care to comment on Slrubenstein's suggestion? - Amgine 21:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As people have pointed out before, no-one has objected to Slrubenstein editing The historical Jesus instead. As pedant has stated This is not that article, this is not The historical Jesus. if you want an article on the views of historians, write the article The historical Jesus, this is not that article CheeseDreams 21:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I explained to you several times that this article started out as an article on the historical Jesus. This is not opinion, it is fact. If anyone (you, Pedant) claim otherwise you are simply wrong. ANd I am not right just because I am the one making the claim. All you need to do is go through the history of the Jesus article, from which this was taken as a daughter article, to see that it started as an article on the historical Jesus. It is there in the (Wikipedia) hisstorical record. Slrubenstein

Dear reader, please note that what this article started out as is irrelevant to what it becomes. CheeseDreams 01:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't caught up on the day's discusssions... I'd like to know, Slrubenstein, if you've retracted your offer of compromise or if it is still on the table? I'm not entirely sure the above paragraphs address that particular question? - Amgine 01:57, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I'll give this another day before I assume the offer of compromise has been retracted. - Amgine 19:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It isn't my offer of a compromise. It was a suggestion, partly sarcastic and partly serious. But it isn't up to you or to me -- it is up to others who work on this page. The wikipedia tradition is to allow for open discussion. If any of the many other contributors think this is a good idea, they will say so. Slrubenstein

I understood it was partly sarcastic, but also partly serious. I personally think it might be a good idea, which should be followed up on, as Wesley likewise mentioned. CheeseDreams has, I think, said s/he would not be opposed (which is, I know, rather different than in favour.) John Kenney has said he is opposed on the grounds of redundancy.

If we could agree amongst ourselves to develop these two articles without radical edit conflicts, perhaps both would have a chance to gain contributions and improvements. We could agree to check back, in a month say, and discuss whether they can/should merge - or we could just hold off on that discussion for now. I would suggest we put a time-limited moratorium on members of the two parties directly editing the other article without talk page agreements, just to avoid edit wars. (iow: I, for example, would not edit or revert your essay without first getting approval on the talk page for my edits for the period of the moratorium.)

Do any of these ideas have problems? Could these lead toward an end to the conflict? - Amgine 17:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, I think the version I have put a lot of work into has integrity -- that is, "The Historical Jesus" need to include background (perhaps going as far back as the first Temple). So my question is, what would the other article (the one you, CheeseDreams, and FT2 seem so committed to) be? You need to spell itout: two articles, "The historical Jesus" and, well, what would you call the other article? What would the justification be for two articles? I think you need to answer these two questions clearly before we can have the kind of discussion (not a vote, a real discussion) that can work towards a consensus agreement.

Now, if you say that the second article will be "culture and historical background" but without discussing Jesus, you will be re-proposing CheeseDream's position of a couple of weeks ago. And if you do that, I will voice this objection: if the article has nothing to do with Jesus, then what is the point of the article? I raised this question/objection several weeks ago and never got a satisfactory answer from CheesDreams. What would it be the cultural and historical background to?

Here is why I was being sarcastic: I think any discussion over the title is semantics. Any "Cultural and Historical backgrount to" article is going to discuss the relationship between the X and X's cultural and historical background, which is what the article curfrently does. As Wesley, John Kenny, and others have pointed out, CheeseDreams is either being insincere or stubborn, but his position amounts to "I don't believe Jesus existed so I don't want any articles abouot Jesus." But how can you have a "vultural and Historical Background of Jesus" without talking about Jesus?

Let me also point out that much of FT2 and CheeseDream's objections seem to have to do with things that have nothing to do with Jesus. I reiterate my view: they (and honestly, sometimes it seems like you too) simply reject me as a Wikipedia contributor. I have added much about the Pharisees, Millinerian prophets, and others that CheeseDream has rejected out of hand. His rejection of these things obviously doesn't have to do with his stance concerning Jesus, because much of what I contributed is not about Jesus. His stance is simply against me, personally. I await mediation.

But for now I accept that you are acting on good faith. I assure you that everything I just wrote was in good faith too: I am not trying to get in the way but I am trying to raise legitimate questions about what this article is about, what the difference would be between this and the hypothesized other article, and whether this "compromise" would really satisfy CheeseDreams. Slrubenstein

Just to be clear, I havent rejected you, personally, or indeed your work and knowledge. What I have done is acknowledged others are doubtful about some aspects of the article as you see it, and tried to find a way to frame it so it is more neutral. You, personally, are fine by me. I am committed to trying to find a neutral style for this article, and I see flaws in your current approach and the previous attempt, which means its not the best way I can see of achieving that and has in part led to this dispute, hence a separate version that I would have liked left up a while for comment. Accuracy is one of those comments of course. But it is important not to dishonor any contributor until discussion has taken place. Hope that helps. FT2 17:21, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the above are all excellent points of discussion, and should be carefully considered. But, for this particular section, I would like to concentrate first on developing a place (or pair of places) where those discussions can take place without warfare or conflict.

Do you think the idea of separating the two articles can be done?
Assuming the two article were separated, I would agree not to edit the Historic article without first discussing proposals/gaining consensus on the talk page. Would you likewise agree not to edit the other article without first discussing proposals/gaining consensus on the talk page?

I think these are primary points to help work toward this compromise. - Amgine 19:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not mean to disrespect you or brush you off but I feel that I have said all I have to say for now. This shouldn't be a discussion between you and I -- it is a useful idea only if it attracts other participants. Let's see if anyone else wants to chime in or respond to your questions, or mine, okay? Slrubenstein

BTW, I wouldn't agree to, or ask you to agree to, the second request you make. All editors are allowed to edit articles. We all have to use judgement as to whether we need to discuss a change on the talk page first,k or not. I think we should just follow Wikipedia's rules and not create new ones. Slrubenstein

Amgine has asked me to comment, but I can't do so right now. I haven't been following this debate too closely, so it will take some time for me to familiarize myself with what is going on. I'll try to take a look in a couple of days, and see what's going on. Jayjg 21:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amgine has asked me to comment; part of me wonders whether his request will at some point be construed as "gerrymandering". Whether it will or no, here are my own answers to his questions. Can the "two articles" be separated? I earlier said or suggested "yes", but now I'll say "maybe", because as SLR pointed out, a great deal depends on what those "two articles" are supposed to be. The second question makes it sound as though the articles are to be divided by faction rather than by topic, with members of the opposing "faction" being required to obtain "consensus" (meaning permission? a majority vote of those who respond in the first 12-24 hours?) before making any edits. If this is how the division is intended, than I oppose it, on the grounds that it's more likely than not to create two POV articles, with additional lesser flaws. If I misunderstand the proposal, than I hope someone will correct my misunderstanding. Thanks. Wesley 06:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment. In a purely neutral sense, I think it makes sense. For sure both "cultural and historical background" and "the histrical jesus" are encyclopedic, and valuable titles, and for me they are clearly different enough to fork into two articles if that'll help. They are different focus too, its not an "articficial" split. There'd be overlap but there often is. As long as theres no topic already covering specifically the historic jesus, Id say I'm fine with it. My question is, will it help put to bed the disputes in this article, if that happens? FT2 10:03, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)