Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

CheeseDream's paragraph on Messianic Movements

CORRECTION

This is the disputed paragraph that Slrubenstein kept cutting -
(ie, way way back in the original article, not recently - FT2)

Many Messianic groups arose, claiming to have within their number, the true Messiah, saviour of Israel. One of the most noticable and successful was that of John the Baptist. Contrary to accounts in the bible, suggesting that John the Baptist led people to Jesus, many other historic sources suggest that followers of John the Baptist believed John the Baptist to be the Messiah. This point of view is also held by the Mandaeanists, a group descending from followers of John the Baptist, and still surviving today.

CheeseDreams 11:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which scholars claim that followers of John the Baptist believed him to be messiah? I know of no evidence -- where is it? Also, what is the evidence that the Mandeans were followers of John the Baptist? I know of no evidence and no academic historian who makes this claim. Finally, style: what is the purpose of saying "true" messiah? I also question the phrase "savior of Israel." "Savior" means many different things to different people. I think most Christians mean something like saving from sin, saving one from hell, something like that. In the 1st century if any Jews used the term "savior" it didn't mean this. Moreover, there is very very little evidence that Jews used the term "savior" to describe the "annointed one" during this period. The sentence seems anachronistic and deceptive. Slrubenstein

Note to the avid reader: the dictionary definition of "saviour" is "one who saves". And I think I left out the link to Mandaeans, in which is discussed that John the Baptist is an early Mandaean (which is a pre-Christian religion), and that Mandaeans dispute the validity of Jesus. CheeseDreams 17:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The worst possible thing that could happen with articles like this is if someone looks up a word like "savior" in the dictionary. The article claims that in the 1st century many messianic groups arose claiming among their number a savior of Israel. Presumable they used the Hebrew or Aramaic word for Savior. As I stated above, there is very little evidence that Jews at that time used the word "savior" in association with "messiah." If anyone did, it is an obvious and major hermeneutic question, "what did they mean by savior." To think one could find the answer by looking up the word in an English dictionary is at best naive, at worst, dumb. In historical articles such as these the meaning of a word will not be found in a contemporary English dictionary, and it is very likely that any such definition would be wrong or at least seriously misleading. Slrubenstein

At this juncture, it is important that the avid reader note that both the article, the paragraph in question, and the phrase "saviour of Israel" are written in English, and not in Aramaic. CheeseDreams 18:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you joking, or truly moronic? What is your evidence that among Jews in the first century there were many who looked to a messiah as savior? It doesn't matter that this is English wikipedia and articles are all written in English; we are writing an article that is primarily about first century Jews. Slrubenstein
I do think we can be more accurate than savio(u)r. That is, say (consisely, because it should really be discussed in Messiah) what a Messiah really is, rather than "savior of Israel", which could mean almost anything. Mpolo 18:39, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Such as "one who saves Israel", which was the intended meaning?CheeseDreams 20:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Saves" in what way, and from whom, and how? In any event, you haven't answered my question: what evidence do you have that among Jews in the first century there were many who looked to a messiah as a "savior?" Is this the terminology they used? P.S. Hosea 13:4 Slrubenstein
Dear reader, I can quote bible verses too. Read the following in the given order.
Revelations 2:29
Revelations 1:15
Revelations 5:2
'Revelations 9:2
'Revelations 8:1
James 2:26
CheeseDreams 22:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are still avoiding my questions. I cited a Jewish source because we are talking about Jews in the pre-Christian period. You cite Christian sources from a later period that really do not help us understand "the cultural and historical context of Jesus." Slrubenstein

Dear reader, if the Apostle James wrote the letter of James, and the Apostle John wrote revelations, as most biblical literalists, and fundamentalists, alledge, does that not mean the texts are Jewish? For these men were born Jews. CheeseDreams 22:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is the date of the earliest versions of these texts? You have raised questions about Josephus, surely you have the same questions about these texts? What is your reasoning that they represent widespread views of Jews before Jesus died? Please try to bracket your Christian bias as we seek to achieve NPOV. Slrubenstein

Darling reader, assuming someone has a Christian POV is in itself a POV. Of course one must avoid stating that one has or has not, since his purpose in asking to bracket might be attempt to obtain a denial of it. CheeseDreams 22:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we're going to mention the Mandaean's claim to John the Baptist, I would hope it would be stated as such, along with the Christian claim that John was the forerunner of Christ. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't even any alleged writings left by John the Baptist himself that might indicate his allegiance. There is ample evidence that Christians have counted him as a Christian saint, at least as old as any Mandaean references to him. Note that I'm not asking the Mandaean reference to be deleted. Wesley \

I would also note that if we speak of hopes for a savior, we should note from what exactly (or even generally) they hoped to be saved. From the Romans? From the judgment of God? From something else? Wesley 04:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That depends on which group it is. Many considered the Romans to be the judgement of God. CheeseDreams 20:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Less wordy please.

I know we all love to read and write, but could we be more economical? I'm inclined to scroll past any comment that is more than a few paragraphs long.

I skipped the last 2 feet of text or so, to get to here, as I hate to have my comments disappear in the muddle.

Is annointed king and annointed priest acceptable rather than king messiah, and priest messiah and king and priest -- seems to me to cover both sides of the discussion on that...

No. These are meaningless titles. We should just use the word "king" or "priest," when talking about kings and priests. When we define the word "messiah," of course, we should say that kings and priests were anointed.Slrubenstein
that seems the reasonable way, to me tooPedant

also, the following other messiahs issue, if the Manaeans or whoever they are considered and still consider John the Babptist to be (one of many/a/the/the only) messiah, isn't that enough to say there was at least one other group?

The issue is, "when." This article is on the historical context of Jesus, who lived in the first half of the first century. There is little evidence from that period that anyone considered John the Baptist a messiah. The Mandeans did not come into existence until the second-third centuries. That they considered John the messiah tells us something about them and the second and third centuries, but tells us nothing about the historical context of Jesus. Slrubenstein
Dear reader, the Madaeans did not come into existance until the second or third centuries BC. CheeseDreams 19:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thanks for the clarification. I don't disagree.Pedant
I disagree, because the earliest evidence I can find for the existence of the Mandeans is the third century CE. Some claim the Mandeans are descendants of followers of John the Baptist, which contradicts the claim that they came into existance in the third century BCE. Of course, some Mandeans claim that their religion began with Adam and Eve. Presumably this is long before the third century BCE, but I know of no historical evidence for this either. CheeseDreams and Pedant, what is your source for this claim? Slrubenstein
Note, there is a dialect of Aramaic called "Mandean" which existed prior to the Common Era. But in this case, we are speaking only of a language, not a religion. The religion called "Mandean" did not come into existence until a couple of centuries after Jesus. Slrubenstein

more importantly, can we boil this down to just what reflects on the Cultural and historical background of Jesus' and save the rest of the discussion for another page? I'm soliciting drafts of the whole article by anyone who wants to add them, separately, with no comments, just what your best version of the article would be to be posted at: User:Pedant:CaHBJ so that I could attempt to produce a NPOV synthesis from them. I think we are all using the ever-tightening microscrutinizer on this article, and I think we all are pretty close to the same version... I'd like to see this at least get to the point where we have one draft of an article that all the current editors agree does not contain any disputed statements, and then edit carefully from there, to preserve that balance. I think it can be done, but I don't think it's being done the easiest way.Pedant 18:36, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

P.S. no rush on this, I think it would be best to get the very best versionof this article from everyone, rather than a hurried attempt... maybe we can all do some writing and get back to this in a week? next weekend maybe? It also might help if we try to follow the general format of the article as it stands, so it's easier to compare versions, but really, just make a good attempt at the best version. and thanks everyone on putting so much effort into such a tough article.Pedant
I honestly thought we had that before CheeseDreams made various changes -- cutting paragraphs that were NPOV and accurate, and adding paragraphs that were not verifiable. Slrubenstein
well, however it started, it seems to be getting worse, so let's just move forward, I suggest.
Agreed. Will submit suggested edits. - Amgine 18:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Good grief. This might be the best approach, but I honestly don't have the time to put into this. It's one thing to edit or even write an article knowing that others with interest and knowledge in the subject will also edit it in their efforts to improve it. But to rewrite an entire article just as an academic exercise in mediation? Sorry. I'll check back in when the page is unprotected. Wesley \
I would like to ask for two things though:
* That this remain in spirit a "daughter article" of the Jesus Christ article. (Wouldn't want to confuse him with other Jesus' of the century...)
* That the article not contain "original research" or mere opinions of Wikipedia editors. Attribution seems like a good way to achieve this. Wesley 05:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
At least twice, we have all discussed the nature and title of this article, and came to the consensus that it is not necessary to remain in spirit of the daughter article of Jesus (note the lack of the word Christ). CheeseDreams 20:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Slrubenstein has admitted in the mediation that he has not cited his sources, and only has 5/6 books. I am of the opinion that this implies that Slrubenstein is committing personal research. CheeseDreams 20:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it would clarify things if I pointed out that the Nazoreans are the Mandaeans, Mandaeans just being one of the more recent terms (another is the "Sabeans"). Many Mandaeans still infact refer to themselves as Nazoreans, as the term "Mandaeans" is one used by outsiders rather than something they call themselves. CheeseDreams 20:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Trust

Should we trust Slrubenstein's claim to extensive and valid research when, on his own talk page, he writes Most historians see Hinduism as coming into existence in the 19th century as a result of English colonialism, which is utter nonsense? CheeseDreams 19:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

His knowledge of scholarship of Jesus seems entirely accurate, whereas his opponents seem entirely unaware of any scholarship on the subject at all. Jayjg 01:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That sounds like a wholly POV statement to me. And a failure to assume good faith. Would you care to explain why you consider that a balanced opinion, and one which is assuming good faith? CheeseDreams 20:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I trust that he has done "some" research in good faith that is for the most part valid, at least as far as it goes. I think he's done more of this sort of research than I have, so I don't feel qualified to remark on whether his research is "extensive" or "minimal" or in between; can't comment on that when I myself don't know how much ground there is to cover. Wesley \
If he can make such an absolutely outrageously inaccurate claim about "most historians" and "hinduism", then I fail to see why I should trust his ability to research properly, and not wildly distort the opinions of the sources he reads to suit his POV. CheeseDreams 20:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mind you, there's a lot that he and I disagree about, and I'm sure we'll get to that eventually. We certainly disagree about how Christianity arose and spread in the first one or two centuries. Despite that disagreement, I don't think it's necessary let alone beneficial for me to try to delete his edits or to try to discredit him personally. I've worked with Slrubenstein off and on here on wikipedia for at least two or three years, and over that time he has repeatedly earned a certain amount of trust from me, but NOT because he and I share the same POV or even the same religion. It's because we share an approach to NPOV that allows us both to agree that "these people believe X, citing evidence A, while these other thing Y, citing evidence B and reinterpreting A", etc. Usually the wording doesn't have to be nearly that awkward, either. ;-) Wesley 05:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediation

It is a requirement of Wikipedia policy that you are informed of the following link's existence: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Slrubenstein

It is also a requirement to inform of the following link (although Slrubenstein failed to comply with the requirement): Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Users CheeseDreams and Amgine


EDITS: Please read

Now the page is unprotected, I would like to propose we review the article systematically.

To this end, I have taken the suggestions above relating to the introduction, and tried to combine them into one introduction as a starting point, which hopefully may be "close".

I have also added a historical overview - I know that others will check the details I have left very quickly, and fix errors, but I'd say do not (yet) make major edits to it.

My aim here is to propose a "nearly neutral" wording, and let it be fine tuned, based on the many discussions we've seen in this page. That way we may avoid massive headaches. Let's discuss those two - if the introduction is not neutral from all angles, then how would you change it? If the history is technically inaccurate or not suitable, what would you fix? FT2 02:33, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

FT2 02:33, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Emergence of Christianity

I take strong exception to the comment in the following quote in the article:

Somewhere in the three hundred years from 0 - 400 AD, Christianity emerged. !Arianism and various other changes were only seperated during 4th century as not-orthodoxy there was no orthodoxy before!

Although there were some divergent views that laid some claim on the name "Christian", there certainly was a discernible orthodoxy before the 4th century. Arianism was not "separated" from Christianity because Arius had not proposed the ideas until the late 3rd century at the earliest. In the New Testament epistles of Paul and John, both warn their listeners to stick to the message they received from the apostles. Irenaeus wrote that the same teachings were taught and believed in everywhere around the world at the time he wrote in the 2nd century, in his Against Heresies. Other writers during this time similarly exhorted their readers not to be swayed from the message they received; they certainly thought there was an 'orthodox' Christianity. They were identifiable as a distinct group no later than the bar Kochba rebellion when many were slain by their fellow Jews for not acknowledging bar Kochba as the Messiah. Wesley 17:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Having said all that, I see I may have put the cart before the horse. Should this article even discuss any of the events that happened after Jesus' crucifixion? I can see maybe going a few years after, but even the bar Kochba revolt may be going too far afield for this article, to say nothing of going all the way to the fourth century. Wesley 17:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wesley, two comments. First, I didn't put in the line about Arians and you should feel free to correct. But I did put in the first to fourth century because my understanding is that orthodoxy wasn't established as hegemonic until the fourth century. That doesn't mean that orthodox ideas were not around earlier, even as early as 100 -- just that they were not established as orthodox. After all, who was Ireneaus arguing against -- if not people who did not hold to orthodoxy (or who considered their own beliefs "orthodox!"). Am I making sense? If so, is there a better way to put this? Second, I do think something should be said about the emergence of Christianity because the "story" critical historians have about how Christianity emerged is part and parcal with their rejecting certain (orthodox) elements of the Gospels as not historically accurate, and thus part of what motivates their account of Jesus' life. We all understand that their view (e.g. Sanders) is NOT what Christians, or most Christians, believe. This is but one point of view. We do not want to represent it as objective truth, but as a particular POV. Can this be done more effectively? Slrubenstein

First, I should apologize for commenting on a version of the article that was already out of date when I made the comment, and any confusion that may have caused. Second, my understanding is that Irenaeus was addressing Christians, wanting them to understand just how different Gnosticism was, even though some Gnostics borrowed a couple of names from Christianity and brought those into their Gnostic framework. Irenaeus talks about orthodox Christianity as something that has been established, as do Paul and John in the NT. I'll try to catch up with the current state of the article before I make any further suggestions though. Wesley 05:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

new round of revisions

Aside from deleting a few paragraphs that were excessively wordy, I have mostly added to the article, and have modified the organization to bring together historical and cultural contexts -- they are inextricably linked. I left a huge amount of earlier material at the end of this revision. I feel much of it can be deleted, but I do not want to do that unilaterally. Certainly much of it can be moved into sections above that I created -- or perhaps put into a new section, but earlier in the article. I can work on this more later, but I wanted to wait and see if others have ideas or want to try it, Slrubenstein

REVERT

I have reverted back to the version by FT2. The version we have spent the last 3 weeks discussing the vertiable merits of various changes should be the version we start with, and make minor edits to. Any changes should only be those in line with the discussion. I don't remember the discussion consensus being "we ought to completely re-write the article so that it suits Slrubenstein's POV". Do you?

FURTHERMORE. I think those of us in mediation (predominantly about this article) should NOT make edits to the page, or allow our edits to be made to the page, until the mediation is complete. CheeseDreams 18:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are way out of line. Do not delete valuable content. Do not revert all work I do. You do not have the right to ban me from Wikipedia. Slrubenstein
Dear reader, one ought not to ignore the debate on this page and its archives as to what ought to go into the article. To do so is simply arrogance. CheeseDreams 20:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I compared the two versions, and it is my opinion that the one contributed by Slrubenstein is, in fact, superior: in clarity, comprehensiveness, language and grammar. I do not find it to be overly-scholastic, I think it subscribes to the scholarly standards of Wikipedia (as opposed to that of Simple Wikipedia). I gather mediation is ongoing, so perhaps I should not expend much more words beyond this (i.e. not yet a comment about historical accuracy, POV, etc.). Of course, I welcome counter-arguments (from those here who disagree with Slrubenstein) as well as the possibility that I overlooked important aspects of the dispute. Let me know, everyone, if there is anything I could do to help. El_C
I second that. Just because a compromise was worked out, that doesn't mean it can't be improved. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 23:19, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Improvement is DIFFERENT to Blanket replacement. CheeseDreams 00:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's version is clearly massively superior. This is utterly ridiculous. john k 00:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are clearly Slrubenstein's mate - see your own talk page. CheeseDreams 00:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Quick update to those waiting - I have now reviewed and sorted the exiting material, and I'm sifting it through. Its going well. Thanks for being patient. FT2 00:59, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


Next update: I have it organised a form I can live with generally. I have 2 jobs left: check each section is "good enough" (neutral, not too long, focussed, relevant, fits in), and check no material submitted by SIrubenstein or others is omitted by accident that's good.

Some textual matters I havenmt yet addressed, like better wording on the messiagh stuff, if relevant, I may need a final review to catch things we had a consensus wording on recently. FT2 01:18, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


Okay, update #3... the existing material is in a decent form. I havent really cleaned up the "about jesus" stuff but its all grouped in a section marked "jesus" with a neutral intro, so it should be OK for now. Needs cleanup in a bit.
Next jobs - review talk pages for consensual text and insert that, and then post. Its late here so when I do, please dont revert it. COnsider it, and remember, we know some parts need review. make small changes and additions there,m put big ones in a "suggested text" section below. FT2 01:53, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
okaaaaaaaay... I have gone through the entire damn archive and current talk, picking out serious substantial additions and recasts. Now I'm merging them in........

Damn, you guys had better like this wehn Im done! FT2 02:18, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Version #1 of rewrite

Okay. Please do NOT edit the current version, except for small errors, for a bit. I have included the most neutral versions of everything that people have done, and tried to do an honest job. I think its good and I think its broadly neutral but yet pays tribute to both secular and christians, and allows both to find what they need. Comments (brief and summary!!) for now. Say whether you can handle this as a broad starting point, and if not what your issues are (itemise them). I dont mean small wordings I mean - is there any section where you basically want to rewrite it becayuse it isnt good. If so, which ones and what to do?

Then see where we are at. FT2 03:54, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Note: because this is a collaboration, I've tried where possible to keep others wordings. Thus you'll see odd sentences and snips here and there, as well as whole chunks. Quick summary of what I found when I looked at the existing and proposed edits:
INTRODUCTION: It is incredibly hard to write a neutral introduction. "According to the Gospels" doesnt quite cut it, because it immediately makes the article sound like it is a religiously-based one, no matter the discussion of hisoricity. Additionally the proposed introduction focusses a lot on who accepts what and whether they view it as supernatural or otherwise, and how christianity emerged. None of this is an introduction as such to this topic. The topic has to summarise WHY he is associated with this era, WHY non christians and other secular students may be interested, WHY it is useful to understand this period anyhow, and WHAT the article's approach is to it. I started with 4 paragraophs. Feel free to shorten it, but at the least i am happy that those 4 are neutral, in a deeper sense, so I have let them stand. Perhaps we can shorten them, but please for now, dont delete and over write. They are neutral and that is more than we had before.
SIrubenstein - 1st temple era - I like, its neutral enough to stand, and informative.
SIrubenstein - persian era onwards - I worry if we have too much detail here. Its really needing to be an overview of history as background, rather than a full history, intended to help understand where its coming from. We point people to "history of country" if needed for more. I've written up a summary which I'd like to merge in and see if it works, take points from both. Some like the sanhedrin is relevant, some its just too much extra info. That said the historical sections are mostly neutral. Im letting much of this stand temporarily, with the provisoit might be needed to reduce or remove parts. But if I trim it down, it will be because it may be superfluous more than because it's POV. I'm happy I have cut most of the excess already, I think.
SIrubenstein - Jesus and after jesus - Some may be relevant. for example, that talk about how restoration was "seditious". But overall this is not really key to the article, and can be made more NPOV. I'd like to edit it, but for now I will move it to its own section and only do so lightly, as I want to get the history and culture and intro sorted out 1st. The question really is, is it relevant? I suppose some is, but Im dubious if this much is right here. There are articles on both these areas, or should be, and it conveys a religion-oriented feel too which isnt quite right for the article. What Ive done is to collate the stuff thats about "how did jesus fit in" into a section, and for now it looks OK enough to let it go.

Hope that helps, i figure if I edit a lot I should explain my reasoning, so you know how it ended up and that nobody has been slighted. I have made it (I hope) more neutral, and also nmore informative by doing so. Let me know if its worked, and if there are BIG chunks to edit, like whole paragraphs to reqwrite, please list them here so we can discuss not edit war :) FT2 04:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

LATE FLASH - somehow I forgot the intro. Sorry! Now fixed! FT2 04:10, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


FT2, thanks for your hard work. I especially like the four introductory paragraphs, in that they seem to cover all or nearly all the points mentioned in our joint discussion.

I made a few minor copyedits that I hope won't upset anyone.

There is just one sentence regarding the "Messiah" that I take exception to. I think I understand why I dislike it now, so I hope I can explain better than I did before.

The meaning of "Messiah" in Christianity, that of a godhead, a unique being who would save them in the sense of salvation, was not part of Judaism, though it may have formed part of the hopes or mystic beliefs of some cults or splinter groups.

Frankly, I don't think this represents any version of Christianity very well. Christians generally think Jesus is God, and they generally think he is also the promised Messiah, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they expected the Messiah to be God himself before Jesus. Afterwards, I'm not sure that they really blended these two concepts that much, other than to say that God had fulfilled the Messianic prophecies by becoming incarnate. Also, in Christianity, "godhead" most often refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not just to Jesus; even in nontrinitarian versions like Mormonism (See Godhead). I can't think of a POV in which that really looks right; but maybe someone else here can educate me. Also, I honestly hope I don't come across as just hairsplitting. Wesley 05:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I have noticed the sections cut out as being more to do with "origins of christianity". Ive sifted them to check what they had (I didnt have time yesterday for that, sorry!) and to my surpriswe they are like 50% historical and cultural. So I have extracted material as relevant on the Bar Kochba revolt, and on jewish reactions to cults and the political implications of preaching, and attempted to recast these neutrally in the relevant sections. I'm a lot happier now. FT2 17:32, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Uh...

FT2, I appreciate the work you've obviously put into this, but why should we not work from a clearly superior version simply because CheeseDreams can't play well with others? While of course, like any version, Slrubenstein's version needs work (in particular, I think, as you've noted, that there's probably too much detail that could go into other articles on Jewish history in this period), but this is, again, absurd. By any reasonable standard his version was far superior, and we should be working from it, not working from an earlier, clearly worse version. If anyone other than CheeseDreams finds the old version to be superior, that's one thing, but so far we essentially have one user preventing a clearly better version from coming in, and this is just totally unacceptable. If CheeseDreams has substantive complaints with Slrubenstein's article, let him air them, but so far his arguments have been entirely process-based. This is just miserably depressing. john k 08:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken, slightly. No material has been ignored, what has happened is basically two things:
  • The article has been organised in line with its title, it has worked from both the earlier version, the talk pages, and BOTH of their hard work. The article was locked for some 5 hours yesterday, and a further 4 today, while that editing and merging took place, so this has not been a small job to do.
  • The article has been recast in a mannner which allows it to focus on its subject rather than "the gospel story" per se.
I see both of them as wanting the article to look good, but also to be balanced and true to its subject. They'd better like this version, is all I can say :) Comments first not major editing, please. FT2 17:25, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)



I have an objection to the way Slrubenstein ignores discussion such as on these talk pages and insist on using his version (see above RE. messiahs paragraph, where he repeatedly asserts his version despite people working on a consensus version) . This is the definition of arrogance. CheeseDreams 11:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re:messiahs. My version got a majority vote, your version a minority vote. But this is not the key issue. The key issue is that your version was wrong. Slrubenstein

Note to readers - Slrubenstein has never before cared about majority votes - reverting the text when it was changed to match the votes of the majority. In addition, note that the above mentioned vote was made AFTER Slrubenstein had gerrymandered the electorate (see his contributions list, and the voters' talk pages)CheeseDreams 21:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please, let's all avoid even the appearance of personal attacks, and focus on how the article itself may be improved. Wesley 23:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FT2's Ultimate Version

While I appreciate FT2's efforts, they are a mess. I object to his criteria -- the way to write a good article is not to accomodate all discussants; it is to have an oppen discussion in which people provide evidence and reasons for changes, and then write the best version possible.

  • the intro is a mess. My version was concise, accurate, and NPOV. To mention the Gospels is not NPOV becuas ethe Gospels really do exist, and they are sources for both religious people and critical scholars. The intro made it clear that religious people and scholars interpret the Gospels very differently. But come on, if it weren't for these historical documents, would we even be sitting here writing an article on Jesus?
  • FT2 deleted a great deal of important content on the historical context. He claimed that it was "too much" but all of my content introduced crucial elements of the article, like the relationship between the saducess, the pharisees, the Temple, and the Torah. Every historical paragraph I added served to explain these four variables, crucial to understanding the context of Jesus. FT2 actually starts the historical section far too early, with the original settlement of the area (which is something historians and archeologists are still trying to reconstruct, and the current summary here is woefully inadequate -- and unnecessary) which is not relevant to the article.
  • the statement "law of the land was Jewish religious law, which was for the most part legislative and not harsh," is poorly written and unclear. The law of the land was law which was legislative? (and Amgine mocks my writing style?). Moreover, "religious law" has no meaning in this context. We are not quite sure what the laws were at that time but we can be fairly sure they were based on the Torah which includes civil and tort law.
  • "third, it caused religious and cultural difference to escalate into conflicts with the secular authority" is either dumb or really POV. I assume the "secular authority" is the Greek or Roman authorities, but if you think they were "secular" and had not religious and cultural agenda, you are ingorant. Moreover, much of the conflicts were not caused by religious difference sbut by economic and political differences. This notion that the middle east is a "powderkeg" (a word used in the intro of FT2's version) in which religious difference has to be contained by secular leadership just mimics the view most people today take towards the middle east. I am not evern sure it is an accurate view today, but I am sure it is a bad way to interpret history. What scholars claim this?
  • Why focus on the Jewish notion that nakedness is an abomination (by the way, any evidence?)? I thought the real issue was that the Greeks thought circumcision was an abomination. You present (or mirepresent) a Jewish view and ignore the Greek view -- lack of balance, no NPOV.
  • The statement "Politically as time passed, the foreign powers often came to view the wish of some Jews not to become integrated as a divisive and therefore political wish, and often considered it a personal affront to the emperor" might be true, but it is not really how most historians explain the Maccabean revolt and the Seleucid oppression that preceeded it. Why not summarize Bickerman and Tcherikover's views? Why present this speculation which seems unfounded?
  • The Pearlman quote is inappropriate in in encyclopedia. He was not a scholar, he was a former Israeli army officer and wrote many popular books that could at best be described as whiggish history, if not nationalist history. If you want to write an article on "how Jews in the late 1900s saw their own past, ideologically," by all means quote Pearlman. If you want to analyze the Hasmoneans, cite real critical scholars.
  • The view that there was a split between hellinized and "traditional" Jews is anachronistic. Perhaps this was Therikover's view (I am not sure) but most historians today reject it as simplistic.
  • "Culturally the Jews were for the most part hard-working, God-fearing, deeply religious farming villagers," do we have clear evidence for this? This sounds like Readers' Digest prose, not encyclopedia prose. There are many other sentences like this that just seem to trivialize the project (people prayed to their many gods -- tripe, how do we know what they did? This isn't a novel).
  • FT2 deleted much of my text because he considered it irrelevant, but I do not see how all the detail on Menalaus and Jason is at all relevant context for Jesus
  • It is a little confusing to me to call the Hasmonean kingdom the second kingdom. Is this some historical convention of which I am unaware? What historian uses this? Cirtainly, one could easily call the Hasmoneans the thrid kingdom (not that anyone does) or fourth kingdom. Why second?
  • The statement "By 1 CE, the Roman Empire was somewhat more corrupt than it had been" is POV and I think unnecessary. By what criteria? How do you measure corruption? Who says the empire was more corrupt in 1 CE than in 50 CE? How is this relevant to the article? You don't think Jews were pleased by Roman occupation in 1 BCE, or 10 BCE, or 20 BCE, do you?
  • In the section "Jewish Revolt and aftermath," I provided an essential account for the background of Jesus, which FT2 deleted. He has replaced it with a series of questions that were answered in the passages he deleted.
  • There is no evidence that the Mandeans were a messianic group in Judea (or the Galilee or Samaria) at that time -- why are they mentioned?
  • "The early Christians were often in conflict with groups they considered heretical" completely distorts the situation, and is utterly at odds with recent work by historians. This sentence implies that "heretics" were not "early Christians" and that "early Christians" were not "heretics." What is really going on is that there were several groups with competing visions of Christianity. Each one considered itself orthodox; each one considered the others to be heretical. This sentence implies that those Christians who, in the second or third centuries, were most like Christians of today (or of the fifth century) were the real Christians, and all the others were heretics (or considered to be heretics) is totally POV. There are a number of sentences in this version that are similarly POV -- POV because they read the past through the lense of the present (e.g. the Pearlman quote, which is pure editorializing)
  • To suggest that because ancient Israelites had a Temple and priests, and a Torah and scribes, and a King who ruled by divine right, that they therefore had a "dual core" consisting of a political and spiritual authority is another anachronism that ignores all current scholarship on Jewish history. To say that this is a dual core is to suggest that "spiritual" and "political" are opposed. This is indeed true today, in the post-Enlightenment modern West that distinguishes between religion and politics. But how do we know that ancient Israelites made this distinction? There is no evidence that they did; indeed, all evidence suggests that they did not distinguish between the spiritual and the political, at least not in any modern sense.
  • To say that the "Children of Israel" had the Mishnah is at best misleading, at worst very confused and sloppy. Usually shcolars use "Children of Israel" to refer to the twelve tribes, during the time of the two kingdoms. The Kingdom of Israel (9.5 tribes) was destroyed around 722 BCE; by Roman times the ones who were left were calle d"Jews" not Children of Israel. The Mishnah wasn't edited until 200 CE. The "Children of Israel" were long gone.
  • In the section on struggles with Hellenism you cut the stuff I put in on having to deal with the implications of a universal God, and Greek interest in Judaism. Why?
  • The word "apocalypse" was not borrowed from Hebrew or the Jews, it is a Greek word.
  • In judiasm the priesthood is more of an administrative role than anintermediary between Jews and God? What nonesense! First of all, priesthoods are always administrative (ever visit the Vatican)? Second, the Israelite priesthood was just as much an intermediary withGod, through sacrifice, as any other priesthood. What was the basis for this claim? What scholarly reference can you give?
  • The paragraph on the zealots makes it seem as if the sicarii were a subset of zealots, which is of course wrong. At least, this needs to be rewritten for clarity and accuracy.
  • To claim that Christianity is "more aeasier to digest" is just the worst kind of POV editorializing.
  • the sentence "It is hypothesised that to make it palatable, and draw a line separating them from the Jews (who were by now becoming politically dangerous associates due to their rebellion against Rome) many more of the restrictive laws were removed and the emphasis was shifted." is a poor one for an encyclopedia. Who hypothesized this? In any event, the "hypothesis" makes no sense. Jews never believed non-Jews should obey Jewish law. No Jew, including early (Jewish) Christians, would have demanded that gentiles obey Jewish law. Nothing had to be stripped to make things easier. By the way, many Gentiles did turn to other religions with very restrictive practices, so there is no reason to think that "restrictions" were what got in the way of appealing to gentiles.
  • I have no idea what scholarship the section on Jewish reactions to cults and messianism is based on, it all seems speculative.
  • Ditto the section on the Jewish rejection of Christianity. An earlier section already touches on this (citing scholars like Fredriksen and Boyarin). But this section seems to assume one form of Christianity, when in fact Christianity was heterogeneous and in flux during the first two centuries. Thus, the section also conflates a complex historical process and makes it seem as if the "rejection" were one simple decision. It reads as if it is mostly speculation.
  • "Yohanan" is not Hebrew for Jonathan; the Baptist's name was "John" (or it's Hebrew equivalent, Yohanan). This is trivial but such an obvious thing I believe it shows just how sloppy FT2's version was
  • The organization is an utter mess. I think one historical narrative accomodates all major points. FT2s version breaks it up topically, which means that each section jumps back and forth a lot. This has several bad consequences. One is it leads to apparent anachronisms (the paragraph that describes the Pharisees emerging during the Hasmonean period also mentions sages like Hillel who lived after the Hasmoneans. "Phariseeism itself changed form and function and there is no reason to believe that the Phariseism of the Tana'im is the same as the Phariseism of the Hasmonean period. Second, it separates phenomena that were ocurring at the same time, and connected.

With all of these problems, it just seems a lot easier to return to my version than to edit this version. I really went over it carefully and found little if anything that is not in my version, but that should be kept. I do believe that towards the end, in the sections on Christian rejection of Judaism and Jewish rejection of Christianity, there may be material that, if developed, should be in the article. Given the sloppy scholarship, I think it is important that before we add this material we go back and look at the historical sources, and develop these points.]]I think my version, which I spent a day working on, was far superior in terms of NPOV, verifiability, coherance, and style. I have no objection to people continuing to improve it -- but to trash it and leave in its place something like this is weird. Slrubenstein

SIrubenstein edits

I feel somewhat disrespected, SIrubenstein. You were asked, along with CheeseDreams, to put major comments here and not perform major editing, and that was not for trivial reasons. It was so everyone could discuss and form a consensus without antagonism. But instead, you have performed major editing without consulting others, in a situation where you know others have different views from yourself.

I am not interested in becoming dragged into a 3 way argument here. You and CheeseDreams have asked for help in coming to a consensus precisely because you both failed to find a way to do so. This implies that you have to accept the odds are good both of your approaches were to an extent right, and both to an extend inappropriate. That includes your beliefs on the article, too.

Rather than encouraging an edit/revert war, I have posted the following on RFC:

"Cultural and historical background of Jesus Following a lot of discussion of the article in the Talk pages about how much religious material belongs in it, and the scope of the article, and a long mediation, a version was produced. Requests were made on the talk page to discuss before making major edits, to allow a break from revert issues and a consensus where we had got to. One of the original parties within the mediation has significantly reverted the article. As informal mediator, rather than being pulled into a revert war as a contender, may I solicit comments comparing these two versions:
with a view to organisation, scope and neutrality, so that we can see which approach others feel is preferable and avoid a revert war again?"

FT2 19:33, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel disrespected. I wish you wouldn't take my reversion personally, as it was not based on any personal feelings about you. I feel that a lot of hard work I did yesterday was wasted, and can understand -- with regret -- that you might feel the same way. I simply believe that the work you did set the article back a good deal. My judgement is of the work, not you. As for mediation -- I never requested that you mediate, and I do not (as I have stated elsewhere) see you as a mediator; I see you as one other wikipedian who is a contributor and editor. I do not understand most of the changes you made, and the ones I understand I disagree with, and I am happy to restate my reasons though I thought they were clear. I did request mediation on the appropriate page, but so far no mediator has been selected; moreover, that mediation is interpersonal -- I don't think mediators have a brief to comment on content or to try to edit together compromise versions. But to be clear: I never asked for help in coming to a consensus. Consensus is nice, but not the issue. I aksed for help in dealing with CheeseDreams when I feel he rejects and reverts any and all changes I make; when he adds false and unverifiable statements to the article and refuses to provide any sources. The problem isn't lack of consensus, it is a problem in the process by which the article is being worked on. I also ask for help in verifying the material in the article, and in removing unverifiable parts. This is a substantive, not procedural, issue. I am sorry if you misunderstood. The fact is, I never felt you were mediating a conflict, I felt you were often imposing your own views on the article without discussing them. I don't mind your getting involved in this page, but I prefer it if your interventions promote dialogue, involve raising questions you think are unanswered, proposing specific solutions -- but not wholesale taking control of the article. Slrubenstein

It is my personal opinion, Slrubenstein, that you do not seem to understand or accept collaborative process. Although I have much praise for elements of your version, there are elements which are in dispute amongst scholars of the issues, it is not in a format readily understood by the target audience of a general encyclopedia, and it has not been written with other contributors - thus likely to be the target of immediate reversion, edits, and conflict which will distract everyone from other work.
I am only addressing the issues regarding this particular article. I think you can fairly accept that your article, with all its carefully researched and written elements, will not stand as currently presented. Given that reality, you may wish to consider whether it would be a better investment of your time and energy to work toward a consensus which includes your hard work, or a confrontational edit war which will sap it and ultimately result in an article which will be less well developed?
I will also point out I feel you acted in very bad faith in the current edit, one which strongly prejudices your future actions and suggestions. - Amgine 20:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you are saying that my version is inaccessible, and needs to be developed to be clearer and more easily understood by the general pbulic, I have no problem with that. And if I thought that FT2 was making changes precisely to address these issues, I would have had no problem with that. But I don't thaink that was the case. Did you read his version? Do you really believe that his version is in a format "readily understood by the target audience of a general encyclopedia?" I think it is much less clear, much more complicated and harder to follow. be that as it may, why do you say that "there are elements which are in dispute amongst scholars of the issues" in my version? Can you tewll me which elements, and which scholars dispute them? If you can, I am sure I will welcome and even encourage your making apporpriate changes. But no one in this discussion has ever provided evidence that contradicts anything I wrote. I also see you are not responding to my various reasons for reverting FT2s version. Don't think I did it with a light heart. I went through his version carefully. I found it full of inaccuracies, oversimplifications, anachronisms, sloppy scholarship, and lack of NPOV. I pointed out 17 specific problems (many of which are examples of other problems), and one general one. These are serious problems. FT2 is, like any other Wikipedian, wlecome to work on an article. But when he made so many changes to my version without justifying them -- especially when he introduced POV and inaccuracies -- he should know his work will be challenged. All I can say is, I gave specific reasons for rejecting his version. He never gave any for rejecting mine. Slrubenstein

I think that SIrubenstein's version generally reads better, and is better organized, but there is a lot of information that needs to be re-inserted, and it's not clear to me the best way to do so (for instance, the Pharisees are never defined, as far as I can tell). For instance, the part about geography is useful (though I would suggest using or at least citing the Greek-derived names common in Christianity for clarity's sake -- Gennesereth, etc.), as are various cultural tidbits that don't really fit into the historical structure.
I know there is a certain amount of not wanting to "reward" a major change that came in without discussion, but to throw away that work seems a little silly. If we keep the "collaborative version", it's going to need some major editing for organization, which is going to be impossible in the current climate, because it means someone going through and doing major content-shifts. Thus, I would suggest using the SIrubenstein version as a base (maybe adding a "culture" section at the end to collect good information that doesn't fit into the current structure) and collaborate from there to add in the material that is missing and correct any errors that crept in. Mpolo 20:57, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will try to put the geography info in. But I'd appreciate more thoughts on the Pharisees-definition issue. My problem is I think any "definition" will be wrong, because who and what the Pharisees were changed a lot over time. Imagine trying to come up with a one sentence definition of "Democrat" that is equally true of the Democratic party in the 1990s, 1970s, 1950s, 1930s, 1890s -- you get the idea (I hope, if you are not an American, you know enough about US political history). Slrubenstein

"Throw away" ?? You mean like what Slrubenstein did with everyone else's contributions?? Excuse, I do not think I can reasonably discuss this at the moment. I believe I have to dispute this article's POV and process utterly. - Amgine 21:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mpolo, I added material on geography in the very beginning, and in the section specifically on Jesus. I used as much as I could from FT2's secion on geography, but added more based on additional research. I also tried to make it fit into the organization in a reasonable way. Please let me know what you think -- also your comments on Pharisees. Slrubenstein

Disputed NPOV

  • In the opening paragraph, biblical and western historians exclusively are cited. Western and Christian viewpoints are certainly relevant, but this implies (as the balance of the essay bears out) a specific bias.
Um, "Christian" viewpoints are also "Western." There are three points of view: Christians, sceptics, and critical scholars. What other points of view should be represented? Remember, there are other, linked articles, that other points of view too. Slrubenstein
  • Throughout the discussions developing this article the focus has been on the specific context of Jesus, the time he may have lived and the first years thereafter. The vast majority of the text in the First Temple Era and Second Temple Era sections deals with the millenia prior to Jesus, and is not specifically relevant.
I think you mean "millenium," not "millenia." Well, the fact is that FT2's version went back even further, and I wanted to be inclusive of other editors' views. (The version you so like starts thus: "The original inhabitants of Roman Palestine were non-Jewish tribes such as the Canaanites and Philistines. According to legend, The Jews entered the region around the 13th - 14th century BCE" but you criticize my version for starting early? Weird!) Since other people went far back in history, it was certainly soemthing I considered. But is it relevant or not? Well, I think everyone agrees that this article must explain who the Saducees and Pharisees are. I don't see how they can be explaine without explaining the role of the Temple and the Torah in Jewish culture. The section in question explains these institutions, which were of continuing inportance during the time of Jesus. They also mention the situation of the Jewish monarchy, also crucial to understanding Jesus' life and times. In other words, there is some material from the 1st Temple period that is highly relevant to the article. Obviously, I left out a lot of other irrelevant info about that period. What, specifically, in these sections is not relevant to the Temple, Monarchy, or Legal tradition (and thus, all crucial to understanding Jesus)? Slrubenstein
  • First temple era: discusses "ancient land of Israel" exclusively as a land of the Jews for the entirety of its history. Furthermore the discussion is simplistic and generalized to support a POV, and complexities referred to a non-existent article History of Ancient Israel and Judea, followed by paragraphs of unsupported conjecture.
No, it mentions Canaan and Palestine with a link to an article that goes into much greater detail. I agree with your point that this area is not originally or exclusively Israelite, but disagree with your assessment of this paragraph which makes it clear that it is not. The linked article exists, I read it before writing this paragraphy. In any case, I will add another sentence to make this more strongly NPOV Slrubenstein
  • Continuous use of Judea, etc. as regional terms which are historically inaccurate (as previously pointed out by Slrubenstein) and on which consensus votes had determined Roman Palestine as the most relevant compromise term.
I use Judea when speaking specifically of Judea. David was king of Judea before he was king of Israel; Israel and Judea later became separate kingdoms. The Galilee is not the same thing as Judea. When does the article use "Judea" when it is really referring to Palestine? Slrubenstein
  • Statement "In most ancient societies sacrifice was the only form of worship" totally disputed, as well as the contention other religions/cultures lacked same. See Vedas, Homer, and Oral history
The text does not say "most ancient societies," it says "most ancient Near Eastern societies" which is accurate and certainly does not include India or Greece/Balkans. Did you make this change, or was that the original? In any case, the current version negates this criticism. Slrubenstein
  • Although not stated as the case, exclusively discussing the Sadducees and Pharisees continues the misapprehension that there were only 2 primary religious groups when in fact it appears to have been a multi-party system with 4 or more larger "schools of thought".
Read the article. The other parties (Essenes, Zealots, etc) developed at a different time. The only place I discuss the Pharisees and Saducees exclusively is during the period when they were they two primary religios/political parties. Also, there was never a "multi party system," not in the sence that political scientists use the term "party system." What do you mean? Slrubenstein
  • The use of sections such as The Hellenistic Period to discuss the Hasmonean Period, and the The Hasmonean Period to discuss merely a lineage, etc., is both misleading and non-encyclopedic. A section should clearly address only the period it purports to report upon, factually and verifiably.
I really do not understand what you mean. Each section heading describes what is discussed in the section; each section provides essential context for the 1st century CE situation of Jesus and others. Can you explain more clearly what you mean? The Hellenistic period starts with Alexander, not the Hasmoneans. The Hasmonean period involved struggles between kings involving Pharisees and Saducees, which is exactly what the section discusses. It explains how the Romans came to occupy the area (crucial to the article) and provides important background on the Pharisees and Saducees (crucial to the article) and provides context for understanding people's mixed feelings about restoring a monarchy (crucial to the article). What is "merely a lineage" refer to? Why is this misleading? Why is it not encyclopedic? I don't undertand; please explain.Slrubenstein

I have responded fully, and in good faith, to your criticisms. If I misunderstood any of your criticisms, and if you feel any of my responses are inadequate, please just explain how and why. But you have yet to respond to my objections to the version you so seem to like. Slrubenstein

Although I could continue on a point-by-point address of this essay, there is no reason to continue to do so. It is clear to me at this point that this article lacks a central structure which addresses the cultural and historical background of Jesus. While it has good examples of historical research, it fails to address its content focus in a meaningful manner. Therefore I contest this article is not NPOV, or is so poorly written it cannot fulfill its purpose. - Amgine 23:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you sum up in a sentence or short paragraph what you believe the essence of the cultural and historical background of Jesus is -- in other words, what you think the point of this article should be? I obviously disagree with you (I think the article does exactly what it says it does) but if you could explain yourself more, perhaps I would understand your point. What I did was I read a number of books by historians who discussed the cultural and historical background for Jesus, and summed up their points. Since this is about "historical" background I organized it historically. Slrubenstein
There is a thing such as process. Both parties were asked to read and comment. Not read and edit. In fact both sides were asked to refrain from editing for a while. There is a reason for that - major editing makes it hard to get consensus. We've seen that here before. I am not a combatant in a debate. I am also not as said above, strictly a mediator. What I do have though, and both SIrubenstein and CheeseDreams lack, is quite a lot of Wiki experience at controversial articles needing multiple views combining, clarifying and casting to NPOV without losing important material in the process. I am here to add that experience and help find a way to convey appropriately each side in the debate neutrally.
As said, the request to review and add comments here rather than major edits was not a light one, and actions that speak of an "I don't like it so to heck with you all" view are not, in my view, a viable way to build consensus. I don't know if you noticed, but a months solid listening and discussing went into that reworking. That was not accidental. Into it went neutral views and concerns from all sides, not just one or two.
As I said, I feel disrespected. That's not because I am personally insulted or any personal work is dismissed. It's because a request was made to give others a full chance to read and comment, to collect different views so we could see how it seemed to others. This was not an unreasonable thing to suggest, and was utterly ignored, and it is for that reason I feel disrespected, and I suspect others will too. FT2 23:32, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Again, I am sorry you feel disrespected. I guess after I made extensive revisions, I too expected people to comment and raise ussues before amking a wholesale re-write of the article. I am not sure what you mean by "both" parties -- there are several parties here, including yourself. Slrubenstein

Amgine added an NPOV warning. Fine. But it would be very helpful if he or anyone else could make a list of specific paragraphs lacking NPOV, and what the problem is. Then we can start fixing it. Slrubenstein

I suggest we develop an outline of elements to include in the article, and then build sections to address those specific elements. I propose the following (though I am not wedded to this list):
A. Introduction
1. to include exclusively those elements from consensus votes above
B. Political situation 40BCE-40CE
1. Regional rulers
2. High Priests
3. Notable military actions/uprisings/riots/rebels
C. Religious organizations
1. Major schools
2. Prophets, messianic groups
D. Later developments
1. Political control
2. Rabbinic Judaism/Christianity

- Amgine 20:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you explain why this section appeals to you? It doesn't make sense to me. For one thing, "consensus" and "vote" mean two different things, and I am certainly not satisfied that earlier discussions were ever resolved adequately. Second, why separate "political situation" from "religious organizations?" To do this runs counter to all major Jewish historiography. Many historians understand that the distinction between religious and political is a modern distinction (see Weber); even if it has more ancient roots, it certainly is a distinction foreign to Israelite and Jewish societies during this time period. Why would "notable uprisings" and "messiahs" be in two different sections, when they overlap? Why would "major schools" and "prophets" be in a different section from "political situation" when they were a major part of the political situation?

By the way, You still haven't responded to any of my objections to the FT2 version you prefer, and you haven't responded to my attempt to have a dialogue with you concerning NPOV. Slrubenstein

I would find it amusing that, having discarded wiki process you now complain you are not receiving collaborative support. But instead I find it a sad, cynical commentary. I'm sorry, I do not feel your essay is worth the time and effort to critique when it would take less time and effort for the community of contributors to build a new article.
As for the sections outlined above: Political Situation in this usage I meant who was actually in charge, rather than the political affiliations of those figures. The justification for separating uprisings and messiahs is fairly thin, merely that certain individuals appear to have merely been popular figures who did not in fact foment revolt, while others set out specifically to overthrow the roman rule. The use of force to put down uprisings, etc. is inherently an element of governance, while popular figures might be opposed for other reasons. The separation of political and religious is a modern one, and one which our modern audience insists upon, and therefore our article should inform their preconceptions and not ignore them.
Given the above, how would you suggest changing the section outline? - Amgine 23:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not complaining that I am not receiving collaborative support -- where do I complain about this?

Please pardon my insertion at this point, but I feel you have asked a question deserving a specific answer:
  1. What do you mean?
  2. Can you explain more clearly what you mean?
  3. I don't undertand; please explain.
  4. If I misunderstood any of your criticisms, and if you feel any of my responses are inadequate, please just explain how and why.
  5. But you have yet to respond to my objections to the version you so seem to like.
  6. but if you could explain yourself more, perhaps I would understand your point.
  7. I guess after I made extensive revisions, I too expected people to comment and raise ussues before amking a wholesale re-write of the article.
  8. But it would be very helpful if he or anyone else could make a list of specific paragraphs lacking NPOV, and what the problem is. Then we can start fixing it.
  9. By the way, You still haven't responded to any of my objections to the FT2 version
  10. you haven't responded to my attempt to have a dialogue with you concerning NPOV.
etc. I frankly don't feel like going back and finding every point where you defend you article and are unable to see any fault with it and ask for further expansion. And complain you don't get any responses.


Whoa, dude -- chill out. I agree that the last two points can be taken as complaints. But everything else is not complaining -- unless you are thoroughly defensive. I ask "what do you mean" "can you explain" "I don't understand" in good faith, because I really do not understand you and want to. If you think this is complaining, I admise you to leave Wikipedia -- I am not trying to be offensive but these discussion pages are for precisely that, discussion. That means dialogue. I do not take it for granted that everything I write is clear to everyone else and try to answer when someone asks what I mean. I am not complaining -- I am honestly baffled that you don't want to do the same thing, and that you are somehow offended by the fact that when I do not understand you I ask you for more explanation. I just don't see this as "complaining." Do you want me to just ignore you when I am not sure what you mean? Slrubenstein

I am doing what I have always done which is to explain my reasons for making a change, or for rejecting someone else's change; and asking people for the reasons why they reject my changes or why they want to make another change; and asking people to clarify what they mean when I am not sure. This has been my consistent behavior since I have worked on Wikipedia. I do think it is very cynical of you to say my version is not worth critiquing, when in fact you have made criticisms that I have addressed. It seems to me that you are copping out -- you know that you are wrong and cannot justify your views, so you simply say "it is not worth my time to discuss." Moreover, it is very cynical for you to refuse to discuss my criticisms of the alternate version (the one by FT2 that you approve of). Why is it not worth your time to address the problems I have with that version?Slrubenstein

Again an insertion, and again I apologize. You did not feel it was worth your time to address the problems you had with FT2's version. I have brought up some of my reasons for not accepting your essay, and rather than blanking your article and replacing it I have begun a discussion to develop a replacement article. You have been invited to collaborate on this replacement article. Will you do so? - Amgine 03:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I wrote a section above called FT2's Ultimate Revision where I listed over a dozen problems, and I have called your attention to this section several times, so please do not say that I did not feel it was worth the time to address the problems I had with his version when I spent considerable time laying out my problems with that version. Yes, you listed your objections to my draft and I appreciate it. I have only asked you why you have not responded to my replies. I do not know what you mean by "this replacement article." If you mean the one with the structure you suggested, and which I find obfuscating, I must say that my collaboration will consist of my explaining why it is problematic. Slrubenstein

A modern audience does not "insist" on a separation between politics and religion, by the way, in historical articles. In fact, it is historians who are insisting that history means understanding the past in its own terms. It is our obligation, as contributors to an encyclopedia, to represent the best of current scholarship. I do not find your explanation for your outline satisfying. Right now the article is organized according to who was in charge (Jewish/Israelite kings; Persians; Greek/Macedonians; Hasmoneans; Romans). To separate the religious and the cultural from this sequence of "who was in charge" would lead to redundancies and confusion, because "who was in charge" was intimately bound up with social and cultural institutions and beliefs, including beliefs about how to worship God. I just do not understand where you are coming from. I will, in fairness, tell you where I am coming from -- from having done research, and you can just look at the books mentioned at the bottom. What scholarship have you read that suggests your organization? Slrubenstein

A history as a smatterer and published author, former paper editor, and journalist informs my opinion that your essay is not accessible to the target audience. The academic texts I have read are mostly in the form yours is: dry, irrelevant, and unread except by other scholars. Unsuitable for an encyclopedia. (As a researcher in a very separate field I expect most of the articles I've been involved in are similarly unsuitable.)
My organization is primary developed from a journalistic viewpoint; Who did What, Where, When, and if possible suggest Why. This approach is proven as the most desired article format, reduces the likelihood of bias and speculation (leaving that up to the audience,) and minimizes the time and effort required of the reader to access pertinent facts. However, it is certainly not the only viable form, and I encourage you to suggest alternatives. Which, unfortunately, you have not yet done. - Amgine 03:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you want to see the alternative I suggest, just look at the article in its current state. I do not believe your format is "proven" as desirable and it certainly does not reduce the likelihood of bias. You keep defending the earlier (FT2) version and all I can say is -- if you honestly believe that was more accessible and readable than mine, than you and I will never agree on style because I thought the style and organization was horrid. Why don't you point out some places where the current version is "dry and irrelevant?" (and let's not forget the issue of NPOV and accuracy). You did list some objections, for which I thank you. I replied to those objections, in the spirit of collaboration. I hope you don't considering my answering your objections to be another form of complaining. You may not always be right. Slrubenstein

RfC

I came here from RfC. I only read the lead section. But at least to that point, this earlier version is more professional and on topic than the current version, in my view. Maurreen 03:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, you certainly have a right to your opinion. But I would like to understand it. First question: can you just diagram for me the first sentence of the version you like? I find it convoluted and wordy, but maybe I am missing something. Slrubenstein
Um, do we have the same meaning for "diagram a sentence"? More or less, to say which part of speech each part of the sentence is? Maurreen 16:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think so -- subject, verb, predicate, dependent clause, all that stuff. The point is, I honestly think the first paragraphs of FT@s version are hard for me to diagram and confusing. In my own work I try to stick to s-v-o as much as possible (which is far from always). You said this section is mre profesional -- what did you mean? I thought you meant it was better-written ... Slrubenstein 16:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I haven't done diagramming in years, but I'll try if it's important to you.
The version that I dislike isn't bad, but to me, it's not as smooth. For example, I'm paraphrasing here, but I'm not fond of "some people this and some people that" as written. I dislike the rhythm.
I'll try to give you more detail later. Maurreen 18:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, this helps. Do you think the rhythm can be improved -- or is it just a choice between two very different styles? Slrubenstein

Process Fetishization

I feel like this page has been hijacked by people who consider their idea of a correct process to be more important than the actual quality of product involved here. That being the case, I thought I'd raise a process issue, which is that FT2 seems to me to be behaving completely inappropriately. Not only does he not seem to be an official mediator, but it's pretty clearly not the job of a mediator to create an entirely new version of the page and then insist that other users not mess with it. FT2 has no particular rights over this page, and s/he shouldn't act as though s/he can dictate what everybody else does.

As to the content of the page, I really am not sure why Slrubenstein should be on the defensive. He has issued numerous strong, and as yet unrebutted, criticisms of FT2's version. On the other hand, he has pretty convincingly (IMO) addressed the substantive arguments that Amgine raised against his version, which, to be honest, seemed to me to almost entirely consist of grasping at straws. I think future discussion should be done on the basis of addressing problems with, and adding ommissions to, Slrubenstein's version, rather than working from a version that is distinctly worse. john k 21:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh please, an advocate who doesn't understand "Wiki". Too bad John Kenney only comes here when called on by Slrubenstein; he might be a valuable contributor. - Amgine 21:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've been following this page since Slrubenstein first alerted me to it. That a) he first alerted me to it; and b) I largely agree with him are neither of them justifications for dismissing my arguments out of hand and launching ad hominem attacks against me. At any rate, I find it vaguely offensive that somebody who has really only been editing for the past month and a half should feel that they have the right to accuse Slrubenstein and me, who have both been here for a long time, of not understanding the wiki process. john k 21:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see Wiki, with special attention to wiki#Key characteristics, line 1, "A wiki enables documents to be written collectively..." - Amgine 21:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uh huh, your point? john k 21:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To expand on this, of course the purpose of wikipedia is to work together on articles. But that doesn't mean that one user can't make radical changes, assuming that they improve the article. It just means that everybody else then has the right to question those changes on the merits and to themselves make changes that they think will make the article better. What Slrubenstein did was in no way a violation of the principles of a wiki. john k 22:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

John - I don't plan to get embroiled in a debate. But as Amgine says (""Throw away" ?? You mean like what Slrubenstein did with everyone else's contributions??"), I can guarantee two things:
  1. A lot more of other people's point of view, consultation and listening, and experience of writing NPOV on religion went into the version SIrubenstein overwrote, than the current version.
Huh, so what? This is always true whenever anybody writes a substantially new version of an article. Should this never be done? The fact of collaboration beforehand should never hamstring editors from substantially improving an article.
  1. If writing the suggested version is "hijacked" and "completely inappropriate", what would you say of totally ignoring a request for comments, and despite knowing others did not like the version SIrubenstein was suggesting, overwriting a draft for discussion with a version not a product of such consultation?
Think about it. Wiki is a community, and more than a few different people's voices got ignored in that unilateral refusal to even wait a day or two for comments as requested. Those voices have a place and deserved respect as part of consensus too, and you are supporting the removal of any opinion they might have had in favour of a version known previously to be considered not acceptable by several people here. FT2 00:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I am supporting a version which I think is a better version of the article. In your version of this, this seems to be utterly irrelevant. The collaborative process should not be used to prevent improvements in the quality of an article. john k 02:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is also the question of what you mean by "collaboration." In the period before FT2 started contributing to this article, I asked CheeseDreams and Amgine several times what their sources were and they either could not, or would not, answer me. I, on the other hand, have always provided my reasons and sources. This to me is a crucial part of the process: accountability. After the page was unprotected, FT2 made a revision, which I appreciated. I then spent a day making further revisions. I explained my changes on this page, and on FT2s talk page. I explained that I was careful to start with FT2s version, but did some reorganization and added a good deal of material where he left blank (or questions or "x"s). There was material from the earlier version I felt should be deleted, but I left it at the bottom of the article so we could discuss it. So when FT2 then entirely rewrote the article, and then demanded -- as I never had -- that no one touch it for a while -- without giving any explanations or justifications for his changes, I certainly felt there was no sense of collaborative process! FT2 takes it on faith that because he wrote it, it is the best version. He never explaine dwhy he made the changes he did. I have listed over a dozen specific problems with his version, and he has yet to respond to a single one (see above, FT2's Ultimate Version). I do not consider this to be collaboration in any sense. A "collaborative process" is not just voting, it is having a substantive engaged discussion in which people ask each other "why" and answer. If you look at the history of this discussion, you will see that CheeseDreams has never collaborated in this sense, and that although Amgine has tried, at certain points, he also admitted that he had done no research. I agree with John that FT2 is fetishizing process. But I add that the "process" he fetishizes isn't even the wikipedia process! Slrubenstein

Perhaps Slrubenstein should have put his alternative version on a temp page for discussion, but in the present climate, we have two editors who have all but explicitly said that they will ignore any input that he might make to the article... In the mediation attempt, they have said that any mediator Slrubenstein might suggest as neutral is automatically non-neutral. On this page, they say that any editor with whom Slrubenstein has ever exchanged words on the talk page is automatically non-neutral. It has really become a vendetta... (Slrubenstein has also made negative comments about CheeseDreams and Amgine, to be fair.) We need to drop the whole ad hominem thing and start writing an encyclopedia.
So the question remains, do we add to (and edit) the Slrubenstein version, which I believe to read much better and be more logically organized, or the FT2 version, which is going to need some major restructuring? I already wasted some time copy-editing the FT2 version and don't want to waste time on the Slrubenstein version if it's just going to go *POOF* in a couple of hours. I would suggest forgetting about the question of "process" for a moment so as to just decide the answer to this question (which forces more "process", I suppose): Which of the two versions provides a clearer and more understandable basis upon which we can build an acceptable article? Mpolo 08:16, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Slrubenstein's version
  1. Mpolo 08:16, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • FT2's version

I very much appreciate Mpolo's comments, and his intervention. But, to reiterate my poijnt about process, just another vote isn't going to say much. We all know FT2, Amgine, and CheeseDream will vote for FT2s version. But why? Do they really believe it is better-written, better organized, more NPOV and more verifiable? I hope these are their reasons (better than their earlier reasons which ammounted to "SL didn't write it"). But why do they think it is better written? What makes the organization superior? What are examples where it is more NPOV? I ask these questions seriously because my understanding of wikipedia as a collaborative process specifically includes discussions about just such issues. By the same token, I hope from you rvote Mpolo that you genuinely think my version is better-written, more informative, more balanced. Thank you! But can't you spend a little bit more time explaining why you think it is better written, what you like about eh organization, what you learn from it, how it responds to your educational needs? I ask you to do this not as a favor for me but as a favor for FT2, CheeseDreams, and Amgine. I think they fear that you are supporting me blindly. I think they jmay genuinely not understand why anyone would tolerate what I have written. I think you would be doing them a great service by explaining yourself more concretely. In general I have this problem with votes at Wikipedia -- they end discussion rather than encourage it, which seems so contrary to what Wikipedia is all about. I just want to promote discssion ... Slrubenstein

Mpolo - Slrubenstein has consistently failed to collaborate throughout the history of the article since my involvement. He also appears unable or unwilling to follow process, has refuted votes, etc. Given these, I find myself utterly uninterested in working on what I perceive to be a fatally flawed, nearly unreadable personal essay by him and would prefer to rewrite the article in a simpler, accessible format. I have, in fact, begun to do so and hope to have an outline available for comment soon. - Amgine 16:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and as an aside, could you please point to any ad hominem comment I have made? I would be very embarassed if I had made a statement about Slrubenstein, and not my opinion of the contributor. - Amgine 16:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...this isn't an ad hominem?

Oh please, an advocate who doesn't understand "Wiki". Too bad John Kenney only comes here when called on by Slrubenstein; he might be a valuable contributor.

At any rate, what exactly is the "process" which Slr has refused to follow? Until somebody addresses the numerous serious issues that he has raised with FT2's version of the article, I find it laughable that anyone can accuse him of refusing to work with others. And I continue to have no idea why you think that Slr's version is a "fatally flawed, nearly unreadable personal essay." This whole thing is becoming surreal. john k 17:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to be out of town for a week and a half or so, and probably won't be accessing the Internet in that time. (It could happen, but I won't promise anything.) Which is part of why I've been staying a little on the fringe in this last debate.
The main reason I like Slrubenstein's version better is for organization. It follows a historical arc, introducing the major cultural elements as they are appropriate. It probably needs another section on cultural trends in the first century that don't fit into the historical plan (most of these ideas already exist in FT2's version).
FT2's version has the merit of trying to incorporate everyone's input (and as the original "author" of the article, I might mention that that includes my work -- author in quotes because I split it off of Jesus, using most of the information that was there), but seems like a random collection of themes that need to be organized into a coherent structure. Based on the reaction to Slrubenstein's rewrite, that is never going to happen with this article, because anyone who tried would just get reverted.
That's why I advocate the better-structured article as a base. Does it have flaws? Absolutely. Is there information from FT2's article that needs to be brought back to it? Of course. Is the lead perfect? Of course not. I just feel that it is a better base document to begin with. (I will be in suspense to see what is worked out by the time I return...) Mpolo 19:27, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Counterproductive disputes

I've just skimmed this Talk page and, being short on time, would like to quickly record my opinion: Cheesdreams, your stance is very unreasonable and has caused folks like SLR and Mpolo to sink major time and effort into struggling with you instead of improving the encyclopedia. I don't deny you your right to any POV you like, but at some point the project must embrace a consensus scholarly view and be free to address the relevant, specific issues without going back to square one every other sentence. The view that Jesus didn't exist is not just minority, it is utterly fringe. This article should give one nod to the fact that some question Jesus' historicity, then proceed with his cultural and historical background without further reference to this fringe dispute. All your voluminous concerns should be addressed in the Historicity of Jesus article, leaving the people who want to develop this article in peace. JDG 19:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article is an archive. It should not be edited. Your POV is because you are Slrubenstein's mate (see your talk page), and thus has no bearing on REALITY. CheeseDreams 14:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) HAH! You have no idea how much JDG and I have fought in the past. But of course, you have no idea how people can fight and still treat each other civilly and respect each other. Slrubenstein

Sorry, I put my comment in this archive by mistake. Moving... JDG

Tigermoon

Tigermoon reverted the article without any substnative revision. But she made two claims. First, she claimed that I it was completely unfair for me to have replaced FT2s version. PLEASE read the two versions. You will see that I incorporated a good deal of FT2s work into my revision. You will also see that at the end of my revision I included a good deal of FT2's work, which I had mot been able to incorporate onto my version, but which I thought would be unfair simply to delete. Tigermoon either did not read the material carefully, or is being very unfair to me. Second, she says FT@s version is better. Well, please explain how/in what way? On the talk page I have over a dozen specific problems with FT2s version (FT2's Ultimate Version) but so far no one -- FT2, Amgring, Tigermoon -- has responded to my critique. Amgine at least had the integrity and courtesy to provide a list of problems with my version. I think he is wrong but respect his gesture. I made specific replies to shwo why I thought he was wrong. Mine need not be the last word. Why can't Tigermoon or others contine the process of dialogue Amgrine so reasonably initiated? Slrubenstein

Note to reader (who may at this stage have lost the will to live/track of what is going on) - (Copied from elsewhere, but written by me) "Since Slrubenstein repeatedly refuses to apologise or comply with the Wikipedia:Civility policy, I hearby regard him as a non-person, as specified as an appropriate course of action in the Civility policy" CheeseDreams 21:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams, if you're looking for an apology for something SLR said about the appearance of a couple of your remarks, well, I cannot recall a single instance in the course of this debate in which you have apologized for anything at all, or admitted to any trivial error however slight. (I would of course be happy to be correct, as I will admit to having some difficulty keeping up with the conversation, let alone the edits.) I think it's time to drop that and move on. Although a number of editors are unhappy with some of SLR's edits or "process violations" he might have committed, I'm not aware of anyone else who thinks that shunning him is the appropriate response. Wesley 00:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You will also not be able to recall any instance of me calling someone a racist. CheeseDreams 20:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In addition see the Wikipedia:Civility policy, where one is advised to ignore the uncivil individual. CheeseDreams 20:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is CheeseDreams admitting to using a sockpuppet? Slrubenstein By the way, I am always willing to angage someone concerning specific edits of mine they object to. If you (Wesley) have specific objections to any of my edits I hope you will tell me, Slrubenstein

Be assured I will, at least once I find time to a) find such an edit; and b) find time to tell you. I didn't have anything specific in mind when I wrote the above, other than the general objections to your large edit following FT2's request for comments before editing. Regarding that edit, you obviously disregarded FT2's request, but I think you were well within Wikipedia's general "edit boldly" policy. Either way, I'd rather get on with discussing the article than arguing over process. Wesley 04:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tigermoon's user contributions page strongly suggests a sock puppet. john k 06:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tigermoon only came on here because I asked him to comment on something as a favour, he has very little time and not that much interest for Wikipedia, so don't expect him to have masses of edits. CheeseDreams 20:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you know him outside of Wikipedia, then? john k 21:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He is an ex.CheeseDreams 21:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only reason I suggest that Tigermoon is CheeseDream's sockpuppet is because immediately after I challenge Tigermoon to respond to my comment, CheesseDream explained that he doesn't recognize me and will not respond to me. Why did CheeseDream place his remark immediately after my comment to Tigermoon? Slrubenstein

Dear reader, an ability to remember what one has written often prevents stupid accusations. For example "On the talk page I have over a dozen specific problems with FT2s version (FT2's Ultimate Version) but so far no one ....... has responded to my critique." CheeseDreams 00:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/u/l/Talk%7ECultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus_Archive_4_56b0.html"