Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Scope

An expansive topic such as this should stick to the subject (Jesus) and breeze over Jesus' ancient history. That context is best left to specialized articles which should be references by a main article tag under each section header.

After a scan, it seems the most important omission in article is the neglect of any Zoroastrian influence from the Persian period. (Note, even the monotheism article buries Zoroastrianism, instead featuring the Abrahamic family). -Ste|vertigo 22:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I will look for some references. That said, the amount of space currently dedicated to the influence of Babylonian culture is so short, that the tag is excessive. A link to Zoroastrianism of course is needed and i put it in. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag (june 2006)

Edit by user:Codex_Sinaiticus:

"The npov is not old, I added it yesterday when someone decided a Christianity template is unwelcome here, while everything else is, even claiming it is written from a pov as a rationale in summary!"

A template of this kind, is (primarily) a convenient link to identify various related articles, and (secondarily) a statement that it is also considered part of a cluster of articles on a theme. Neither of these two issues "make" an article un-neutral, any more than omission of a link to Christianity would. It might be an unexpected omission, it might be a wrong omission (since template:Jew is in there)... but it's not going to render the article un-neutral if it is or isn't. What would make an article non-neutral is bias in the representation of matters described. I think it's pretty obvious that this article is also related to early Christianity, by anyone reading the introduction or even the contents. So I'm removing the tag.

Please continue to argue whether it should have the template here, or not, on this page. My personal feeling is, it should have template jesus, and either none of both of templates jew/christianity. That seems reasonable. But the non-linkage of other articles, in the overall context of this, does not warrant labelling the entire text "POV". FT2 (Talk) 13:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone argues that the Jesus template is a must and does not violate NPOV despite the fact that the Jesus article privileges Christian views. Here is why I think the Jew tag is appropriate, but not he Christian tag. This article is on Jesus in his cultural and historical context. That context is overwhelmingly Jewish; Jesus was Jewish and his religion was Judaism (of course, not modern Judaism). Jesus was not Christian, did not identify himself as Christian. Christianity did not exist until after he was killed. So knowing about Christianity does not help anyone understand the cultural and historical context in which Jesus lived. But knowing about Judaism does. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


There is of course another article that does present Jesus in the Christian context: Christology. Should we put a POV warning because that article does not talk about Jesus's Judaism? I don't think so - by the same logic, we shouldn't put a POV warning here. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
In removing the Christianity template, the editor openly admitted that the article presents "a distinctly un-Christian view". Note carefully, not a "neutral" point of view (NPOV). As long as this is the case, there needs to be a tag alerting the reader that this particular article does not conform to NPOV; please do not remove it again. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This goes beyond the hypocrisy of unilaterally "deciding" that it is "allowed" to have a Jewish template and a Roman template, even a Zoaroastrian template and everything up to an Australian Aboriginal template would seemingly be fine, EXCEPT a Christianity template. This is the kind of editing that makes people feel as if they are being backed into a corner and it is reprehensible and unjustifiable. Aside from all that, the article does present a POV that is not Neutral, just as has been admitted. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Where is the Austrailian Aboriginal template? If you put it in, I shall delete it. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The article on Evolution presents an un-Christian view. Are you going to add a POV warning there too? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No, and you should know it is a fallacy to suggest that I am at fault for "failure to act" in case B as soon as I act on case A. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not faulting you for failing to act in case be, if you tell me that you will eventually get around to acting in case b. Are you? If not, I am trying to figure out your position. Are you saying that all articles that present a non-Christian point of view are violating NPOV? Are you saying that all articles must include a Christian point of view?Slrubenstein | Talk 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Policy is that all articles should include ALL significant points of view, not leaving any out, in order to be called "neutral". If you present every point of view except one that is significant, that is not Neutral. I fully know you don't consider the Christian POV to be significant, or would not like to think it is significant, but it still deserves to be include with the others. I am under no obligation to "eventually" act in case B ot to any list of assignments you give me. And calling me "hystericus" in the summary is a blatant Personal Attack. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Do not put words in my mouth. I consider the Christian POV significant which is why I have not deleted the Christology article, nor have I deleted the Jesus article which provides practically no information on Jesus's Jewish background and the meaning of Jesus's acts and deeds in their Jewish context. Nor have I added a POV tag to those articles. This article complies with NPOV, it just doesn't satisfy your POV pushing obsession. And yes, if you think I would add an Australian Aboriginal template AND tell me you feel backed into a corner, then yes, you are hysterical. Calm down. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Codex, the judgement of neutral point of view is not in the description of an editor. It's in the effect on the reader of the article as it stands. A reader, reading this article, is almost surely not going to be misled as to the content or relevance, or believe somehow Jesus is no longer related to Christianity, because of a simple template being there or not. The article itself does not privilege a Christian or non-Christian view. It rather, focusses on the history, and culture, and to do so it draws on religious sources from multiple religions (including Christianity), and examines their validity, and non-religious sources, and examines their validity too. The editor's description of his edit is not important. The article balance is. The omission of a template (which I commented about I have no problem with being present or absent either way), is not sufficient to render the entire article's effect on a reader non-neutral. That is what an NPOV tag means, and it's inappropriate. You might not like it, but thats a style and linkage issue, not a NPOV issue. FT2 (Talk) 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit -- what might be worth doing is removing both template:jew *and* template:christianity. Its not really about "jesus' judaism" although thats connnected, or judaism as a whole. At most its about jewish culture and history, both in linked articles. Likewise its not about "christianity" per se, although it covers the origins of that religion. Its about jesus, and about socio-cultural history. Its more accurate to say that both religions are tangential to it. Template:jesus is the only obvious one.
Also, if template jesus wasn't appropriate to some articles where template:christianity wasn't, then every article on jesus would have template:christianity, in which case logically editors would have merged them by now. FT2 (Talk) 14:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your second point is eminently sensible. As to your first, I still hold to what i said before - this article is on Jesus in his cultural and historical context, and that context is overwhelmingly Jewish. Jesus was Jewish and his religion was Judaism (of course, not modern Judaism). Jesus was not Christian, did not identify himself as Christian. Christianity did not exist until after he was killed. So knowing about Christianity does not help anyone understand the cultural and historical context in which Jesus lived. But knowing about Judaism does. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely deceptive to say that Christianity did not exist until after he was killed, you have to manipulate the definition oif "Christianity" to arrive at that conclusuion. If it is defined logically as "following Jesus Christ", and if he had many followers during his lifetime, it means it existed during his life, and the view derived from the Gospels is that the structure came into exitence when he sent out the 70. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Is that it? Thats the whole thing that's missing? Okay. This we can discuss and fix, probably. Is there anything else that is specific information about the cultural and historical background that you feel should be stated as well, or is that it? Please list aspects that bother you, if any. See my comment below please. FT2 (Talk) 14:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I made an addition, although I haven't pored over every word of the article in detail and there may be other issues, I think that covers the most glaring ommission. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice edit, well written, good style, cited, relevant. Pretty straightforward :) FT2 (Talk) 15:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Codex, to elaborate on my last edit -- if you feel that a specific viewpoinyt is omitted ("it's about present every possible significant pov except one") then please specify below what exact information Christianity has about the "historical and cultural viewpoint of Jesus", that is omitted?
That would help, rather than just say "It doesnt cover a viewpoint (but I'm not saying anything more or trying to fix it)"
I am not blocking out text in any way. I am simply saying, it doesn't seem to be missing information on the culture or history from a relevant viewpoint, and maybe there is one, but if so you need to detail what information is missing, not just tag and say nothing. If you have valid information, or even want to discuss what valid information is omitted, please say so. FT2 (Talk) 14:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a risk that claims about what the Gospels "could" mean would violate NOR. Also, this addition doesn't transition well into the article. I made a change keeping the view Codex added but ascribing it to Christians rather than the Gospels - this is accurate and NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


No, it's not. This was the entire reason I asdded the NPOV tag, because you insist on redefining everything and watering it down in your words that lose have of the meaning. What I wrote is perfectly NPOV. If you keep messing with it, there will be more much cause for an NPOV tag oin this article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, I am comprimising with you. I am not deleting the Christianity tag. I am not deleting the contents of what you wrote, which is that there exists a view that Christianity existed before Jesus died. Stop being a baby and learn to compromise as well. Yes, i will keep what you added, the view that Christianity existed before jesus was executed - I am simply ascribing this to "Christians" and I fail to see how this waters down anything. Historians disagree with your reading of the Gospel. there are different readings of the Gospels. We can include your POV but we have to include others. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Actually what the Gospel says in Luke 10 is pretty straightforward and I don't believe anyone disgrees that it says what it does. What historians "disagree with my reading" of it? It would seem obtuse in the extreme if they pretend they don't know or understand what it says. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Your details are inappropriate. Luke 10 does not claim that this marks the emergence of Christianity. That is your interpretation. Let's be honest about which views are being expressed. This is a Christian point of view. Why are you ashamed of it? Let's just sai, according to Christians ... As to which historians disagree with your reading, well, read the next sentence, . Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


And lets's also be honest and say that you wish to suppress the Christian point of view while including all others, because you don't consider a Christian point of view relevant or significant to this article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


(removed attack) Go to the Jesus page and ask people there if I have ever suppressed the Christian point of view. As for this article - it is on the historical context. It is not on Christian theology. We have articles on Christian theology. Why can't there be one on historical context? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that it is not relevant to the Cultural background of Jesus#Emergence of Christianity that the Gospels portray him as having established a group of 12 and a group of 70 followers, each time with specific instructions, when he founded a religion? And you claim that the scholarly view is that the religion didn't start until after his death, but that view isn't supported by the Gospel at least. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Gospels do not say that he founded a religion. The Gospels do not say that he founded Christianity. They do not. Now, one may plausibly interpret them to say that, which I assume most Christians do. And that is why I added to the article that traditionally Christians believe that Christianity began with Jesus's ministry. Why you think this means I am suppressing Christianity, or why you think this is inaccurate or violates NPOV, is beyond me. Moreover, I never said "the scholarly view" I said "many scholars" and I provide sources, names and citations, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Because cutting out all the details I added and just replacing them with a bland comment that it "began with Jesus' ministry" is suppression. If the issue is with it being or not being attributed to a Chrristian viewpoint, that doesn't justify cutting out all those relevant details to the emergence of Christianity. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"could be said" are weasel words that do not belong in any encyclopedia article. There are two versions, it seems: yours and mine. I think that mine is simply more cincise and better-written. IF you claim that the Gospels say jesus started Christianity, I dispute that as an innacurate statement that violates NPOV. If you are willing, as you now seem to be, to say that this is what Christians believe, then I do not disagree with you on content - only on style. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No view is being suppressed, just awkward phrasing. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


The "could be said" is not the details I want included. That part is only incidental. The relevant details I want included are that when he sent forth seventy followers on one occasion, and sent forth twelve on another occasion, each time giving them specific roles and instructions, he is considered in the Christian view as having established the structure that later became the Church. Summing that all up with a bare bones "during Jesus' ministry" is the suppression. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Even if you are right, this is incidental to what the article is about, which has to do with interpreting Jesus' life in its "historical and cultural" context ... not the same thing as interpreting it in light of the later beliefs and deeds of his followers. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's the issue from my own POV, regarding whether Jesus "founded Christianity." Slrubenstein is technically correct that historically, "Christianity" as such did not clearly emerge until after Jesus' death. He correctly says that Jesus practices Judaism, though of course not "modern Judaism." So no, I don't think it's his intent at all to "suppress Christianity" or whatever, that's just his assessment of history. It seems clear to me that historically, the Judaism that Jesus practiced differed greatly from the Judaism of today or even of the second century, simply because of the destruction of the Temple and the complete cessation of animal sacrifices. Today, both Christianity and Judaism claim to be the true continuation of what was first century Judaism. Their chief differences include not only who Jesus is, but their rationale for discontinuing the Temple sacrifices. I think that for at least a period of time, Christians believed they were continuing or fulfilling the religion practiced by Abraham and Moses, rather than that they were part of a brand new religion. So, in my view, this article should either include both the Christianity and Judaism templates, or neither of them. The better compromise would probably be to leave them both out. Wesley 16:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am talking about. All sorts of point of view are welcome, except for one, even though it is a very significant and relevant point of view of the emergence of Christianity, no details are allowed and only the most condescending language is allwoed to describe it. That's why I am disputing the NPOV of the article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Wesley, I see your point. But if you check the edit log, I stopped removing the Christianity tag some time ago. If you look at my last four edits, I kept the Christianity tag. So this is a moot point, and Codex brings it up only to be inflammatory. The issue now is the phrasing of the first few sentences of this section. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I am not referring tothat either, and I am not trying to be inflammatory. What is inflammatory are your repeated remarkes directed against my person. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the Christianity template is needed here, but neither do I think that anything beyond the "Destruction of the Temple" (and probably not even that) is all that important. The emergence of Christianity isn't part of the "background" of Jesus - even if you choose the (IMO, non-standard) view that Christianity begins with Jesus' ministry, it still isn't part of his background. Background ends when he starts preaching. I could see a case for including the changes in Judaism after the destruction of the Temple, to explain to readers why/how modern Judaism differs from First Century Judaism, but just a paragraph and a link to the appropriate section of another article dedicated to the history of Judaism. So my vote is to take out the Christianity template, leave the Jesus and Judaism templates, and replace everything from the Great Revolt onward with a summary and links, because they don't pertain to Jesus' background. Guettarda 16:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Two edits added to address the above:

  • "Traditionally, christianity says X (and why it says that). By contrast historians often state Y." Frankly I don't see it being crucial to establish for Jesus' background, whether Christianity was formally considered to start a year or 2 before his death or at his death, but there you go.
  • Placed template:jew next to the judaism section. Again, it's relevant to the background... but only the historical and cultural part of it. That template is much more about judaism as a whole. We can (and should) crossref to articles like "judaism in roman times" or "ancient history of judaism" etc, but the entire template is not really relevant to the article.

FT2 (Talk) 17:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Even in Acts of the Apostles, early Christianity is refered to as "the Nazarene sect) of Judaism (Acts 24:5-6), although the term "Christian" was being used in Antioch (Acts 11:26). I've always been taught that Jesus founded Christianity with the Great Commission, which did indeed come after Jesus' death and ressurection. Also, this article is about the cultural and historical background of Jesus, and arguably about the (late Second Temple Period) Jewish background of early Christianity (but not about Christianity itself). I feel that both the "Jew" and "Jesus" templates are appropriate here, but I don't think that the "Christianity" template is appropriate for this article. It's much the same as with the Schisms among the Jews article, which also covers the emergence of Christianity (and Samaritanism) as seperate articles; the "Christianity" template would not be appropriate there, either. The Early Christianity article covers some of the same ground but is more directly about Christianity, not the background of Christianity. The "Christianity" template belongs on the Early Christianity article, not on this article. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Archola, I think that is a more recent view you were taught, but the very earliest Churches carefully maintained traditions of even the names of all seventy of those individuals, and credited them with some kind of founding role or status. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK the specific list of names for the seventy apostles is an entirely Orthodox (Eastern Christian) tradition. If Orthodox tradition also states that this was the official founding of Christianity, then sobeit. It also occurs to me that "founded Christianity" can have two answers. Jesus founded the "Nazerene Sect" (protoChristianity) as soon as he started teaching. Christianity became a separate religion when there were a significant number of Gentile Christians who were not converts to Judaism. In the Great Commission, Jesus specifically commands his followers to make disciples of all nations, ie Gentiles as well as Jews and Samaritans. The Lesser Commission was limited to the Land of Israel; I've always taken this is as a commission to Jews and Samaritans, but NOT to Gentiles (exclusing a handful of Gentile converts to Christianity). It was not yet time to take the Gospel to the Gentiles; not until after the Ressurection.
Of course, different Christian sects probably have different views as to the offical founding of Christianity. I think all Christians can agree, though, that Jesus (and not Paul or whoever) is the founder of Christianity. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 20:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Respectfully I disagree with Slrubenstein that Jesus's religion was Judaism. I believe that it was Christianity, but I think that it might be inappropriate here to put in the Christianity template, since this article is about the cultural background. Our Lord Jesus Christ and the holy apostles wanted their faith to be begun as Judaism, but unfortunately they were excluded by Judaism's leader, the High Priest. This article treats Jesus BEFORE the break, so the template should be Judaism. One might put cross reference links to the Christianity page. Perhaps Christian views of this cultural milieu might be placed into this article. When we are dealing with our Lord's cultural milieu, we are dealing with something prior to the Feast of Pentecost, which is tomorrow. --Drboisclair 23:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Priest kings section placement

I'm just reading your comment and edit: "Priest-kings only come into existence with the Hasmoneans who are Hellenistic not Persian period". I think I've just figured out what jars about its placement.

The section comprises 2 short paragraphs. Paragraph #1 discusses how, with the 2nd temple not built under divine authority, this provided grounds for sects to arise. Paragraph #2 discusses events at the end of the Babylonian exile (redaction, time of Ezra, etc).

Neither of these paragraphs are actually specific to priest-kings. At most, the first of these is a generic condition from the time of its construction onward through to Hasmonean times.

What I think is, both paragraphs should go under "2nd temple" (since they relate to events following on from the 2nd temple's construction and after the exile) but that the title is misleading and should be removed from them.

I'm proposing to move both paragraphs to that section, and kill the section title.

If, as, and when we do actually say something specific about priest-kings, and it is specific to (or introduced with) the Hasmonean era, then we should put a section there for priest-kings and say it. But right now I don't think the short contents of that section are really about priest-kings. They're far more about the follow-on to the construction of the 2nd temple.

If you disagree, can we discuss here briefly? Thanks FT2 (Talk) 14:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit -- moved it, now read the persian section, and tell me if that doesn't flow better. Also we now have a much cleaner flow from hellenistic to hasmonean. FT2 (Talk) 14:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I do disagree with getting rid of the Persion section for two reasons. First, there is nothing wrong with being short, why can't a section be very short? Second, you yourself point out the lack of material on the Persian influence. I can add some material (but perhaps not htis month, or not until later this month) - you are right that there is stuff out there to add ... and I would add it to this small section i.e. it will get a bit bigger (to my knowledge the main impact of Zoroastrianism is twofold, first, the entrance of a kind of manicheanism that you see in the latter prohets who describe an ultimate war between good and evil, Gog and Magog. Second, an intensification of monotheism and its centrality in the Bible, perhaps a reaction against perceived dualism in Zoroastrianism. We could add this now but I do not have the sources on hand and would rather waituntil I have the sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I have no objection to the change you just made. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just typing an explanation:
"I pointed out the lack of material is about priest-kings in the hasmonean era, which is the placement and title of the old section, and that the actual content of that section as it stood was more about the implications of 2nd temple issues, and circumstances at that time. What I'd suggest is, if there is a need for more on the priest-kings of hasmonean times, can you gather it and put a section there about it? But those 2 short paragraphs are better off in the 2nd temple section, since one is about the effects of the questioned legitimacy of the temple, the other about culture at the time of Ezra etc."
"It also seems very odd to claim that the legitimacy of a temple was only questioned, and provided ground for sects to emerge, some 400 years after its construction. It's more logical to say that this questioning happened during that era, and partly because that fertile questionable ground was there, sects therefore emerged over coming centuries."
Just for clarification, that :) FT2 (Talk) 14:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Suppression of viewpoints

Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps the Christian Church(es) might have a viewpoint on this subject???

But whatever its view, no matter how significant or relevant, the editors of this article will not suffer it to be explained or even alluded to, except in the most dismissing language imaginable. Everyone else's view is allowed, but that one view must be kept out at all costs. That is suppression. A truly neutral article would include details of ALL relevant and significant views. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Christianity-related template? Don't you think that all of those articles provide the Christian Church(es) views on this subject? And, you say an article should represent all views - are you saying that the views in this article should be added to the articles Jesus, Christology and Christianity? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Friends: There's a lot of emotion here and I think we're getting pretty close to the line where we will be going into personal attacks. Can we all take a deep breath?
On the issue itself, I think both the Jewish and the Christianity templates are overkill. Thinking from the position of a reader, I don't think I would be at this article if I thought I was reading about either Judaism or Christianity. What I would want to know about would be what the life and times of Jesus were like. Most of the Christian and Jewish topics are irrelvant to this purposes. What I would expect is to hear about the tri-cultural landscape of Roman Palestine. What was Second Temple Judaism like? What was it like to live in a bedroom community of a Hellenistic city? How did they relate to the Romans. Were they seen as the enemy by most people? If we must have a template, the Jesus template is sufficient. One thing will lead to another when clicking on either articles in that template or cats that lead to Judaism or Christianity.
I haven't had a chance to really read the article itself yet, but I doubt Christian viewpoints are being supressed. If it will help, I'll come back now that other articles are slowing down. --CTSWyneken 16:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


As commented above:

"Codex, the judgement of neutral point of view is not in the description of an editor. It's in the effect on the reader of the article as it stands... The article itself does not privilege a Christian or non-Christian view. It rather, focusses on the history, and culture, and to do so it draws on religious sources from multiple religions (including Christianity), and examines their validity, and non-religious sources, and examines their validity too."
"Its not really about "jesus' judaism" although thats connnected, or judaism as a whole. At most its about jewish culture and history, both in linked articles. Likewise its not about "christianity" per se, although it covers the origins of that religion. Its about socio-cultural history. Its more accurate to say that both religions are tangential to it."

If you feel that specific factual information that is relevant to the historical and cultural background is missing, then as I have said above, say what it is instead of emotional talk about how information is being "suppressed" and rhetoric questions about what "anyone" might think or not think. If information is missing, name it here so others can discuss. Don't just complain and then expect others to read your mind. FT2 (Talk) 17:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, IMO there isn't suppression of info, there's too much info. I can see the argument for making the case for using the Christianity template alongside the "Emergence of Christianity" section - but I don't think that section belongs in the article. Guettarda 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I have been called names like "Hystericus" and "hypocrite" by another individual, while I have kept my words balanced and professional at all times, and I am also being called the "emotional" one when I say there is suppression. The suppression is when the details about the "emergence of Christianity", or at least the Church's own view of its own establishment, were repeatedly blanked as inadmissible. At least it is there now, albeit half in a footnote. The way FT2 arranged it looks ok to me, but please try to work with me and do not be bigoted. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Glad its solved. But there's a good lesson in it -- be clear what the real issue is, rather than just "it's biased" or "a view is missing". Don't say a whole article is non neutral if it's really one aspect of a corner of it, that you feel isn't represented properly. Don't expect mind reading if you don't explain well. And if in doubt, remember there will be different views, its not always or normally "suppression" when people differ. be that as it may -- glad its sorted out. As always good debate tends to improve articles, otherwise nobody would re-edit them. FT2 (Talk) 17:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I still think that the "emergence of Christianity" is more properly addressed in the Early Christianity article. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Arch, as a newbie to this article, at not meaning to set off another debate (which seems to be my nature), I think the same can be said of the sections on the critical views of the Gospels. I would prefer to use this one just to speak about what we know about Jesus' environment. Other articles deal far more deeply with these issues. But I'm not about to insist on this. If you've been here before, would ya point me to the appropriate archive? ;-) --CTSWyneken 18:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
True, I have been here before, but for most of that time it's been mostly Slrubenstein working on this article—the controversies seem to be fairly recent (since about May 23,2006). I read this article as a hybrid of Historical Jesus and Second Temple Period Judaism (not sure if that second article exists). The very title of the article indicates that it focuses on historical views, with religion considered only in the cultural sense. I do agree with FT2 below that the article should mention the aftermath, although I think it should probably be a short summary with the details located at Early Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism (or perhaps a new article on Early Rabbinic Judaism?
Is there a section in this article on "critical views of the Gospels"? I'll have to check. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

if it helps, most articles covering point events, or incidents leading up to point events, also cover the aftermath too. Thus, the article on Chernobyl also covers aftermath of chernobyl, the article on Mount St helens covers rescue and aftermath of St helens, and so on. That's part of an encyclopoedia's role to put its articles in their context too. So an article on Jesus' cultural background is more than okay, to show how it played out, overlapping slightly the next stages in the development of both religions. That shows how it played out, the aftermath and provides context, and is very normal and usual. Hope that is of use. FT2 (Talk) 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Critical Scholars"?

As I take a quick look at the article as a whole, all but the last section(s) apply to the views of almost all of the scholarly community. We cite Sanders a lot, but others, like Paul L. Maier, N. T. Wright, D. A. Carson from the traditional side, Elaine Pagels, Paula Fredriksen, John Dominic Crossan, from the critical side and other specialists would help.

We also should avoid terms like "most" scholars, which is hard to determine. (has anyone take a census of Ph. D.s in Biblical Studies?) If there is any slant it is in that direction. I still do not sense a slant in favor of or against Christianity. --CTSWyneken 17:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

CTSW, I know Maier is well respected, as is Pagels - although i thought Pagles' specialization was post-Jesus early Christianity and not historiography of Jesus himself. I don't know Wright and Carson. But that isn't my piont, rather, I'd like to invite you to incorporate their views into the article. In other words, the point is not that some scholars say the Gospels are reliable, others say it isn't, as if it is two distinct groups. My sense is there are a number of scholars who represent a diverse number of views and they exist along a continuum of positions concerning what sources are relevant and how reliable they are. If you are willing to contribute to this article, my advice - really, my request - is that you do two things (1) build on the historical context i.e. what the article says about what "temple," "king," "priest," "prophet," "messiah," "Pharisees," "Sadducees," Zealots," and "Essenes" and show to what extent and in what ways the scholars you name (who are currently not represented in the article) draws on these words and their meanings to Jews in their attempts to reconstruct Jesus' life and (2) help develop the scholarly context, that is, help develop the account of a conversation between Sanders, Vermes, and others - Fredricksen, Maier, I assume Wright, Carson, Crossan - in which they are responding to one another - sometimes suggesting alternative answers to the same question, other times raising other questions. I mean to say, instead of just saying there are two camps of scholars divided on one question, let's instead focus on the actual arguments, reasoning, evidence people are using. One caveat - I still believe that this article should reflect historical scholarship, not the work of clergy or theologians (I am not suggesting a member of the clergy or a theologican cannot be an historian - only that there are people who are clergy and theologians but who bracket those vocations in their work as historians. I am sure someone can be an ordained and pious priest and still write history using the same methods and assumptions as other - non Christian, even atheist - historians, and that work belongs in this article as much as say Fredricksen's). I hope this makes sense, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll likely contribute, when time permits. You are correct that a range of opinions are involved. My observations is in that most of the article says, there is wider consensus than the critical schools of thought. I think we do our readers better service if we focus simply on the cultures of first century Palestine. On Pagels, I mentioned her more in terms of the school of thought she represents than what her work specifically contributes here. Where she might come in would be on side of hellenistic culture, esp. Gnostic movements. More later. It's busy in real life. --CTSWyneken 11:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor wording tweak, views?

Current wording:

"However, there are people who question whether Jesus even existed (see Historicity of Jesus for an account of this debate), and others (including critical Bible scholars and historians) who agree that Jesus lived, but reject the Gospels as a literal account of his life. The latter accept the Gospels as historical sources, but critique them as they would any other historical source."

Possible alternative wording:

"However, there are people who question whether Jesus even existed (see Historicity of Jesus for an account of this debate), and others who agree that Jesus lived, but reject the Gospels as a literal account of his life. The latter includes critical Bible scholars and historians, who accept the Gospels as historical sources, but critique them as they would any other historical source."

The latter avoids repeated brackets in one sentence and also seems to make more sense and flow a bit smoother. Comments? FT2 (Talk) 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is fine with me, but I would add something like:

"Finally, still other scholars** find the Gospels to be reliable historical sources." --CTSWyneken 18:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Edited (and above cleaned up to remove confusing section line now it's done). FT2 (Talk) 13:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Notes

    Scope Paragraph

    Rushing in where angels fear to tread... Here's my first suggestion. Our current scope...

    One of many articles related to Jesus, this article represents the views of critical scholars and historians who believe Jesus existed,. but question the historical accuracy of the New Testament. It focuses specifically on Jesus as a historical figure, in a historical context, looking at the background of the culture and history of that period relevant to a better understanding and interpretation of acts and events ascribed to his life and lifetime.

    I'd like to strike the phrases in red and add the period in blue

    This will allow us to take a step back from the controversies over the accuracy of the New Testament, leaving that for articles that take up higher critical views. The result, I think, will be a very harmonious text, since much of the background is not in controversy between schools of study; For example, everyone agrees that we have discovered in recent years: a boat in the Sea of Galilee from the first century, the ossuary of High Priest Joseph ben Caiapha (forgive any misspelling, SL), etc.

    I'll read the article with the conservative Christian scholarly school in mind. SL, would you add Shaye Cohen? Arch, do you have volumes on your shelf that will add to the discussion? --CTSWyneken 18:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    I posted an edit which struck out and edited as follows:
    "One of many articles related to Jesus, this article represents the views of critical scholars and historians who believe Jesus existed, but question the historical accuracy of the New Testament. It focuses specifically on Jesus as a historical figure, in a historical context, looking at . It looks at the background of the culture and history of that period relevant to a better understanding and interpretation of acts and events ascribed to his life and lifetime, for religious, critical and scholarly purposes."
    Any good? FT2 (Talk) 03:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    I would rather not have the purpose clause in the last sentence. It opens a can of worms. Other than that, I would rather stay with the original language of the scope, which does a nice job, really, save it is narrower, IMHO, that it need be. What do the rest of you think? --CTSWyneken 12:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

    What is this article about

    Before we gon on about the "scope" I think we need to know where the article came from and where it is going. Earlier John Kenney made a point that this is a weird article. It is, but instead of debating it section by section, I think we need to look at it as a whole. Understanding its origins and being open-minded about future possibilities is the place to start, in my opinion.

    I think this article should - and will - be merged with the article on "the historical Jesus" so any changes should keep that in mind. Right now, this article does two things that I believe are essential to the series of articles on Jesus, taken as a whole, but not found in any other article:

    1. first, it provides extensive explanations of what certain institutions and roles meant to Jews living in the first century (i.e., not from the perspective of Christian theology. That perspective is valid, but is provided in other articles; the perspective here is not, at least, not in depth): "temple," "law," "king," "prophet," "sadducee," "pharisee," "essene," "zealot," "messiah." the New Testament, or at least most New Testament scholars, use these words. There is a need to explain them in their historical and cultural context.
    2. Second, this article also goes into the views of a few historians who have written about Jesus, especially Sanders, Vermes, and Fredricksen.
    1. I have put in some of this material because, after talking to friends of mine who are historians, it seemed that these are the authors most frequently cited in peer-reviewed journals or assigned in university courses in non-Christian contexts (although I believe they are assigned at Christian seminaries as well) - the only distinction I am trying to make here is between disinterested historians versus scholars explicitly working within a clerical or theological framework.
    2. I think this distinction is important. I do not think it violates NPOV any more than the Christology or New Testament View of Jesus articles do. To be clear - I am not accusing those articles of violating NPOV. But those articles do lack the views of Vermes, Sanders, and Fredricks. Those views need to be represented, and I think extensively, somewhere. Here it is.
    3. I believe in fact that there should be more material here representing Sanders, Fredricksen's, and Vermes' views - and how they differ (which this article so far does not do.
    4. As stated above, i also believe there is room here for the view of other historians - as long as they are playing by the same scholarly ground-rules as Vermes, Fredricksen, and Sanders. To repeat: I insist on this only becasue I feel other views are already represented in several other articles.

    Some more points:

    • The article on the Historical Jesus, one might think, should do all this. However, if you look at that article you will see that it is not very well-organized, has a paucity of citations, is not clear on which historians believe what and, equally important, why.
    • The reason there are two such articles, on the historical Jesus and on the cultural and historical background, is that both used to be sections of the Jesus article. You surely can imagine how this article - as a section of that article, would have fed into the section on "the historical Jesus" quite naturally.
    • Perhaps when the spinning off occured a couple of years ago the two sections should have been spun off as one article. Alas, that didn't happen. I think they should be one article, so I think these should be merged. But I am not ready to do that work yet. I certainly would like to know what others think.

    I don't want to quibble with the lead to this article. I believe I have just laid out what I believe is the rationale for how this article came to exist and take the form it did, as well as my own views for what form it should take. I would like to know if there is broad agreement here, or even consensus - or a need for debate. Once we have consensus about the matters I raise here, then it will be evident what form the lead should take. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

    Brief comments. I think it's a mistake to be bound by where an article came from. Where it is (and its related articles are) now, is far more relevant, since articles and sections grow and mature over time. I think it's unlikely that it will ever merge back with "Historical Jesus", and that's for two reasons -- length, and clarity of focus. Both articles cover distinct separable focussed subjects, and both articles are already over-long by Wikipedia readability standards as it is. So my starting point is, they aren't likely to ever re-merge. It's likely "Historicity of Jesus" needs the kind of attention this article's had, to bring it up to standard. FT2 (Talk) 12:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    The problem with the "focused subject" of this article is that it's a total anomaly on wikipedia, as I noted above. Furthermore, lengthwise, the current length of Historical Jesus is irrelevant, because the current article ought to be mostly scrapped and started anew from scratch. I do think, though, that a lot of the detailed material about the meaning of various different terms used of this period of Jewish history, is not necessary in the Historical Jesus article. I've suggested before that this kind of material should probably be presented in an article on the subject of something like "Late Second Temple Judaism," or some such - an article which presents the context of Jewish religious and political thought in the first century AD and how this ties in to the origins of both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism in this time period. Material more directly relevant to Jesus - e.g. the theories of scholars like Sanders, Fredriksen, Vermes, and hopefully others (Crossan, who wishes to tie Jesus into the socio-economic structure of the Mediterranean world as a whole, rather than to the more specific context of Judaism, probably needs to be discussed), ought to be used in the construction of a new, improved Historical Jesus article. john k 12:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    I think the appropriate starting point is the same as any Wikipesia article -- neutral representation of subject matter (no matter what the subject "should" have been or "was" over a year ago). Thus, the subject matter on this article is "historical and cultural background", and any sources with notable views belong here, not just a select few. Thats basic NPOV. If the purpose of the article is to showcase a specific viewpoint, then rename it to "Sanders, Vermes, and Fredricksen's school of thought on the cultural and historical background of Jesus", and then focus the article on their views. FT2 (Talk) 12:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    Yuck. What an awful idea. There's plenty of other scholars we should be discussing. Just because Slr mostly wrote this article to begin with, and is most familiar with those scholars, only means that other people should try to add in broader context about the views of other historians. john k 12:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

    (I agree, and this is one of the things I tried to communicate above. I do however see Sanders et. al. as representative of a kind of scholarship that needs more representation at Wikipedia. That is my point: not to restrict this to a few scholars but to ensure that among all the Jesus articles, a kind of scholarship is well-represented. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

    As it stands, these authors are the consensus, most cited, and most representative of academia on the subject, so they probably inform most of the article. But NPOV says, start with the basic premise. This is an article on the historical and cultural background to Jesus. Who then has notable, verifiable, and significant views on the historical and cultural background, and how should different views be balanced. So in that context, it is probably highly relevant to summarize briefly "Alternate views and perspectives", including a brief summary of Christian scholars views on the background. That seems the obvious and policy/style appropriate approach to me. It doesn't mean that the article gets dominated by bias, rather, it achnowledges that the chosen historians are the majority, but not only, notable view, and characterizes where other scholars of different schools differ. FT2 (Talk) 12:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    But what is the "Cultural and historical background of Jesus"? What does that even mean? Isn't the "Cultural and historical background of Jesus" also the "cultural and historical background of Rabbinic/Talmudic Judaism," and the "Cultural and historical background of the Great Jewish Revolt," and so forth? Why should this basic material be tied to Jesus in this way? Can we point to any other articles that do what this one does - being about material in its relation to one specific thing? We have articles on the causes or origins of historical events, like Causes of World War I, Causes of the French Revolution, but that's different, I think. We don't have Cultural and historical background of the French Revolution, we have Age of Enlightenment, which of course deals with the cultural background of the French Revolution, but doesn't treat the Enlightenment as though it must be viewed backwards, through the eyes of the French Revolution. That is the job of the Causes of the French Revolution article. Basically my position is as follows: there should not be an article called Cultural and historical background of Jesus. If this article is about the world in which Jesus lived, it should be at Late Second Temple Judaism, or something similar - it is utterly POV to act as though "the world in which Jesus lived" is only a "background" to studying Jesus, and not a subject unto itself. If this article is about the way in which the world in which Jesus lived would have affected the historical Jesus, it ought to be an integral part of the Historical Jesus article, since this question is one of the main ones addressed by historical Jesus scholarship. john k 12:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    I think this article needs to exist separate from the Historical Jesus article. The phrase Historical Jesus is a technical term in the field that refers to the attempt by critical scholars to discover the real Jesus behind what they believe to be the legends told by the gospels. If you haven't guessed, this is a ... controversial topic ... and should be carefully documented so that all the schools of thought on the subject are represented. A separate inquiry, which has quite a bit of scholarly consensus, is what the world in which Jesus lived was like. Both those of us that see Jesus a just a man (although perhaps a great one), and those of us that see him as both God and Man) have a great deal of interest in that subject.
    So, for me, the Historical Jesus article is about what he did and said and was, this one is about what his world was like. Ideally, it would link to other articles with greater depth, so should have a summary quality to it. Yet there is much on this subject (i.e. what languages were spoken by everyday Galileans, hint, that almost all were bilingual Aramaic and Greek) that I doubt is anywhere else in Wikipedia.
    SO, I think we should refashion it to take up what all Biblical scholars and historians point out about daily life in first century Palestine. --CTSWyneken 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    But the quotidian, cultural, religious, and political life of first century Palestine is the quotidian, cultural, religious, and political life of first century Palestine. It is not the "Cutlural and historical background of Jesus" - that would be like our article on the Enlightenment being moved to Cultural and intellectual background of the French Revolution - or worse, something like Cultural and intellectual background of Maximilien Robespierre. It is POV, because it implies that this subject, which has significance in its own right, is only significant in the context of one thing - in this case, Jesus. I agree that an article about the world of first century Palestine is a fine idea. But that article should not be called Cultural and historical background of Jesus. john k 13:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    This is not to say that the article on the Enlightenment does not provide the cultural and intellectual background of Maximilian Robespierre. Just that it would be absurdly POV for an article on the Enlightenment to be named in such a manner as to suggest that the only thing important about the Enlightenment is that it provides the background for Robespierre. Obviously, Jesus is a more important figure than Robespierre, in a world historical sense. But, nevertheless, the study of the world of first century Palestine is not just a background to Jesus - it's its own subject, worthy of study in its own right, and, furthermore, provides the background for the development of modern Judaism just as much as that for Christianity. john k 13:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

    I appreciate you views on this, even though I differ with you on it, John. Here is why we should have such an article:

    1. A lot of people are curious about the background of the life of Jesus. They may not know to look for first century Palestine Hellenism, Saducees, 2nd Temple Judaism, etc. As a theological librarian, I'm faced with that everyday. I can't say to a wiki reader: "You're a seminary student, Grasshopper! You should know this!"
    2. Jesus is one of if not the most important figures in the history of the world. Not many people are going to say, "Hmmm.. I wonder what the world of King George the Third was like." What the world of Jesus was like is an every day inquiry among Chriatians.
    3. To do this adequately would be to make the Jesus article a huge article (Just glance at Britannica to see what I mean). Even just to list all the linking articles and explain why they link would take up pages.
    4. Scholarly consensus is hard to come by in this field and I think we should write about it when we find it. --CTSWyneken 13:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    People should be able to go to a Jesus article, find a brief discussion of the world in which Jesus lived, along with a link to the article that discusses this in detail. This is, presumably, how people tend to find this article anyway - I doubt anyone thinks to look up "Cultural and historical background of Jesus". And, sure, people are more likely to look up the "world of Jesus" than the "world of George III" - but this is, I think, irrelevant. Surely people might be nearly as interested in "the world in which modern Judaism arose" as "the world of Jesus"? Once again - the subject of first century Palestine simply should not be subordinated to Jesus. john k 14:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    No one is suggesting such a subordination. There is room in the wiki for an article that focuses on all the factors that come together in the world of Jesus, linked from the Jesus article, which is one of the ways this article could be found. If the name is a problem, we simply could rename it.
    My concept would be: a summary of the world of Jesus in the Jesus and details on the daily life of Jesus, with links to the articles on the Roman Empire, Judaism, Hellenism, etc. Under that model, much of what's here would merge with other aeticles and info on diet, money, tax collection, etc. would join what's here.
    For me, the closing argument is that people would want to read it. That's what an encyclopedia is all about. 8-) If we think people would want to read the other titles you suggest, why, we could always make them! ;-) --CTSWyneken 11:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

    The title of this article is a secondary consideration. Personally, I never liked it, and don't object to a change. The issue though is what is the article about? This article is the result of a content fork when material that was part of the Jesus article was removed to make a new article, because the Jesus article was too long. At that time certain choices were made ... maybe some of them were poor choices. Since that time, much material has been added to this article, perhaps too at times the result of poor choices. What we know is this: the Jesus article has a section on the historical and cultural background that is very short and has a link to this article. The name of this article need not be the same as the name of that section in the Jesus article. But there is a link there because there is material relevant to Jesus, but which is not included in the Jesus article. We can't just discuss the name of the linked article. We need to ask, what material is not in the Jesus article. Where should that material be? In one article? In two articles? In three? Is this half of one of those articles, or is this really two articles that ought to be divided? Or is this part one article, part material that belongs in other articles? I think these are the questions John and CTS are debating. For now, let's not get distracted by the title. Let's just ask, what material is or should be in here that does not belong in other articles? What material in here belongs in other articles? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

    My two cents: This article's title aside, I've always thought of this article as a hybrid between (1)historical Jesus and (2)Second Temple Judaism (or, as John k would say, Late Second Temple Judaism). As John K has also pointed out, article (1) needs some work. Right now it's in a Q&A/FAQ format; there has been some discussion of rewriting article (1) so that it's more about the "quest for the historical Jesus," but AFAIK this has yet to be done. Since article (2) doesn't seem to exist, perhaps much of the cultural&historical background article could focus on that? Subjects directly related to historical Jesus and/or early Christianity could be incorporated into those articles where appropriate. Of course, these are all related subjects, and links and summaries should also be included in each article where appropriate. CTSWyneken also has somne points about incorporating multiple views and showing where the consensus lies, and where scholarly opinion differs. (Well, that's my opinion, anyway). Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    I think we do not need two quest for the historical Jesus articles. I would prefer to do a World of Jesus kind of article, painting a picture of daily life in first century Palestine. That would make this substantially different from what we have now, but much of the material could remain. This would leave us with a useful article that a lot of readers would like, that could be written with a great deal of scholarly consensus and an easily achieved NPOV tone. Doesn't that sound like fun? 8-) --CTSWyneken 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

    John would say - rightly - that the "world of Jesus" is also the world of Hillel and Akiba. Moreover, this is a serious point for many contemporary historians, that the world of the first followers of Jesus, and the world of the Pharisees, was the same world and they came up with different solutions to similar problems/questions. As for historical Jesus while I think a lot of this article seems unrelated, this article touches on far more of what historians of the "historical Jesus" like Sanders and Vermes touch on than the historical Jesus article. I think any hiostorical Jesus article should be based on what scholars (and I am not limiting myself to Sanders and Vermes of course, let's include Crossan AND Maier) are looking at - and, for good or bad, this article reviews a lot of the same stuff they review. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

    To a great extent, yes. (I'm not sure if Hillel and Akiba were Galileans, though) If we are to keep this article, what I would want to do is first trim this down to a description of just the world of Jesus, Hillel and Akiba. I'd exclude material on the reliability of the New Testament (leave that to the Historical Jesus, New Testament and Gospels articles), the emergence of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism (can't remember if we do this), and the like. Having done that, I'd want to have SL add Shaye Cohen and Jacob Neusner on the Jewish aspects of First Century Palestinian culture, I'd go for Paul L. Maier, N. T. Wright and Carson, plus a few tomes that summarize the archaeological evidence on life in Galilee and literacy, perhaps Archie would be game to go for Crossan and Fredrikson. We would focus on customs, traditions, etc. that make the gospels' accounts of the life, words and actions of Jesus more comprehensible. --CTSWyneken 16:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


    Looking at the article and debate, I don't have much to add, but here's some thoughts.

    The article has come a long way, and stabilized, since it started being heavily worked on maybe 18 months ago or so. Pause and look at it and related articles, and consider what it is we've got here, and what clarity we've gained. What we have here (no matter how it began) is an article that very well summarizes, the historical and cultural background not so much to Jesus, but to a historical event: the emergence and divergence of Rabbinic Judaism, and early Christianity. Plus a smaller separate section on Jesus in his historical context. That is what we have created.

    This suggests a neat slice of the subject matter as follows:

    1. An article whose focus is the historical and cultural background to the emergence and divergence of Rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity.
    2. An article whose focus is Jesus in his historical context.
    3. Possibly a 3rd article on life in Roman palestine at the time of Jesus - what we know of the world contemporaneous to him.

    The neatness here is that we have a clean slice between #1 and #2:

    The #1 article is covering a known historical event (after 1000 years of background, 2 religions finally emerged. how and why did this happen). Can we view the emergence of a religion separate from the life of its founder? I think we can. As far as the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity goes, the most relevant thing about Jesus is that he is believed to have existed, and that his followers believed him to be the Son of God and continued the work they believed he intended for them, after his death. The detail of Jesus' life itself are less relevant to an understanding how religions historically emerged and the relevant background and cultural information about Judaism and Palestine to that point.

    The #2 article then looks at Jesus himself, and what can be said of the man, his works, and his life, as a historical person and in a histroical context. Again, this will draw on #1 and on multiple sources, some of which will be Christian scholars documenting Jesus' life, some of which will be critical scholars. But whatever may be said of Jesus' life probably is separable from how the religions came to be as they were, and their history, and also in the same way that the emergence of Christianity is capable of being described as a historical event mostly separate from the details of the life of its Founder, likewise the person of Jesus is capable of being written without re-duplicating the history of 1st and 2nd temple Judaism.

    In addition, each article can then draw on multiple views, which is what NPOV requires. There will be multiple views on relevant historical and cultural background to the emergence and divergence of the religions. There will be multiple views (both Christian and Critical) on how to fit Jesus and the Gospel stories, into his hisotrical context. And the above articles can accomodate those.

    Thoughts? FT2 (Talk) 19:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/u/l/Talk%7ECultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus_Archive_16_216f.html"