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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
An expansive topic such as this should stick to the subject (Jesus) and breeze over Jesus' ancient history. That context is best left to specialized articles which should be references by a main article tag under each section header.
After a scan, it seems the most important omission in article is the neglect of any Zoroastrian influence from the Persian period. (Note, even the monotheism article buries Zoroastrianism, instead featuring the Abrahamic family). - Ste| vertigo 22:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Edit by user:Codex_Sinaiticus:
A template of this kind, is (primarily) a convenient link to identify various related articles, and (secondarily) a statement that it is also considered part of a cluster of articles on a theme. Neither of these two issues "make" an article un-neutral, any more than omission of a link to Christianity would. It might be an unexpected omission, it might be a wrong omission (since template:Jews and Judaism sidebar is in there)... but it's not going to render the article un-neutral if it is or isn't. What would make an article non-neutral is bias in the representation of matters described. I think it's pretty obvious that this article is also related to early Christianity, by anyone reading the introduction or even the contents. So I'm removing the tag.
Please continue to argue whether it should have the template here, or not, on this page. My personal feeling is, it should have template jesus, and either none of both of templates jew/christianity. That seems reasonable. But the non-linkage of other articles, in the overall context of this, does not warrant labelling the entire text "POV". FT2 ( Talk) 13:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Codex, the judgement of neutral point of view is not in the description of an editor. It's in the effect on the reader of the article as it stands. A reader, reading this article, is almost surely not going to be misled as to the content or relevance, or believe somehow Jesus is no longer related to Christianity, because of a simple template being there or not. The article itself does not privilege a Christian or non-Christian view. It rather, focusses on the history, and culture, and to do so it draws on religious sources from multiple religions (including Christianity), and examines their validity, and non-religious sources, and examines their validity too. The editor's description of his edit is not important. The article balance is. The omission of a template (which I commented about I have no problem with being present or absent either way), is not sufficient to render the entire article's effect on a reader non-neutral. That is what an NPOV tag means, and it's inappropriate. You might not like it, but thats a style and linkage issue, not a NPOV issue. FT2 ( Talk) 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Your second point is eminently sensible. As to your first, I still hold to what i said before - this article is on Jesus in his cultural and historical context, and that context is overwhelmingly Jewish. Jesus was Jewish and his religion was Judaism (of course, not modern Judaism). Jesus was not Christian, did not identify himself as Christian. Christianity did not exist until after he was killed. So knowing about Christianity does not help anyone understand the cultural and historical context in which Jesus lived. But knowing about Judaism does. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not. This was the entire reason I asdded the NPOV tag, because you insist on redefining everything and watering it down in your words that lose have of the meaning. What I wrote is perfectly NPOV. If you keep messing with it, there will be more much cause for an NPOV tag oin this article.
ፈቃደ (
ውይይት)
15:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying that it is not relevant to the Cultural background of Jesus#Emergence of Christianity that the Gospels portray him as having established a group of 12 and a group of 70 followers, each time with specific instructions, when he founded a religion? And you claim that the scholarly view is that the religion didn't start until after his death, but that view isn't supported by the Gospel at least. ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 16:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here's the issue from my own POV, regarding whether Jesus "founded Christianity." Slrubenstein is technically correct that historically, "Christianity" as such did not clearly emerge until after Jesus' death. He correctly says that Jesus practices Judaism, though of course not "modern Judaism." So no, I don't think it's his intent at all to "suppress Christianity" or whatever, that's just his assessment of history. It seems clear to me that historically, the Judaism that Jesus practiced differed greatly from the Judaism of today or even of the second century, simply because of the destruction of the Temple and the complete cessation of animal sacrifices. Today, both Christianity and Judaism claim to be the true continuation of what was first century Judaism. Their chief differences include not only who Jesus is, but their rationale for discontinuing the Temple sacrifices. I think that for at least a period of time, Christians believed they were continuing or fulfilling the religion practiced by Abraham and Moses, rather than that they were part of a brand new religion. So, in my view, this article should either include both the Christianity and Judaism templates, or neither of them. The better compromise would probably be to leave them both out. Wesley 16:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the Christianity template is needed here, but neither do I think that anything beyond the "Destruction of the Temple" (and probably not even that) is all that important. The emergence of Christianity isn't part of the "background" of Jesus - even if you choose the (IMO, non-standard) view that Christianity begins with Jesus' ministry, it still isn't part of his background. Background ends when he starts preaching. I could see a case for including the changes in Judaism after the destruction of the Temple, to explain to readers why/how modern Judaism differs from First Century Judaism, but just a paragraph and a link to the appropriate section of another article dedicated to the history of Judaism. So my vote is to take out the Christianity template, leave the Jesus and Judaism templates, and replace everything from the Great Revolt onward with a summary and links, because they don't pertain to Jesus' background. Guettarda 16:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Two edits added to address the above:
FT2 ( Talk) 17:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Even in Acts of the Apostles, early Christianity is refered to as "the Nazarene sect) of Judaism (Acts 24:5-6), although the term "Christian" was being used in Antioch (Acts 11:26). I've always been taught that Jesus founded Christianity with the Great Commission, which did indeed come after Jesus' death and ressurection. Also, this article is about the cultural and historical background of Jesus, and arguably about the (late Second Temple Period) Jewish background of early Christianity (but not about Christianity itself). I feel that both the "Jew" and "Jesus" templates are appropriate here, but I don't think that the "Christianity" template is appropriate for this article. It's much the same as with the Schisms among the Jews article, which also covers the emergence of Christianity (and Samaritanism) as seperate articles; the "Christianity" template would not be appropriate there, either. The Early Christianity article covers some of the same ground but is more directly about Christianity, not the background of Christianity. The "Christianity" template belongs on the Early Christianity article, not on this article. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm just reading your comment and edit: "Priest-kings only come into existence with the Hasmoneans who are Hellenistic not Persian period". I think I've just figured out what jars about its placement.
The section comprises 2 short paragraphs. Paragraph #1 discusses how, with the 2nd temple not built under divine authority, this provided grounds for sects to arise. Paragraph #2 discusses events at the end of the Babylonian exile (redaction, time of Ezra, etc).
Neither of these paragraphs are actually specific to priest-kings. At most, the first of these is a generic condition from the time of its construction onward through to Hasmonean times.
What I think is, both paragraphs should go under "2nd temple" (since they relate to events following on from the 2nd temple's construction and after the exile) but that the title is misleading and should be removed from them.
I'm proposing to move both paragraphs to that section, and kill the section title.
If, as, and when we do actually say something specific about priest-kings, and it is specific to (or introduced with) the Hasmonean era, then we should put a section there for priest-kings and say it. But right now I don't think the short contents of that section are really about priest-kings. They're far more about the follow-on to the construction of the 2nd temple.
If you disagree, can we discuss here briefly? Thanks FT2 ( Talk) 14:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I do disagree with getting rid of the Persion section for two reasons. First, there is nothing wrong with being short, why can't a section be very short? Second, you yourself point out the lack of material on the Persian influence. I can add some material (but perhaps not htis month, or not until later this month) - you are right that there is stuff out there to add ... and I would add it to this small section i.e. it will get a bit bigger (to my knowledge the main impact of Zoroastrianism is twofold, first, the entrance of a kind of manicheanism that you see in the latter prohets who describe an ultimate war between good and evil, Gog and Magog. Second, an intensification of monotheism and its centrality in the Bible, perhaps a reaction against perceived dualism in Zoroastrianism. We could add this now but I do not have the sources on hand and would rather waituntil I have the sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I have no objection to the change you just made. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps the Christian Church(es) might have a viewpoint on this subject???
But whatever its view, no matter how significant or relevant, the editors of this article will not suffer it to be explained or even alluded to, except in the most dismissing language imaginable. Everyone else's view is allowed, but that one view must be kept out at all costs. That is suppression. A truly neutral article would include details of ALL relevant and significant views. ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
As commented above:
If you feel that specific factual information that is relevant to the historical and cultural background is missing, then as I have said above, say what it is instead of emotional talk about how information is being "suppressed" and rhetoric questions about what "anyone" might think or not think. If information is missing, name it here so others can discuss. Don't just complain and then expect others to read your mind. FT2 ( Talk) 17:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
if it helps, most articles covering point events, or incidents leading up to point events, also cover the aftermath too. Thus, the article on Chernobyl also covers aftermath of chernobyl, the article on Mount St helens covers rescue and aftermath of St helens, and so on. That's part of an encyclopoedia's role to put its articles in their context too. So an article on Jesus' cultural background is more than okay, to show how it played out, overlapping slightly the next stages in the development of both religions. That shows how it played out, the aftermath and provides context, and is very normal and usual. Hope that is of use. FT2 ( Talk) 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
As I take a quick look at the article as a whole, all but the last section(s) apply to the views of almost all of the scholarly community. We cite Sanders a lot, but others, like Paul L. Maier, N. T. Wright, D. A. Carson from the traditional side, Elaine Pagels, Paula Fredriksen, John Dominic Crossan, from the critical side and other specialists would help.
We also should avoid terms like "most" scholars, which is hard to determine. (has anyone take a census of Ph. D.s in Biblical Studies?) If there is any slant it is in that direction. I still do not sense a slant in favor of or against Christianity. -- CTSWyneken 17:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Current wording:
Possible alternative wording:
The latter avoids repeated brackets in one sentence and also seems to make more sense and flow a bit smoother. Comments? FT2 ( Talk) 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The above is fine with me, but I would add something like:
Edited (and above cleaned up to remove confusing section line now it's done).
FT2 (
Talk)
13:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Rushing in where angels fear to tread... Here's my first suggestion. Our current scope...
I'd like to strike the phrases in red and add the period in blue
This will allow us to take a step back from the controversies over the accuracy of the New Testament, leaving that for articles that take up higher critical views. The result, I think, will be a very harmonious text, since much of the background is not in controversy between schools of study; For example, everyone agrees that we have discovered in recent years: a boat in the Sea of Galilee from the first century, the ossuary of High Priest Joseph ben Caiapha (forgive any misspelling, SL), etc.
I'll read the article with the conservative Christian scholarly school in mind. SL, would you add Shaye Cohen? Arch, do you have volumes on your shelf that will add to the discussion? -- CTSWyneken 18:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Before we gon on about the "scope" I think we need to know where the article came from and where it is going. Earlier John Kenney made a point that this is a weird article. It is, but instead of debating it section by section, I think we need to look at it as a whole. Understanding its origins and being open-minded about future possibilities is the place to start, in my opinion.
I think this article should - and will - be merged with the article on "the historical Jesus" so any changes should keep that in mind. Right now, this article does two things that I believe are essential to the series of articles on Jesus, taken as a whole, but not found in any other article:
Some more points:
I don't want to quibble with the lead to this article. I believe I have just laid out what I believe is the rationale for how this article came to exist and take the form it did, as well as my own views for what form it should take. I would like to know if there is broad agreement here, or even consensus - or a need for debate. Once we have consensus about the matters I raise here, then it will be evident what form the lead should take. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
(I agree, and this is one of the things I tried to communicate above. I do however see Sanders et. al. as representative of a kind of scholarship that needs more representation at Wikipedia. That is my point: not to restrict this to a few scholars but to ensure that among all the Jesus articles, a kind of scholarship is well-represented. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC))
I appreciate you views on this, even though I differ with you on it, John. Here is why we should have such an article:
The title of this article is a secondary consideration. Personally, I never liked it, and don't object to a change. The issue though is what is the article about? This article is the result of a content fork when material that was part of the Jesus article was removed to make a new article, because the Jesus article was too long. At that time certain choices were made ... maybe some of them were poor choices. Since that time, much material has been added to this article, perhaps too at times the result of poor choices. What we know is this: the Jesus article has a section on the historical and cultural background that is very short and has a link to this article. The name of this article need not be the same as the name of that section in the Jesus article. But there is a link there because there is material relevant to Jesus, but which is not included in the Jesus article. We can't just discuss the name of the linked article. We need to ask, what material is not in the Jesus article. Where should that material be? In one article? In two articles? In three? Is this half of one of those articles, or is this really two articles that ought to be divided? Or is this part one article, part material that belongs in other articles? I think these are the questions John and CTS are debating. For now, let's not get distracted by the title. Let's just ask, what material is or should be in here that does not belong in other articles? What material in here belongs in other articles? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
John would say - rightly - that the "world of Jesus" is also the world of Hillel and Akiba. Moreover, this is a serious point for many contemporary historians, that the world of the first followers of Jesus, and the world of the Pharisees, was the same world and they came up with different solutions to similar problems/questions. As for historical Jesus while I think a lot of this article seems unrelated, this article touches on far more of what historians of the "historical Jesus" like Sanders and Vermes touch on than the historical Jesus article. I think any hiostorical Jesus article should be based on what scholars (and I am not limiting myself to Sanders and Vermes of course, let's include Crossan AND Maier) are looking at - and, for good or bad, this article reviews a lot of the same stuff they review. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the article and debate, I don't have much to add, but here's some thoughts.
The article has come a long way, and stabilized, since it started being heavily worked on maybe 18 months ago or so. Pause and look at it and related articles, and consider what it is we've got here, and what clarity we've gained. What we have here (no matter how it began) is an article that very well summarizes, the historical and cultural background not so much to Jesus, but to a historical event: the emergence and divergence of Rabbinic Judaism, and early Christianity. Plus a smaller separate section on Jesus in his historical context. That is what we have created.
This suggests a neat slice of the subject matter as follows:
The neatness here is that we have a clean slice between #1 and #2:
The #1 article is covering a known historical event (after 1000 years of background, 2 religions finally emerged. how and why did this happen). Can we view the emergence of a religion separate from the life of its founder? I think we can. As far as the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity goes, the most relevant thing about Jesus is that he is believed to have existed, and that his followers believed him to be the Son of God and continued the work they believed he intended for them, after his death. The detail of Jesus' life itself are less relevant to an understanding how religions historically emerged and the relevant background and cultural information about Judaism and Palestine to that point.
The #2 article then looks at Jesus himself, and what can be said of the man, his works, and his life, as a historical person and in a histroical context. Again, this will draw on #1 and on multiple sources, some of which will be Christian scholars documenting Jesus' life, some of which will be critical scholars. But whatever may be said of Jesus' life probably is separable from how the religions came to be as they were, and their history, and also in the same way that the emergence of Christianity is capable of being described as a historical event mostly separate from the details of the life of its Founder, likewise the person of Jesus is capable of being written without re-duplicating the history of 1st and 2nd temple Judaism.
In addition, each article can then draw on multiple views, which is what NPOV requires. There will be multiple views on relevant historical and cultural background to the emergence and divergence of the religions. There will be multiple views (both Christian and Critical) on how to fit Jesus and the Gospel stories, into his hisotrical context. And the above articles can accomodate those.
Thoughts? FT2 ( Talk) 19:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
An expansive topic such as this should stick to the subject (Jesus) and breeze over Jesus' ancient history. That context is best left to specialized articles which should be references by a main article tag under each section header.
After a scan, it seems the most important omission in article is the neglect of any Zoroastrian influence from the Persian period. (Note, even the monotheism article buries Zoroastrianism, instead featuring the Abrahamic family). - Ste| vertigo 22:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Edit by user:Codex_Sinaiticus:
A template of this kind, is (primarily) a convenient link to identify various related articles, and (secondarily) a statement that it is also considered part of a cluster of articles on a theme. Neither of these two issues "make" an article un-neutral, any more than omission of a link to Christianity would. It might be an unexpected omission, it might be a wrong omission (since template:Jews and Judaism sidebar is in there)... but it's not going to render the article un-neutral if it is or isn't. What would make an article non-neutral is bias in the representation of matters described. I think it's pretty obvious that this article is also related to early Christianity, by anyone reading the introduction or even the contents. So I'm removing the tag.
Please continue to argue whether it should have the template here, or not, on this page. My personal feeling is, it should have template jesus, and either none of both of templates jew/christianity. That seems reasonable. But the non-linkage of other articles, in the overall context of this, does not warrant labelling the entire text "POV". FT2 ( Talk) 13:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Codex, the judgement of neutral point of view is not in the description of an editor. It's in the effect on the reader of the article as it stands. A reader, reading this article, is almost surely not going to be misled as to the content or relevance, or believe somehow Jesus is no longer related to Christianity, because of a simple template being there or not. The article itself does not privilege a Christian or non-Christian view. It rather, focusses on the history, and culture, and to do so it draws on religious sources from multiple religions (including Christianity), and examines their validity, and non-religious sources, and examines their validity too. The editor's description of his edit is not important. The article balance is. The omission of a template (which I commented about I have no problem with being present or absent either way), is not sufficient to render the entire article's effect on a reader non-neutral. That is what an NPOV tag means, and it's inappropriate. You might not like it, but thats a style and linkage issue, not a NPOV issue. FT2 ( Talk) 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Your second point is eminently sensible. As to your first, I still hold to what i said before - this article is on Jesus in his cultural and historical context, and that context is overwhelmingly Jewish. Jesus was Jewish and his religion was Judaism (of course, not modern Judaism). Jesus was not Christian, did not identify himself as Christian. Christianity did not exist until after he was killed. So knowing about Christianity does not help anyone understand the cultural and historical context in which Jesus lived. But knowing about Judaism does. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not. This was the entire reason I asdded the NPOV tag, because you insist on redefining everything and watering it down in your words that lose have of the meaning. What I wrote is perfectly NPOV. If you keep messing with it, there will be more much cause for an NPOV tag oin this article.
ፈቃደ (
ውይይት)
15:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying that it is not relevant to the Cultural background of Jesus#Emergence of Christianity that the Gospels portray him as having established a group of 12 and a group of 70 followers, each time with specific instructions, when he founded a religion? And you claim that the scholarly view is that the religion didn't start until after his death, but that view isn't supported by the Gospel at least. ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 16:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here's the issue from my own POV, regarding whether Jesus "founded Christianity." Slrubenstein is technically correct that historically, "Christianity" as such did not clearly emerge until after Jesus' death. He correctly says that Jesus practices Judaism, though of course not "modern Judaism." So no, I don't think it's his intent at all to "suppress Christianity" or whatever, that's just his assessment of history. It seems clear to me that historically, the Judaism that Jesus practiced differed greatly from the Judaism of today or even of the second century, simply because of the destruction of the Temple and the complete cessation of animal sacrifices. Today, both Christianity and Judaism claim to be the true continuation of what was first century Judaism. Their chief differences include not only who Jesus is, but their rationale for discontinuing the Temple sacrifices. I think that for at least a period of time, Christians believed they were continuing or fulfilling the religion practiced by Abraham and Moses, rather than that they were part of a brand new religion. So, in my view, this article should either include both the Christianity and Judaism templates, or neither of them. The better compromise would probably be to leave them both out. Wesley 16:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the Christianity template is needed here, but neither do I think that anything beyond the "Destruction of the Temple" (and probably not even that) is all that important. The emergence of Christianity isn't part of the "background" of Jesus - even if you choose the (IMO, non-standard) view that Christianity begins with Jesus' ministry, it still isn't part of his background. Background ends when he starts preaching. I could see a case for including the changes in Judaism after the destruction of the Temple, to explain to readers why/how modern Judaism differs from First Century Judaism, but just a paragraph and a link to the appropriate section of another article dedicated to the history of Judaism. So my vote is to take out the Christianity template, leave the Jesus and Judaism templates, and replace everything from the Great Revolt onward with a summary and links, because they don't pertain to Jesus' background. Guettarda 16:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Two edits added to address the above:
FT2 ( Talk) 17:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Even in Acts of the Apostles, early Christianity is refered to as "the Nazarene sect) of Judaism (Acts 24:5-6), although the term "Christian" was being used in Antioch (Acts 11:26). I've always been taught that Jesus founded Christianity with the Great Commission, which did indeed come after Jesus' death and ressurection. Also, this article is about the cultural and historical background of Jesus, and arguably about the (late Second Temple Period) Jewish background of early Christianity (but not about Christianity itself). I feel that both the "Jew" and "Jesus" templates are appropriate here, but I don't think that the "Christianity" template is appropriate for this article. It's much the same as with the Schisms among the Jews article, which also covers the emergence of Christianity (and Samaritanism) as seperate articles; the "Christianity" template would not be appropriate there, either. The Early Christianity article covers some of the same ground but is more directly about Christianity, not the background of Christianity. The "Christianity" template belongs on the Early Christianity article, not on this article. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm just reading your comment and edit: "Priest-kings only come into existence with the Hasmoneans who are Hellenistic not Persian period". I think I've just figured out what jars about its placement.
The section comprises 2 short paragraphs. Paragraph #1 discusses how, with the 2nd temple not built under divine authority, this provided grounds for sects to arise. Paragraph #2 discusses events at the end of the Babylonian exile (redaction, time of Ezra, etc).
Neither of these paragraphs are actually specific to priest-kings. At most, the first of these is a generic condition from the time of its construction onward through to Hasmonean times.
What I think is, both paragraphs should go under "2nd temple" (since they relate to events following on from the 2nd temple's construction and after the exile) but that the title is misleading and should be removed from them.
I'm proposing to move both paragraphs to that section, and kill the section title.
If, as, and when we do actually say something specific about priest-kings, and it is specific to (or introduced with) the Hasmonean era, then we should put a section there for priest-kings and say it. But right now I don't think the short contents of that section are really about priest-kings. They're far more about the follow-on to the construction of the 2nd temple.
If you disagree, can we discuss here briefly? Thanks FT2 ( Talk) 14:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I do disagree with getting rid of the Persion section for two reasons. First, there is nothing wrong with being short, why can't a section be very short? Second, you yourself point out the lack of material on the Persian influence. I can add some material (but perhaps not htis month, or not until later this month) - you are right that there is stuff out there to add ... and I would add it to this small section i.e. it will get a bit bigger (to my knowledge the main impact of Zoroastrianism is twofold, first, the entrance of a kind of manicheanism that you see in the latter prohets who describe an ultimate war between good and evil, Gog and Magog. Second, an intensification of monotheism and its centrality in the Bible, perhaps a reaction against perceived dualism in Zoroastrianism. We could add this now but I do not have the sources on hand and would rather waituntil I have the sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I have no objection to the change you just made. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps the Christian Church(es) might have a viewpoint on this subject???
But whatever its view, no matter how significant or relevant, the editors of this article will not suffer it to be explained or even alluded to, except in the most dismissing language imaginable. Everyone else's view is allowed, but that one view must be kept out at all costs. That is suppression. A truly neutral article would include details of ALL relevant and significant views. ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
As commented above:
If you feel that specific factual information that is relevant to the historical and cultural background is missing, then as I have said above, say what it is instead of emotional talk about how information is being "suppressed" and rhetoric questions about what "anyone" might think or not think. If information is missing, name it here so others can discuss. Don't just complain and then expect others to read your mind. FT2 ( Talk) 17:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
if it helps, most articles covering point events, or incidents leading up to point events, also cover the aftermath too. Thus, the article on Chernobyl also covers aftermath of chernobyl, the article on Mount St helens covers rescue and aftermath of St helens, and so on. That's part of an encyclopoedia's role to put its articles in their context too. So an article on Jesus' cultural background is more than okay, to show how it played out, overlapping slightly the next stages in the development of both religions. That shows how it played out, the aftermath and provides context, and is very normal and usual. Hope that is of use. FT2 ( Talk) 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
As I take a quick look at the article as a whole, all but the last section(s) apply to the views of almost all of the scholarly community. We cite Sanders a lot, but others, like Paul L. Maier, N. T. Wright, D. A. Carson from the traditional side, Elaine Pagels, Paula Fredriksen, John Dominic Crossan, from the critical side and other specialists would help.
We also should avoid terms like "most" scholars, which is hard to determine. (has anyone take a census of Ph. D.s in Biblical Studies?) If there is any slant it is in that direction. I still do not sense a slant in favor of or against Christianity. -- CTSWyneken 17:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Current wording:
Possible alternative wording:
The latter avoids repeated brackets in one sentence and also seems to make more sense and flow a bit smoother. Comments? FT2 ( Talk) 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The above is fine with me, but I would add something like:
Edited (and above cleaned up to remove confusing section line now it's done).
FT2 (
Talk)
13:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Rushing in where angels fear to tread... Here's my first suggestion. Our current scope...
I'd like to strike the phrases in red and add the period in blue
This will allow us to take a step back from the controversies over the accuracy of the New Testament, leaving that for articles that take up higher critical views. The result, I think, will be a very harmonious text, since much of the background is not in controversy between schools of study; For example, everyone agrees that we have discovered in recent years: a boat in the Sea of Galilee from the first century, the ossuary of High Priest Joseph ben Caiapha (forgive any misspelling, SL), etc.
I'll read the article with the conservative Christian scholarly school in mind. SL, would you add Shaye Cohen? Arch, do you have volumes on your shelf that will add to the discussion? -- CTSWyneken 18:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Before we gon on about the "scope" I think we need to know where the article came from and where it is going. Earlier John Kenney made a point that this is a weird article. It is, but instead of debating it section by section, I think we need to look at it as a whole. Understanding its origins and being open-minded about future possibilities is the place to start, in my opinion.
I think this article should - and will - be merged with the article on "the historical Jesus" so any changes should keep that in mind. Right now, this article does two things that I believe are essential to the series of articles on Jesus, taken as a whole, but not found in any other article:
Some more points:
I don't want to quibble with the lead to this article. I believe I have just laid out what I believe is the rationale for how this article came to exist and take the form it did, as well as my own views for what form it should take. I would like to know if there is broad agreement here, or even consensus - or a need for debate. Once we have consensus about the matters I raise here, then it will be evident what form the lead should take. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
(I agree, and this is one of the things I tried to communicate above. I do however see Sanders et. al. as representative of a kind of scholarship that needs more representation at Wikipedia. That is my point: not to restrict this to a few scholars but to ensure that among all the Jesus articles, a kind of scholarship is well-represented. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC))
I appreciate you views on this, even though I differ with you on it, John. Here is why we should have such an article:
The title of this article is a secondary consideration. Personally, I never liked it, and don't object to a change. The issue though is what is the article about? This article is the result of a content fork when material that was part of the Jesus article was removed to make a new article, because the Jesus article was too long. At that time certain choices were made ... maybe some of them were poor choices. Since that time, much material has been added to this article, perhaps too at times the result of poor choices. What we know is this: the Jesus article has a section on the historical and cultural background that is very short and has a link to this article. The name of this article need not be the same as the name of that section in the Jesus article. But there is a link there because there is material relevant to Jesus, but which is not included in the Jesus article. We can't just discuss the name of the linked article. We need to ask, what material is not in the Jesus article. Where should that material be? In one article? In two articles? In three? Is this half of one of those articles, or is this really two articles that ought to be divided? Or is this part one article, part material that belongs in other articles? I think these are the questions John and CTS are debating. For now, let's not get distracted by the title. Let's just ask, what material is or should be in here that does not belong in other articles? What material in here belongs in other articles? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
John would say - rightly - that the "world of Jesus" is also the world of Hillel and Akiba. Moreover, this is a serious point for many contemporary historians, that the world of the first followers of Jesus, and the world of the Pharisees, was the same world and they came up with different solutions to similar problems/questions. As for historical Jesus while I think a lot of this article seems unrelated, this article touches on far more of what historians of the "historical Jesus" like Sanders and Vermes touch on than the historical Jesus article. I think any hiostorical Jesus article should be based on what scholars (and I am not limiting myself to Sanders and Vermes of course, let's include Crossan AND Maier) are looking at - and, for good or bad, this article reviews a lot of the same stuff they review. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the article and debate, I don't have much to add, but here's some thoughts.
The article has come a long way, and stabilized, since it started being heavily worked on maybe 18 months ago or so. Pause and look at it and related articles, and consider what it is we've got here, and what clarity we've gained. What we have here (no matter how it began) is an article that very well summarizes, the historical and cultural background not so much to Jesus, but to a historical event: the emergence and divergence of Rabbinic Judaism, and early Christianity. Plus a smaller separate section on Jesus in his historical context. That is what we have created.
This suggests a neat slice of the subject matter as follows:
The neatness here is that we have a clean slice between #1 and #2:
The #1 article is covering a known historical event (after 1000 years of background, 2 religions finally emerged. how and why did this happen). Can we view the emergence of a religion separate from the life of its founder? I think we can. As far as the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity goes, the most relevant thing about Jesus is that he is believed to have existed, and that his followers believed him to be the Son of God and continued the work they believed he intended for them, after his death. The detail of Jesus' life itself are less relevant to an understanding how religions historically emerged and the relevant background and cultural information about Judaism and Palestine to that point.
The #2 article then looks at Jesus himself, and what can be said of the man, his works, and his life, as a historical person and in a histroical context. Again, this will draw on #1 and on multiple sources, some of which will be Christian scholars documenting Jesus' life, some of which will be critical scholars. But whatever may be said of Jesus' life probably is separable from how the religions came to be as they were, and their history, and also in the same way that the emergence of Christianity is capable of being described as a historical event mostly separate from the details of the life of its Founder, likewise the person of Jesus is capable of being written without re-duplicating the history of 1st and 2nd temple Judaism.
In addition, each article can then draw on multiple views, which is what NPOV requires. There will be multiple views on relevant historical and cultural background to the emergence and divergence of the religions. There will be multiple views (both Christian and Critical) on how to fit Jesus and the Gospel stories, into his hisotrical context. And the above articles can accomodate those.
Thoughts? FT2 ( Talk) 19:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)