Historical background of the New Testament received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||||||||||
The introductory sentence does not appear to represent the scope of the article. It states "This examination treats the New Testament as one of many documents, written and perhaps later edited by people who wanted others to believe as they did, which can be used to piece together a more complete and authentic understanding of the life and times of Jesus and the founding of Early Christianity."
Why exactly is it beginning with how it treats the NT documents when the article deals broadly with the cultural and historical background of Jesus rather than Jesus and the NT.
The first footnote to this lead sentence is also a bit worrying and clearly not NPOV.-- Ari ( talk) 14:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course you find the material questionable. That does not matter. Our NPOV policy demands we put in views we consider questionable. I will provide more citations, but there are a number of historians who hold these views. I am sure there is room to provide other views. But never delete content because you disagree with it, or even because there are some scholars who disagree with it. That violates our policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
You owe me an apology for saying what I have done is pathetic. Don't get so defensive. You were wrong to delete material that others believe reflects a significant point of view. So you made a mistake. Did I call you pathetic?
If my suggesting that you find material you wish to delete questionable is a sign of a lack of good faith, you have no understanding of the principle behind NPOV.
I wrote some of the material you question, I did not write all. You should get used to the fact tha Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. So instead of just deleting what you do not like, try working with others.
You mention other sources - none of whom are among the leading contemporary Jesus scholars, and none of whom are mentioned in the article. But if you believe they are reliable sources representing significant views, why don't you add them to the article, instead of deleting what you do not like?
I did not write the line on when the Gospels or NT were written. I know there is some debate about this and would be glad to see a well-informed discussion of the major views on when they were written. if you have something to add to that discussion, why not add it? I am sure that there is a way to include a range of major points of view. So far I do not think I deleted any major content you added. So tell me again who is pathetic? Or is it just possible that no one is? Where is your good faith? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe I ever attacked you. If you feel I made a personalattack please tell me where, it may be a misunderstanding, which I certainly regret. But I did criticize your deleting content, and I assumed you distinguish between criticism and attack. Segal is one among many respectable scholars. In any event, it seems I have to repeat what I already said: if you feel important views are absent from the article add them. That is almost always the best solution to problems with disproportion. Boyarin is a very highly regarded scholar. I think the article has the bare minimum to represent his view. How does this in any way prohibit you from adding other views, giving them as much attention as necessary to provide an accurate account of the view?
I see no contradiction between saying Jews (including early Christians) sought prosylites from the Gentiles - Jesus even instructs his desciples to do so - and saying that at some point Christians relied more on Gentile converts than Jews. As to the dating of when that happened, I repeat again, let's include all significant views.
NPOV requires that we provide all significant views. Even and especially when they disagree with one another. I am not sure what you mean by coherency in this context. But I repeat a fourth time: if you feel views are missing, add them. Your insinuation that I am trying to monopolize the article because I wish to keep some views you consider marginal is the insult. I repeat: I never intentionally deleted any content you added. Can you say the same? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree that Boyarin's view is marginal, and I do not think it can be cut down without doing damage to it. But if you feel undue weight is given to Boyarin, I again encourage you to add those views that you feel are missing.
I am not sure where it says that Gentile conversion is a late development. I think it says that after a certain date the growth of Christianity came mostly from Gentiles rather than from Jews. This does not mean that there were no Gentile converts to Christian Judaism. And I think that all major sources agree that after a certain date very few Jews opted for Christianity. I suppose this is tied in with when one dates a break between Judaism and Christianity. I do not know of any major scholar who suggests a major overlap between Judaism and Christianty after 100. Shaye JD Cohen, the leading expert on Hellenistic Judaism, observes that there are no sects within Judaism after 70 CE. He observes that there may still have been Jewish Christians, but that there simply is no historical record of it. I do not see anything controversial in suggesting that after that date Christianity depended primarily on Gentiles for new converts. But like I said, if you have other sources that claim otherwise, add them. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Why, specifically, is there a POV tag on the page? What would it take to resolve the issue? Leadwind ( talk) 21:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Making this section work will require a lot of editing and plenty of new material. Currently it's pretty fragmented. If I were to rework it, I'd put it in chronological order.
1. Jesus establishes a restoration movement within Judaism and is executed. His closest followers have visionary experiences of Jesus resurrected, and his movement continues as a Jewish sect.
2. Paul opens the movement to gentiles and defines Jesus, not the Law, as the proper foundation of religious life. Judaism includes mostly non-Christians plus many Christians. Christianity includes many Jews but more and more gentiles.
3. The Temple is destroyed. This is probably the best single point where we can see that the tension between Christianity and Judaism results in a split.
4. Christianity becomes less and less Jewish. Judaism develops rabbinic leadership. The council of Javne and the Bar Kochba revolt are two more major milestones in the differentiation of Christianity from Judaism.
We can readily flesh this chronology out with mainstream sources. Leadwind ( talk) 22:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
There is now an article on this subject:
Split of early Christianity and Judaism.
75.14.217.55 (
talk) 04:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a great article, but the wording lacks the clarity needed for an encyclopedia article. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The greatest problem is that it isn't an encyclopedia article about th "Cultural and historical background of Jesus". It is a book somebody wrote about the origins of Christianity. Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles need to stick to the topic defined by their titles, see WP:CFORK. We have altogether too many articles about the historical Jesus, the historicity of Jesus, the quest for the historical Jesus, and Jesus and history, plus origins of Christianity, Split of early Christianity and Judaism, etc., etc. Somehow people seem to think WP:CFORK does not apply to articles about Jesus, and that everyone can add yet another article on the same topic just as long as they can think of a title that is not yet occupied? -- dab (𒁳) 10:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I suggest removal to Cultural and historical background of New Testament, because we need a background for John the Baptist and other New Testament figures also. Or maybe just Historical background of New Testament, which implies social-political-cultural and other backgrounds also.-- Mladifilozof ( talk) 20:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is not as bad as many other articles floating around. Generally well written, but most sections are source free. It really needs sources... History2007 ( talk) 14:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
James Dunn, and Bart Ehrman have taken the position that since the Oral Tradition was reliable, then the Synoptic Gospels (which were based on the oral tradition) are accurate. Then "Jesus did exist" and we have an historically "accurate picture" of this Jewish Rabbi from the line of Judah. Dunn 2013 p 360, Casey 2010 p 12 & Ehrman 2012 p 22, p 25, & p 21 p 117
This will result in a number of articles being updated. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe this article is neutral. I do not believe there are any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. I just believe this article is trying to inform us and persuade us at the same time that this information written is true. Jessica nakkoul ( talk) 15:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Historical background of the New Testament received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||||||||||
The introductory sentence does not appear to represent the scope of the article. It states "This examination treats the New Testament as one of many documents, written and perhaps later edited by people who wanted others to believe as they did, which can be used to piece together a more complete and authentic understanding of the life and times of Jesus and the founding of Early Christianity."
Why exactly is it beginning with how it treats the NT documents when the article deals broadly with the cultural and historical background of Jesus rather than Jesus and the NT.
The first footnote to this lead sentence is also a bit worrying and clearly not NPOV.-- Ari ( talk) 14:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course you find the material questionable. That does not matter. Our NPOV policy demands we put in views we consider questionable. I will provide more citations, but there are a number of historians who hold these views. I am sure there is room to provide other views. But never delete content because you disagree with it, or even because there are some scholars who disagree with it. That violates our policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
You owe me an apology for saying what I have done is pathetic. Don't get so defensive. You were wrong to delete material that others believe reflects a significant point of view. So you made a mistake. Did I call you pathetic?
If my suggesting that you find material you wish to delete questionable is a sign of a lack of good faith, you have no understanding of the principle behind NPOV.
I wrote some of the material you question, I did not write all. You should get used to the fact tha Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. So instead of just deleting what you do not like, try working with others.
You mention other sources - none of whom are among the leading contemporary Jesus scholars, and none of whom are mentioned in the article. But if you believe they are reliable sources representing significant views, why don't you add them to the article, instead of deleting what you do not like?
I did not write the line on when the Gospels or NT were written. I know there is some debate about this and would be glad to see a well-informed discussion of the major views on when they were written. if you have something to add to that discussion, why not add it? I am sure that there is a way to include a range of major points of view. So far I do not think I deleted any major content you added. So tell me again who is pathetic? Or is it just possible that no one is? Where is your good faith? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe I ever attacked you. If you feel I made a personalattack please tell me where, it may be a misunderstanding, which I certainly regret. But I did criticize your deleting content, and I assumed you distinguish between criticism and attack. Segal is one among many respectable scholars. In any event, it seems I have to repeat what I already said: if you feel important views are absent from the article add them. That is almost always the best solution to problems with disproportion. Boyarin is a very highly regarded scholar. I think the article has the bare minimum to represent his view. How does this in any way prohibit you from adding other views, giving them as much attention as necessary to provide an accurate account of the view?
I see no contradiction between saying Jews (including early Christians) sought prosylites from the Gentiles - Jesus even instructs his desciples to do so - and saying that at some point Christians relied more on Gentile converts than Jews. As to the dating of when that happened, I repeat again, let's include all significant views.
NPOV requires that we provide all significant views. Even and especially when they disagree with one another. I am not sure what you mean by coherency in this context. But I repeat a fourth time: if you feel views are missing, add them. Your insinuation that I am trying to monopolize the article because I wish to keep some views you consider marginal is the insult. I repeat: I never intentionally deleted any content you added. Can you say the same? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree that Boyarin's view is marginal, and I do not think it can be cut down without doing damage to it. But if you feel undue weight is given to Boyarin, I again encourage you to add those views that you feel are missing.
I am not sure where it says that Gentile conversion is a late development. I think it says that after a certain date the growth of Christianity came mostly from Gentiles rather than from Jews. This does not mean that there were no Gentile converts to Christian Judaism. And I think that all major sources agree that after a certain date very few Jews opted for Christianity. I suppose this is tied in with when one dates a break between Judaism and Christianity. I do not know of any major scholar who suggests a major overlap between Judaism and Christianty after 100. Shaye JD Cohen, the leading expert on Hellenistic Judaism, observes that there are no sects within Judaism after 70 CE. He observes that there may still have been Jewish Christians, but that there simply is no historical record of it. I do not see anything controversial in suggesting that after that date Christianity depended primarily on Gentiles for new converts. But like I said, if you have other sources that claim otherwise, add them. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Why, specifically, is there a POV tag on the page? What would it take to resolve the issue? Leadwind ( talk) 21:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Making this section work will require a lot of editing and plenty of new material. Currently it's pretty fragmented. If I were to rework it, I'd put it in chronological order.
1. Jesus establishes a restoration movement within Judaism and is executed. His closest followers have visionary experiences of Jesus resurrected, and his movement continues as a Jewish sect.
2. Paul opens the movement to gentiles and defines Jesus, not the Law, as the proper foundation of religious life. Judaism includes mostly non-Christians plus many Christians. Christianity includes many Jews but more and more gentiles.
3. The Temple is destroyed. This is probably the best single point where we can see that the tension between Christianity and Judaism results in a split.
4. Christianity becomes less and less Jewish. Judaism develops rabbinic leadership. The council of Javne and the Bar Kochba revolt are two more major milestones in the differentiation of Christianity from Judaism.
We can readily flesh this chronology out with mainstream sources. Leadwind ( talk) 22:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
There is now an article on this subject:
Split of early Christianity and Judaism.
75.14.217.55 (
talk) 04:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a great article, but the wording lacks the clarity needed for an encyclopedia article. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The greatest problem is that it isn't an encyclopedia article about th "Cultural and historical background of Jesus". It is a book somebody wrote about the origins of Christianity. Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles need to stick to the topic defined by their titles, see WP:CFORK. We have altogether too many articles about the historical Jesus, the historicity of Jesus, the quest for the historical Jesus, and Jesus and history, plus origins of Christianity, Split of early Christianity and Judaism, etc., etc. Somehow people seem to think WP:CFORK does not apply to articles about Jesus, and that everyone can add yet another article on the same topic just as long as they can think of a title that is not yet occupied? -- dab (𒁳) 10:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I suggest removal to Cultural and historical background of New Testament, because we need a background for John the Baptist and other New Testament figures also. Or maybe just Historical background of New Testament, which implies social-political-cultural and other backgrounds also.-- Mladifilozof ( talk) 20:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is not as bad as many other articles floating around. Generally well written, but most sections are source free. It really needs sources... History2007 ( talk) 14:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
James Dunn, and Bart Ehrman have taken the position that since the Oral Tradition was reliable, then the Synoptic Gospels (which were based on the oral tradition) are accurate. Then "Jesus did exist" and we have an historically "accurate picture" of this Jewish Rabbi from the line of Judah. Dunn 2013 p 360, Casey 2010 p 12 & Ehrman 2012 p 22, p 25, & p 21 p 117
This will result in a number of articles being updated. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe this article is neutral. I do not believe there are any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. I just believe this article is trying to inform us and persuade us at the same time that this information written is true. Jessica nakkoul ( talk) 15:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)