Talk:Historical background of the New Testament/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

surrounding towns

I have a small nit to pick with this sentence regarding the area of Jesus' ministry:

Although there were many Phoenician, Macedonian, and Roman cities nearby (e.g. Gesara and Gadara; Sidon and Tyre; Sepphoris and Tiberias), there is no record of Jesus having spent any time in them.

There is at least one case where he apparently did, in Luke 8:26-39. Verse 26 says, "Then they sailed to the country of the Gadarenes, which is opposite Galilee." There Jesus cast out a "legion" of demons from a man, who entered a herd of swine and cause the swine to drown in the lake. The fact that there was a herd of swine there strongly suggests that it was a Gentile town. Another significant point in this story is that when the healed man asked to join Jesus' followers, Jesus tells him in verse 39, "Return to your own house, and tell what great things God has done for you." This potentially sets a precedent for Paul's ministry to the Gentiles. Or you could argue that this was added to Luke to justify preaching to the Gentiles? Anyway, would you agree it's worth mentioning this brief trip to a Gentile area? There are also several occasions when he visited Samaritans. Wesley 04:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd completely forgotten about that. Dionysus (who didn't actually exist, but did come before Jesus) did something similar. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll make a change; if you aren't satisfied, please fix it, Slrubenstein 17:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bar Kochba revolt and Christianity

While I don't have a scholarly source at my fingertips just yet, I seem to recall from a number of places that the Bar Kochba revolt played a significant role in alienating Christian Jews from non-Christian Jews. Wesley \

Agreed, this was always my understanding of this. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While for a time many Christian Jews (or Jewish Christians?) prayed with both groups, this became less tenable when bar Kochba was acclaimed as messiah. They could not acknowledge both bar Kochba and Jesus as Messiah, and the non-Christian Jews saw their loyalty to Jesus as disloyalty to bar Kochba. This seems too big to leave out of the article. Does it ring a bell with the rest of you, or do I need to go dig up supporting sources? Wesley 05:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is plausible -- but I really never heard this, so I'd ask you to find sources. Also, many Jews did not believe Bar Kochba to be the messiah. Slrubenstein 17:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Given that Wesley and I agree, and that this is a wiki, not an article where Slrubenstein is in charge, I think there is consensus to include this, and therefore it should be put in regardless of any protestation by Slrubenstein. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think SLR's request is reasonable, and don't expect to have too much difficulty finding a source or two, once I find the time to look seriously. Cheese-dreams, I'm a little surprised to hear you agree with this, as a belief in Jesus as fulfiller of messianic prophecies would seem to imply that bar Kochba era Jewish Christians thought Jesus existed in real history so as to fulfill those prophecies? Wesley 05:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ive not heard anything on that, but it sounds plausible. can you check it out? In any event till we know either way, an "It is possible that..." may be in order. FT2 17:37, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

There's a brief mention in Justin Martyr's First Apology, in paragraph 31: "For in the Jewish war which lately raged, Barchochebas, the leader of the revolt of the Jews, gave orders that Christians alone should be led to cruel punishments, unless they would deny Jesus Christ and utter blasphemy." There's also a mention in the Jewish Encyclopedia [1] that refutes the reason given by Justin Martyr and other Christians, and instead blames the suffering of Christians on their refusal to join in the revolt. It might be fair to conclude that there was conflict between Jews and Jewish Christians at this time, though the exact reasons are disputed. Wesley 02:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

neutrality

At what point do we remove the "neutrality disputed" tag? FT2 and I seem to have come to a working understanding; he has accepted many of my changes and I have accepted many of his. CheeseDoodle has been banned. Who still objects? Slrubenstein 18:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I still do not like the use of "fundamentalist" in the first sentence. It is neither accurate nor useful as a term Refdoc 23:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this has come up before and it is a point we need to address. What one or two words or phrase could you suggest, to use instead? Wesley? If the two of you could agree to something that would easily substitute for "fundamentalist" I certainly would have no objection to changing it. Slrubenstein 00:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Refdoc about the term "fundamentalist." Would "traditionalist" be better? To me this says that one believes in the Gospels as they have traditionally been understood among Christians. In Protestantism, Fundamentalists are those who believe in the literal inerrancy of every word of the Bible, as opposed to Evangelicals who often talk about "infallibility" more than "inerrancy" and emphasize its truth regarding theology and are less concerned with problems of history or science etc. In Orthodox Christianity, the ones I would consider "fundamentalist Orthodox" are the ones who want to mandate strict obedience to all the canons from centuries ago in our modern context, which most Orthodox Christians would find excessive and in many cases would not have the same cultural meaning that they did when the canons were written. I personally would not consider myself to fall into either of these two groups, although I think the gospels are true accounts. I would also characterize the Gospels as "mostly accurate" rather than accurate in every word and detail, because there are some minor discrepancies that (in my opinion) are easily explained. For instance, the text of the inscription on Jesus' cross is slightly different in each of the four gospels. All four accounts cannot be exactly, literally true. However, I think it's easy to conclude that there was an inscription on his cross, and that it read something like what the gospels record, and that the differences are easily chalked up to lack of precise memory of the wording several decades after the event happened, when the gospels were written. I also think that different gospel writers may have had different audiences in mind and different ideas about what needed to be included or emphasized, so some gospels have stories that others don't, and some chose to arrange them differently, possibly out of mistaken memory or possibly because the exact sequence wasn't that important and a different order might communicate the ideas better. Wesley \

I can't say how widely my view of the gospels' historicity is shared, but I don't think it's completely unique. Mainly though, I wanted to emphasize that it's possible to not be a Fundamentalist and still think the gospels are (mostly) true. Wesley \

I've also been wondering about the NPOV tag at the top. Are there other remaining reasons not to remove it? Wesley 17:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I don't think we want to open up a can of worms here, and can use a link to the Christianity article if readers want to know more about Christian traditions. I understand that we cannot lump all Christians together. One reason I used "fundamentalist" was because I though it was a highly restrictive category. The point being that some Christians certainly reject the work of critical Bible historians like Sanders and Fredricksen, but not necessarily all or even most. How about "traditionalists who believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible?" Slrubenstein 18:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about "traditionalists who believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible" No, obviously not, as this does not address the issue - that there are hundreds of millions of Christians who are not fundamentalists, who nevertheless believe that the gospels are a reliable account of what Jesus said and did and who he was, accepting the odd discrepancy etc as natural for any witness account, but feel the overall account is so reliable, that it is possible to build one's life upon it. Refdoc 09:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You aren't being constructive -- what do you suggest? Slrubenstein 15:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of my edit ? "large numbers" is sufficiently vague. no labelling as none of the lables discussed do real justice to the plethora of Christians from coptic, evangelical, roman catholic, orthodox or whatever background who do believe the gospels to be reliable and accurate - without being all het up about "literal accuracy" Refdoc 19:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It looks good to me! Slrubenstein 20:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wesley and the four Gospels

Wesley, I disagree with your recent addition -- only because the four Gospels get full coverage in the Jesus article. Since that article has little information on how critical historians (as described in the first paragraph of this article) view Jesus, I feel strongly that specifically Christian views (including non-critical readings of the Gospels) should not be in here, unless they are framed as they have been analyzed by critical scholars. I don't just want to revert your work, but I ask you to consider alternatives to what you wrote. Would you be satisfied with a paranthetical (for Christian views, see ...) and have links to the Jesus artical and other articles you think appropriate? Slrubenstein 17:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The main reason I added that is because without it, the paragraph suggested through omission that only Matthew and Luke even claimed that Jesus was God. The claim of Jesus' deity is plainly found in all four gospels, whatever scholars might say about their authorship or dating or motivation for making the claim. The quote from John addresses where Jesus came from, but without the detailed sort of narrative found in Matthew and Luke. Wesley \

But tell me, do 'critical scholars' really think that Mark and John do not claim Jesus was divine, or was that just an unintended implication of the text chosen? If it was just an unintended implication, than perhaps my additions could be removed, and the remaining text changed from (paraphrasing here) "Matthew and Luke say the Jesus was God's Son" to "Matthew and Luke include narratives of Jesus' birth that (suggest/claim/say) that Jesus was God's Son." Admittedly that's wordier, and hopefully it can be phrased more smoothly, but it avoids the false implication. Wesley 05:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, we are misunderstanding one another. I now understand your original point -- I think it should be more concise in the article. But I certainly agree, as would all the historians and Bible critics I have read, that each of the four Gospels considers Jesus to be divine. Any otehr suggestion was unintentional. Slrubenstein 15:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying. The current concise version of that paragraph looks fine to me as well. Sorry if I was being over sensitive. Wesley 17:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No need to apologize -- I am glad we sorted it out because it does make the article clearer. Thanks, Slrubenstein 18:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

anonymos user and Cheese Dreams

An anonymous user, 217.150.114.18, made a series of radical changes to the article, in essence deleting a good deal of material without any discussion. If this user is acting independently, I urge him or her to join the conversation and allow for disucssion before you delete so much content. However, the explanation that this user provided in the edit summary indicates that s/he is working on behalf of Cheese Dreams. If this is indeed the case, please know that Cheese Dreams has been banned from working on this an other Christianity-related article for one year. Any attempt to violate or circumvent this ban will not be tolerated, and will lead only to more trouble for her. Slrubenstein 19:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That was me, it seems to have logged me out.

I did not delete anything much really, just re-arranged it a bit for better readability, and to put it into encyclopedic rather than essay format. I also re-applied the votes from November, as it did not appear to have been paid attention to.

To be honest, I think she feels your ban is beneath her, or at least that was the sense of what she said when I last saw her.

Tigermoon 12:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tigermoon, I have no clue what the dispute was about as these talk pages are rather tedious, but Cheesedream has been banned from editing on these pages. If this is "beneath her" so be it, but you should not assist her and demean yourself to sock puppetery. Contribute, but contribute yourself, rather than as a hired gun. Refdoc 13:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In addition to what Refdoc wrote, the votes from three months ago reflect views that were debated, well, three months ago. There has been, well, three more months of discussion since then, which accounts for the current state of the article. Slrubenstein 15:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The above editor made a threat against me on my talk page. I would like to make a formal complaint. Tigermoon 18:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tigermoon, you are seriously out of order just now! If you had been immediately banned for allowing yourself to be used as a sockpuppet of a banned user, this would have been completely appropriate. As it is, people have tried to be nice to you and explained to you why your behaviour is not right. You now take this to be threats!? (I have read what Slrubenstein has said on your userpage and can only agree with it). Please have a look in the mirror and calm down. Refdoc 19:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is acidmonkey another sock puppet? Refdoc 00:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TY

I'm just passing by (due to the above incident), but I noted

"All four Gospels present Jesus as the unique and literal son of God."

Now, with claims of this sort, it would be useful to refer to specific verses. It is true that the phrase "son of god" appears in all four gospels, but not with qualifiers like "unique" or "literal". Most of the time, the statement is attributed: in Mt4:3, Lk4:3 etc. to Satan, in Mt16:16 to Peter, in Mt 26:63, phrased as a question, to the high priest (to which Jesus refuses to give a plain answer, this is like sockpuppeteering :) Mk1:1 is straightforward (but no "unique" qualifier), Lk3:38 calls Adam the son of god (i.e. it is not a unique title, even within the gospels). John is the only gospel which has "only begotten" (huios ho monogenes) 3:16 (etc.). It follows that "unique", translating monogenes, is in John only. While "literal" (which must be taken as 'physical', i.e. God copulated with Mary, the idea on which Mohammed's rejecton of Christianity is based) is not in the gospels at all. dab (ᛏ) 07:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to get into theological issues -- nor do I think we should add the quotes. There is a separate article on the NT view of Jesus, and it is only in that article that we should have such details from or about the NT. The line Dab is referring to is meant for background only. Slrubenstein 15:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yeah, well, but I was pointing out it's erroneous 'background'. 'unique' and 'literal' should not be there. 130.60.142.62 16:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have no problem with the edit you made, Slrubenstein 17:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dealing with editwarriors

I suggest that instead of simply reverting cheesdream/acidmonkey every time the article goes up, we continue to work on the 'real' version, ignoring the noise. If someone is able to put a ban on the bloke thatwould be fine, but I guess s/he will just reappear. It would be better for all our nerves if teh article would proceed as normally as possible - whether it is visible or not and - once in a shape - we can probably simply ask for protection - given the arbitration order. Refdoc 11:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite sure how to "ignore the noise," unless you're proposing an alternate location to work on the article that then gets moved back here. I've reverted Tigermoon twice just now because: she added the NPOV and ActiveDiscussion tags without discussing why those tags were added on this page; the edits at a glance appear to be very disruptive, again without any discussion here; and she seems to be trying to impose an old version that the rest of the editors have moved on from, without any attempt to engage in a constructive discussion here. I'll wait a day at least before any more reverts. Wesley 18:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I am terribly sorry, I had thought I removed the tags. It isn't an old version, I restructured the article about a weak ago to make it more (a) encyclopedic (b) readable. There were a few instances of Opinion Pushing that I removed as well. Tigermoon 18:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked you again, because your first action in the article upon returning from the block was to re-instate the CheeseDreams edit yet again: [2]. The ArbCom ruling is quite clear, so please stop acting as CheeseDream's sockpuppet, and use the Talk: page to propose changes to the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion , your reverts are absolutely identical and ignore completely other people's contribution. Please have a look at the diff [3] Tigermoon, you are seriously out of order. Refdoc 18:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted Tigermoon again, and hope that if Tigermoon wishes to make changes he/she will discuss them here first, and help build consensus. A revert war serves no one well. Jwrosenzweig 20:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't want to get involved here, but my revert was reverted by User:Red before blue, an obvious sockpuppet (look at their contributions -- they make sure their userpage and talk pages are blue links, not red, and then they revert the page). I have blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely. I don't do more than one revert a day, unless it's blatant vandalism, and while I think Tigermoon's (and the Rbb sockpuppet's) reverts are against policy, I'm not going to break my rule because I'm not positive this is technically "vandalism", and I'd like not to block someone and revert their edit (even though I'm upholding an ArbCom decision doing so, so it's not an abuse of my sysop privileges as far as I can tell, it still doesn't sit right). I hope someone else will revert and we can get this thing over with. Jwrosenzweig 21:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no trouble calling this string of attempts by various ip's and sockpuppet accounts 'vandalism'; it's just a little more structured and deliberate than usual. Thanks for your work, and for your restraint. Wesley 05:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Refreshing Objection?

It's great that you are all working together to work out your theological issues in this article, but is anyone checking the grammar? I can't find a verb (or a predicate) in the quoted sentence from the intro. (I would jump in and fix it but I don't understand it.) So would someone either supply the missing verb, or explain the sentence so I can fix it?

"The study of this context foregrounds Jewish culture, and tensions, trends, and changes in Jewish culture under the influence of Hellenism and Roman occupation." --Blainster 06:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The verb is foregrounds. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, except "foreground" is a noun in Random House Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (2000), so how are you using it as a verb? An additional problem with the sentence is that the second part (following the first "and") doesn't seem to have a verb either. I have no problem with creative word usage in an appropriate setting, but that would not seem to be the case in an encyclopedia where conventional usage will minimize confusion. The rest of the paragraph is fine, but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Can you re-word it, or do you want me to give it a try? --Blainster 07:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think "foreground" is often used as a verb; it is pretty common in English that nouns become verbs (I think when it is used as a noun it is always in the singular). For evidence of "to foreground" as a transitive verb, see New Hackers' Dictionary, 2000 American Heritage Fourth Ed., Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Freedictionary, 1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged, WordReference -- I could go on, but I think this is a wide array of sources that attest to the commonness of using "foreground" as a verb. As to the second half of the sentence, "and" in English is a conjunction used to connect words, phrases, and clauses. In this case it joins two nominal phrases: "Jewish culture" and "tensions etc." By joining the two, both become the object of the verb -- in this case, "foregrounds."

You have adequately documented the use of "foreground" as a verb. In my defense it does not occur as such in the referenced 1913 Websters, and I think the hacker's entry partly demonstrates that the usage is new. So you win this one on points. You have also given enough info for me to understand the meaning of the sentence we have been discussing. Since the point of Wikipedia (at least to me) is to convey knowledge to people other than specialists, I still think the sentence could use clarification, which I will attempt to supply in time. --Blainster 00:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, I just reverted two changes. First, I changed "Tanach" back to "Torah" -- the Tanack most definitely was not redacted in the First Temple period. It was the Torah that was redacted. The Tanach did not exist at that time. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Second, I changed "master" back to "great one." The word "master" has a variety of meanings in English that simply do not apply to rabbis, especially at that time. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The reason I suggested "Tanakh", was the subject paragraph discusses prophetic writings (Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc) contained in the Tanakh (The Prophets portion) and not in the Torah. On re-reading it, I can see that the paragraph attempts to cover both historical periods. I think what you mean is that the writings of "The Prophets" were compiled much later than the period they were writing about. But the paragraph does not make this clear. The definitions of rabbi are in its linked article. Up front (foreground, if you will) is teacher and master. Further on, in "history", we find a derivation from "great" or "distinguished". I find that, out of context "great" tends to mean "really important" rather than the more honorific titles of teacher, master, or distinguished, any one of which would serve better here. --Blainster 00:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I must say that I think this is an article that Wikipedians can be proud of in its scope but it could still use a little polishing. One other item: the title puts the focus on Jesus. I think the article could be more properly titled "Cultural and Historical Background of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures", with a link to it from the Jesus material. Comments? --Blainster 00:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am sure there are alternatives to translating Rabbi as "Great one" or whatever -- although I am still not sure that even when the role of "rabbi" first developed in the Second Temple period, people thought of them as masters. Also, there are two words in Hebrew that really do mean "master" (baal and adon). About the prophets, yes I agree that the prophetic books purport to have been written at the same time that the Torah was redacted. I will go back over that section to see if the break between the two periods can be made clearer. On your final suggestion, about the title, well -- what you suggest seems reasonable but it was actually the subject of very lengthy and acrimonious debate. This article, like several others, began as a section of the Jesus article. That article made room for both the Christian view of Jesus and other views, including the views of critical historians. At a certain point the Jesus article became so long that sections had to be taken out and made into their own articles. So this is the dilemma: of course this article contains much information that is of relevance to non-Christians and to topics besides Jesus. Nevertheless, of all the articles on Jesus, one of them has to be about how critical historians and Bible scholars view Jesus. The contents of this article is somewhat wide ranging because many Christians are ignorant of, or have biased or just incomplete knowledge of Jewish history, even though they all admit that Jesus was Jewish. But the heart of this article is the section on Jesus himself. All the other sections are meant to provide context for that section on Jesus -- what was the Temple? Who were the Pharisees? and so on. Personally, I think our priority should be to add to the section on Jesus. I am no expert, but I do know that among critical historians and Bible scholars there still are debates about what Jesus really did, what he meant, why people responded as they did. I wrote much of the section on Jesus and I was synthesizing from a couple of very well-considered books. As a generic portrait I do think it is rather good. But I am quite aware that there are many gaps. It would be great if some graduate student in history or Critical Bible studies, or just someone who has read all the main critical histories, could develop this article further. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In view of your explanation of the article's history and its stated focus on Jesus, I think it would be better to split the sections on emergence of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism off to new articles (or merged with ones that probably already exist in more detail), or just remove them, because within the stated scope they are not germane. --Blainster 01:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay I went back to the section on Prophets and added something about the later redaction of the Tanach. Does it help to point out that for Jews at least Moses was a "prophet?" Slrubenstein | Talk 00:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The last note you added (00:41 28 Feb) didn't show up until I added a reply. Now my reply doesn't show. Looks like a bug. The addition on Tanakh is good. Moses should be mentioned but now it looks like it should be in a Torah section separate from the Prophets section. --Blainster 01:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Abbout your suggestion above, "I think it would be better to split the sections on emergence of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism off to new articles" -- this sounds like a very reasonable suggestion. Nevertheless, I have one or two reservations; perhaps you can suggest an intermediate approach. Here is the thing: given the traditional Christian view that Jesus was the literal son of God and God incarnate, the existence of Christianity needs no explaination, and the continued existence of Judaism needs serious explanation. If one views Jesus as a human being whose career is entirely intelligible in terms of late Second Temple Judaism, it is suddenly Christianity that needs serious explanation -- and the continued existence of Judaism, and more importantly, the form it took (namely, the triumph of Pharisaical thought) takes on new meaning. In other words, the purpose of these sections you question is to show the implications of the critical historical view of Jesus for our understanding of Christianity and Judaism.

I suppose you could put it another way: "the historians' view of second century Christianity and Judaism," in which the historians' view of Jesus is one important component.

I think no matter how it is organized, some people are going to think that the cart is drawing the horse. My point is just that the horse and cart are necessarily linked, and you can't really talk about one without saying something about the other. Does this make sense? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

explaining my recent revert

I just reverted the article, in the process reverting a number of minor edits by Everking and others. I did this in order to revert Arius_Heresiarch's recent changes (I have checked and made sure that the other edits made to AH's version are not necessary for the earlier version. I did this because User:Arius_Heresiarch's change [4], made the was identical to the change made by His Own Rectum [5], Their Bowels [6], Red before Blue [7], Tigermoon [8], Tigermoon, [9], Tigermoon [10], Neutra|ity [11],81.156.93.188 [12], 81.157.11.54 [13], 81.157.15.105 [14], 81.156.179.223 [15], 81.157.101.99 [16], 81.157.101.99 [17], 81.157.101.99 [18], 81.157.101.99 [19], CHEESEdreams [20], Acidmonkey [21], Acidmonkey [22], Tigermoon [23], Tigermoon [24], 217.150.114.18 (also Tigermoon) [25]. These are all instances in which CheeseDreams or someone acting on her behalf deleted the article, reached through a long process by many editors, and replaced it with her own version. This matter was addressed by the ArbCom twice (first ruling, in which she was banned from editing Christianity-related articles for one yearsecond ruling, in which she was banned for 6 months for disregard for previous rulings by the arbitration committee; 3 months for abuse of Wikipedia processes and procedures; 3 months for abuse of sockpuppet accounts). I believe Arius Heresiarch is either a sock-puppet of CheeseDreams or of Tigermoon. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

announcing new policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

dates

Forget the ongoing debate about BCE-BC in terms of NPOV. But do remember that as a matter of style Wikipedia allows BCE and CE. There are two reasons why this article should use BCE and CE. First, it is written from a non-Christian point of view, drawing on scholarly sources that use BCE and CE. Secondly, in this article at least, the "Cultural and historical background" is Jewish history and Jewish culture and it is absolutely inappropriate to use BC and AD when talking about the Jewish institutions such as the Temple, priests, prophets, scribes, and the law, and events in Jewish history such as the extablishment of the Kingdom of David, the return from the Babylonian Exile, the Hasmonean revolt, the Zealots, and so forth. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you take a break from reverting articles - right now you have stirred up so much controversy people are going to give your contributions increased scrutiny - after a cooling off period things will be better. Trödel|talk 16:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Trodel, you do not understand the situation. Yesterday, all the dates were BCE CE. It was Sam Sapde, today that changed them with no discussion [26]. The article has used BCE and CE for a very long time, and for good reason. Sam Spade should do a lot more explaining before he decides to make a change like this, without any explanation. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - I'll stay off this page. However, I still think the advice is good. Trödel|talk 16:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I should think our conversation @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Ad_Hominem would be discussion enough, for you at least. Sam Spade 16:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Even if there is no new policy on BCE/CE etc., the old policy still applies Sam. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The first dating system to be used in this article was BCE/CE (on Nov 2004). So, wrt to the following exchage: "Then what will happen to the articles which have been changed by [[User:Slrubenstein]] from BC/AD to BCE/CE, such as [[Cultural and historical background of Jesus]] ?? [[User:ClemMcGann|ClemMcGann]] 13:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC) They'll get changed back. <big>'''''[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]]'''''</big> 13:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC) — does not seem to apply in this case (as per changing back). El_C 21:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Assuming the new proposal does not pass, it would seem only reasonable to leave this article the way it was written, rather than as Sam Spade has re-written it today. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing in the sophistry above to support such a position. Sam Spade 22:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that Jesus was born a Jew, and according to the scholarly sources this article is about, died as a Jew, most of this article is about Jewish culture and Jewish history. How is it appropriate to use BC and AD in an article on Jewish history and culture? Remember, the manual of style says BCE and CE are acceptable. They are certainly appropriate for Jewish articles. Please explain in what way pointing out that this article "is written from a non-Christian point of view, drawing on scholarly sources that use BCE and CE. [and] in this article at least, the "Cultural and historical background" is Jewish history and Jewish culture" is sophistry? Please explain why you think it is inappropriate to use BCE and CE when talking about when talking about the Jewish institutions such as the Temple, priests, prophets, scribes, and the law, and events in Jewish history such as the extablishment of the Kingdom of David, the return from the Babylonian Exile, the Hasmonean revolt, the Zealots, and so forth? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You (Slrubenstein) are taking a wise tact, w this focus on jewishness. Since I as much as told you that i would be more openminded about jewish or other specifically non-christian religious pages, I will step back and reserve full judgement, allowing for other voices to be heard. Sam Spade 23:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam, thank you. As I am sure you read the article, you can understand that my comments (even if others disagree with them) are sincere. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I hope you were not offended - I reverted this to BC also without fully informing myself of the history. Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 20:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your gesture, Jesus is the Christ, but believe me you did not offend me. Everyone here at Wikipedia, myself of course (actually, quite obvious now) included, make hasty edits that require some discussion on the talk page to sort out. Far from being offended, I am quite thankful that you took the time to check out this discussion and review the history. I think that the discussion that Trodel, Sam Spade, you and I have had in this "dates" section is precisely what should happen, when people with differing views encounter one another, and I am sorry that discussions like this do not happen more often. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

This whole thing seems so silly to me. Whether we call it "the Year of our Lord" or "the Common Era," it still dates from the same thing. The reason the "Common Era" is "common" is because some early Christian chronographer made 753 AUC the year of the birth of Christ, whom he believed to be the Lord. As a wholly irreligious Jew with a lapsed Catholic father and a sort-of-atheist/agnostic Jewish mother, I find it rather absurd that somehow this basic fact becomes inoffensive when you just call it the "Common Era." It seems like a silly euphemism. If the epoch for our calendar is some early Christian chronographer's date for the birth of the individual whom he believed to be the Lord, that, and not the question of what we call the era, is the POV part. I suggest that from now on we use either the Roman calendar (AUC) or the Seleucid Era for all dates. john k 04:17, 19 May 2758 (AUC)

BTW, isn't it ironic that the most-used calendar in the world dates from a year in which nothing actually happened? There were really no notable events in either 753 or 754 AUC - most Christians would date the birth of Christ to 750 AUC, when Herod was still alive... 04:29, 19 May 2758 (AUC)

Yup, just shows that one person's nectar is another's poison. What is absurd, silly, or ironic to some is deeply meaningful to others. That should not be surprising to anyone in this worldwide community. And that is exactly why we need to strive for NPOV. None of us has a privileged pov, however much we would like to think so. --Blainster 18:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Your last statement is, of course, a point of view and not a statement of fact. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:52, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I realized I am quite late on this subject, seeing that the policy proposal has been voted down and all. My comment is really on the content of this article. I appreciate learning all the Jewish background of Jesus in this article; I have learned a lot. But the argument that this is Jewish history is strange. Firstly, should the information on the Romans and Greeks also adhere to their respective calendars? And why is this an article concerned mainly with Jewish history, was there no other history when Jesus was alive? This article, while not necessary biased, is excessively focused on Jewish history, and Jesus seems a side note. Perhaps we should change this article to be Jewish history or "Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity." The first paragraph presents this article as a history of the emergence and divergence of Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. While Jesus is very relevant to this topic, the "of Jesus" part seems superfluous despite the meager "Jesus in this context" section.

Furthermore, the second paragraph leaves out an important group of scholars. "While large numbers of Christians of all denominations take the Gospels to be a reliable and (largely or wholly) accurate account of Jesus' life, 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." Why are scholars who reject the Gospels contrasted with those who take the Gospels to be reliable? What about those who agree Jesus existed and accept the Gospels as a mostly reliable account of his life? Many of these are scholars, too, and not just "large numbers of Christians." There are Christians who reject the divinity of Jesus, and Jews who accept him as Saviour. While these last two groups are extremes, the first one is not. E.P. Sanders is not the only authority on the subject, and choosing a somewhat controversial scholar to draw much information, instead of other conventional scholars, seems more inflammatory than objective. - Paul 02.10.2006

I think you need to know some of the history of this article. It used to be part of the Jesus article. The problem with the Jesus article at that time was that it relied entirely on the NT for an account of Jesus. This is certainly a point of view that must be included in any discussion of Jesus. However, the article ignored work by critical scholars - Sanders is not the only one, I consulted Vermes and Fredriksen when making my contribution to this section. I do not know what the title of the section was at that time - I do not remember. It may have been Jesus in the Jewish Context, or Critical Historian's View of Jesus, I do not remember. Then, the article reached a point where while expressing all views, it was way, way, way too long for most servers. The solution reached by consensus was that the main Jesus article would feature the Gospel view of Jesus while providing very brief summaries of other POVs. The other sections of the article were turned into independent articles with cross-links to the Jesus article. It was at that time, I think that this article was given its current name. My point is, the reason other views are not included in this article is because they are expressed in some other article. One has to view all the articles together to have a complete NPOV portrait of Jesus. The only alternative would be once again to consolidate all of these articles into the Jesus article - then, all your objections would be answered by other sections of the article. But that would bring us back to the original problem of size. Now, I can understand why one might want to put more Christian interpretations into this article, or more information on Hellenic culture. But then, with the same logic, one would go to the Jesus article and do the same. Do you see the dangerous cycle that would result?

Belive me that many historians were drawn on in writing this article. If you know of others, please add them. But this article is explicitly about the historical Jesus: it assumes that Jesus did live, and rejects any discussion of divinity and miracles as topics outside of the scope of a historian's view (see this [27] for a more detailed explanation of what I said). The Christian Jesus, the theological Jesus, is treated in other articles.

I see three possible ways to respond to your comments: (1) keep things as they are (2) change the title to something like "the Jewish Jesus" although I think given that even the Gospels say Jesus was Jewish, the current title is okay, and (3) make it clearer, either in the beginning or ending, that other linked articles address Jesus from other perspectives. Would no. 3 satisfy you? I certainly would not object. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. However, I do not accept an argument about the reduction to a dangerous cycle. What's more dangerous is omitting the range of perspectives. The fact that you needed to explain the history to me proves that anyone who reads this article, except for those who were part of the history of this article themselves, may easily come to the same conclusions I have. It needs to be clear what is not included and the reasoning behind it, otherwise, there will be a different but equally endless cycle of requestioning this article.

Clearly the history AND belief in the new testament, whether fact or fiction, IS part of the cultural background of Jesus, the religious views held in that book being part of the culture now and, as I don't think you would argue, part of the culture then, considering the growing sect around the belief in Jesus's divinity. It seems as though whoever started this article may have fallen into the trap of scope as evidenced by your experience with the unmanageable size of the article: "when the article reached a point where while expressing all views, it was way, way, way too long for most servers." Trying to write a Critical Historian's View or explain without, as the lingo goes, POV the Cultural and historical background of Jesus truly requires a very large document. Leaving out views because another article expresses them is a hack, and more dangerously, it relies on that document being constant, which is hard to imagine in a wiki. Unless there can be a way to tersely describe the wide range of viewpoints, this article needs to reduce it's scope. Now there is clearly no easy answer, but I will devote some time to coming up with a solution that satisfies two things: how to make clear the history and reasoning behind leaving out points of view without parasitically relying on other documents or links; and how to reveal the true scope of this article by changing the title and thesis. I hope that you will do the same. Thank you for your quick response before. Paul 02.16.2006

Does anyone really object to the Jew infobox?

In the revert war, people seemed to be complaining about it; but maybe that was just a side effect.

This seems like an flame-bait question, particularly since it is anon. But realistically, Jesus was one of, if not the most, famous Jews in history. --Blainster 18:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry; I forgot to sign it. But the rationale, I believe, is that this article is really as much about the development of Judaism as about that of Christianity. Ben Standeven 01:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Sanders

Sanders is not a theologian, he is an historian. The books and articles he has published are on history, and not theology. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to change it back again (though you could have left in the link to Sanders himself which I've restored) but I would note that his doctorate is a Th.D, he was Professor of Exegesis at Oxford and is now Professor of Religion in the Department of Religion. How about "historian and theologian"? --G Rutter 20:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, I have a PhD., but no one is going to call me a philosopher. I understand what motivated you, but I think what he actually does is more relevant -- his publications are critical (i.e. rejecting any divine causality or intervention) history. So I think calling him a theologian is misleading. I am sorry I deleted the link the process. If we have an article about him, of course we should include the information you mention here. But we would also include a list of publications and people will see that he is, well, an historian. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why describe him at all, since you have the Wikilink? Just give the name, and if people want to know who he is they'll click on the link. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For NPOV purposes, I think it is important to situate the views being expressed. I think Grutter's motives were good -- to provide acurate indicating Sanders' POV. He just happened to be providing misleading information; Sanders may have gotten a degree in theology in order to learn the things he wanted to learn, but he does not write from a theological viewpoint, he writes from a critical viewpoint. I think it is important to identify this POV. If we opened with a quote by an Orthodox Rabbi or Pentacostal Minister, I'd feel the same way. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)