Talk:Historical background of the New Testament/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Historical background of the New Testament. 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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Discussion of Summary

This page, at the time of writing is pushing 131K

This is despite the fact that 5 sections of the page are simply summaries.

In order to reduce the page size, and improve readability, this section summarises the summaries themselves.

In addition it summarises a further summary of summaries and the disputes made of that, and the disputes about the disputes, together with an off-topic discussion.

The original text this summary replaces can be viewed at archive 6. Archive 6 contains the summaries that this replaces NOT the text that the summaries themselves replace, these can be viewed at archives 2-5.

It is not in chronological order, but instead ordered by topic for ease of viewing

This summary was made by CheeseDreams, who asserts that in their opinion it is NPOV. This undoubtably will be disputed.

Any disputed paragraphs or sentences, or locations where others demand additions into the summary are marked (0) where this marking corresponds to the section about the dispute which follows after the summary.

The article ( a summary exclusive to Wikipedia by the author CheeseDreams )

Terminology

The area should be called "Palestine" or something similar (4 votes against 2)

is it more important that Roman Palestine did not exist at the time in question
or is it more important that Palestine is the only term covering the whole area

The area should be referred to as "Roman Palestine" (7 votes against 1)

"pharisees were considered living saints" is either not accurate or inapropriate best wording (4 votes)

"at the time of Christ" is an inappropriate phrase (1 vote against 1)
"at this time" is an acceptable phrase to replace "at the time of Christ" (7 votes against none)

dispute on translation of "Jonathan" and "John"

"Yonatan" is "Jonathan"
"Yohanan" is "John"
"Yohanan" is "Jonathan"
King David's associate "Jonathan" is "Yohanan" in Hebrew
The New Testament is (koine) Greek

Methodology

dispute on the matter of prime sources

Mentioning the Gospels as prime historic source is NPOV
Biblical and western historians exclusively should be cited
Citing makes the text unapproachable to a general reader
The Gospels are not prime historic source for this perion
Citations should (if they are going to appear at all) not just be from Christians or the west.
Many people find the historiography of the gospels as highly dubious
There are only 3 points of view: Christians, skeptics, critical scholars
The Mishnah was not really edited until 200AD
There are Jews, Muslims, Talmud Scholars, historians, archaeologists, and many others
We must explain how historiography works.
There are too many citations
The Mishnah existed in oral form before 200AD

Jesus and the Article(s)

This article should not be merged with Jesus and textual evidence or Historicity of Jesus (general consensus vs. 1 objection)

The title should not be changed into The historical Jesus (4 votes against 1)

"the article, is neither about Christianity nor religion ...(it)... is about the culture and events..." (5 votes against 2)

Unopposed statement by Pedant

This article is about what its title says it is. ... It is only about the history and culture of the region as it bears on the (real or imaginary) person: Jesus, the central figure in Christian Theology. Anything that conflicts ... does not belong in THIS article.

This article should mention Jesus at least a non-zero amount (1st vote - 5 votes against 2) (2nd vote - 2 votes against 2)

This article is more background to 1st Century Roman Palestine than cross-referenced summary of Jesus' life (1st vote - 2 votes against 1) (2nd vote - 2 votes against 3)

Is this article the background to 1st Century Roman Palestine with asides if something is needed to understand Jesus' life
Is this article summarising Jesus' life, and cross referencing it to historical and cultural information about 1st Century Roman Palestine

Mild support for specific asides about things that happened to Jesus (vote-1: 3 votes against 2) (vote-2:3 votes against 3) (vote-3: 4 votes against 1 (+1 both sides))

Should the article be split to make this a non-issue

The article should not be split into "background" and "Jesus in it" (general consensus against 1 vote)

is it better to have 2 articles

one mainly avoiding Jesus in 1st century Palestine and discussing background instead (keeping the title)
one predominantly about Jesus in 1st century Palestine and mildly the background (The historical Jesus )

or a single article including both

Structure of the article

This article should not just be a historical narrative (majority consensus, though with a large minority disputing it)

The article should be an historical narrative with asides
The article should be structured into topics such as Political situation (regional rulers, high priests, notable militaristic action), Religious organizations (major schools, prophets, messianic groups), Later developments (political control, emergence of more modern Judaism and Christianity)

discussion of historical narrative approach

1 dimensional
written as if Christianity is the climax of historical events, which is POV
style reflects only Christian views of what is important to discuss about the background
history and culture are entwined, seperation is a fallacy
far too much history
it reads better
it lacks material

discussion of topical approach

standard encyclopedia style
different aspects highlighted and discussed seperately
not orientated around Christian views of what is important
mass redundancy by seperating history and culture
no-scholars use this approach
many scholars use this approach
journalists consider this approach more approachable for the general reader
organised in line with the article's title which contains the words "Cultural and"

dispute on structure within the topical approach

"political situation" should be the same section as "religious organizations", "major schools", and "prophets"
"notable uprisings" and "messiahs" should be the same section
"political situation" means who is in charge
putting "notable uprisings" and "messiahs" together only makes sense as an essay, not an encyclopedia
"uprisings" are politics not religion
Although seperating politics and religion is a modern thing, so are the audience of the encyclopedia

Introductary Paragraphs

"According to most Christians, Jesus lived in the first century in Judea" is POV not NPOV (3 votes against 1)

Introduction should comment that some dispute historicity (5 votes against 1)

Should the article (as its starting point)

The article should assume Jesus exists as its starting point
The article should not make assumption of historicity or non-historicity

Agreement that the basis for the first paragraph should be (5 votes to 2 (proposal A) to 1 (proposal B)): "Jesus is [traditionally/usually] held to have lived in the first century in Judea. Without addressing Jesus existence as an actual historic figure, this article discusses the cultural and political forces active at that time. see: Historicity of Jesus for information relating to the existence of Jesus as a historical figure."

The intro mentioned above makes clear that the existence of Jesus is not being asserted (8 votes against 1 digression)

The 1st and 2nd introductory sentences should be recast (input from 6 persons): The main record of the life of Jesus are the Gospels, in the Christian New Testament. These sources place Jesus in what became Roman Palestine (modern Israel and Palestine) during the early 1st century.

The 3rd sentence should become (2 votes against 1): The article Historicity of Jesus covers debates regarding the existence of Jesus, but if so then it is agreed by most Christians and academics who hold this view that it is necessary to understand the cultural and historical background in which Jesus is thought to have lived.

The 4th sentence should become (general consensus): This was a volatile period marked by cultural and political dilemmas. Out of the Roman occupation of Palestine sprang two of the modern world's religions: Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.

subsequent discussion after User X, without being requested, produced a competing version

The non-User-X version is balanced, neutral, and appropriate
User X (and supporters) thinks their version is better
User X thinks their version should absorb the other

Prior History of Palestine

dispute over the existance of sacrifice

Stating that in most ancient near-eastern societies sacrifice was the only worship is derogatory
Stating that in most ancient near-eastern societies sacrifice was the only worship is POV
Stating that in most ancient near-eastern societies sacrifice was the only worship is accurate
Stating that in most ancient near-eastern societies sacrifice was the only worship is a lie
Stating that in most ancient near-eastern societies sacrifice was the only worship is offensive

dispute over the validity of the claim of a "dual core"

Having a Temple, Torah, Priests, and Scribes, together with having a King ruling by divine right implies a "dual core"
Current "scholarship" implies there was not a "dual core"

dispute over the 1st and 2nd temple periods

There could be a better transition between the 1st and 2nd temple periods,
in the 1st and 2nd temple period, both Temple and Law were important.
There is no known source for the 1st Temple period which is not suspect of having political spin
Excessive detail about the "First Temple" Era and the "Second Temple" Era is irrelevant
It is not even known from non-Biblical sources if there was a 1st Temple period
There was discontinuity which should be stressed between the 1st and 2nd temple period
There needs to be detailed background to the background of Saducees, Pharisees, Temple, Monarchy, and Torah

Discussion of the Hasmonians

The Hasmonaeans claiming first the high priesthood (under Jonathan) and then the kingship (under Aristobulus I) should be mentioned
It is a little confusing to me to call the Hasmonean kingdom the second kingdom.
We can be clearer that the Pharisees developed under the Hasmoneans.

Herod's reign should be mentioned

It should explain who Antipater the Idumaean was
It should explain how Herod was Idumaean and a Jew simultaneously

Governance

dispute over Jewish reaction to Hellenism

Greeks thought circumcision was an abomination
Implications of the idea of a universal God are important
The Jews thought nakedness was an abomination
An emotional quote from Pearlman indicates how jews felt at the the time about Hellenism
Implications of the idea of a universal God are irrelevant
There was a split between hellenized and "traditional" Jews
Implications of Greek interest in Judaism are irrelevant
An unemotional quote from Cohen indicates how jews felt at the the time about Hellenism
The view that there was a split between hellinized and "traditional" Jews is anachronistic and simplistic.
Implications of Greek interest in Judaism are important

dispute over the nature of the region

The middle east was a "powderkeg" with religious aggression contained by secularity just like today
The middle east has never not been a "powderkeg"
The middle east forms the bridge between persia, greece, and egypt
The middle east's position between major empires, throughout history, inevitably gave it "powderkeg" status
The middle east was not a "powderkeg"

a discussion of the status of sedition is important

dispute over reasons for Jewish antaganism toward rome

The desire by Jews not to integrate was seen as an affront by Romans
A modern historian claims it is not true that the lack of desire to integrate was seen as an affront
Romans were tolerant of beliefs
Rome (and Greece) was not secular
Jews were more offended by taxes than Roman opinions on belief
By 1 CE, the Roman Empire was somewhat more corrupt than it had been
There should be a section about economy and class inequality
It is necessary to understand the Macabees to comprehend how Jews react to Rome
religious and cultural differences escalated into conflicts with secular governance by Rome
It is not true that early emporers thrived but later ones were cruel and murdered
By 1 CE, the Roman Empire was no more corrupt than it had ever been
Rome (and Greece) had a religious and cultural agenda
Early emporers thrived, later ones were cruel and murdered, which demonstrates that there was more corruption

Religious Groups

dispute over whether judaism always had two sides

There were always 2 sides to Judaism - temple vs. halakhah/prayer
Prayer is a form of temple worship
Halakha contains ritual
Halakha contains specifically prayer-related ritual
Prayer is independant to temple worship (which had to occur 3 times a year)
Temple worship (but not the temple) goes back to 1500-1300BC
Halakha goes back orally before it was written down

dispute over nature of the priesthood and pharisees

In Judaism, the priesthood was more administrative than acting as intermediary between Jews and God
The nature of the Pharisees changed over time
In Judaism, the priesthood was more acting as intermediary between Jews and God than administrative
The nature of the Pharisees remained relatively stable and constant

dispute over nature of the essenes, zealots, and lesser groups

There was a multi-party system with at least 4 large "schools of thought"
Essenes and Zealots only developed later
There was a two-party system (Sadducees vs. Pharisees) with minor additional factions
Essenes developed at virtually the same time as, or only shortly after, the Pharisees

Dispute about Militant Fundamentalists

The Sicarii rejected Roman rule but also rejected Jewish government.
The Sicarii were a fanatical underground militant wing of the Zealots
The primary target of the Sicarii were Jewish elites, not Romans.
The Sicarii were independant of the Zealots
We need to add more information about the Sicarii.

Other Messiahs

Other groups who believed in different Messiah figures should be mentioned (8 votes)

One (and only one) speaker opposed detailed listing of the known movements in this section

Contemporary understanding of the meaning of messiah should be included (general uncontested consensus)

It is important to state that kings and priests were anointed
It is unacceptable (and meaningless) to use the terms annointed king and annointed priest

Uncontested statement

In Judaism, "Messiah" means "annointed". It was the symbol of high office. There were two officers routinely annointed this way - a priest messiah, and a king messiah. The hope of a "messiah" to save them would usually have meant simply, some king or priest who would stand up to the romans or whoever was felt oppressing them at the time. The meaning of "Messiah" in christianity, that of a godhead, a unique being who would save them in the sense of salvation, was not part of Judaism, though it may have formed part of the hopes or mystic beliefs of some cults or splinter groups.

The phrase "Son of Man" is not always apocalyptic (1 vote (+3 informal) no other votes)

Undisputed statement by User:FT2

Many historians claim that Jesus himself did not claim to be a "messiah" in any way unlike other messiahs.

dispute over the meaning of "saviour of Israel"

there is no evidence anyone thought that a messiah would be a saviour of Israel
many expected to be saved from the judgement of God
the expectation of a messiah was the expectation of a saviour of Israel
many considered the Romans to be the judgement of God
the articles Mosiach and Messiah explain the understanding of the term

discussion of the paragraph on other messiahs

A compromise text was developed
One user (user X) produced an alternative proposal
A new compromise text is proposed taking into account elements of User X's proposal
User X disputes elements of the compromise text
User X proposes a 2nd alternative text
Some users dispute the willingness of User X to collaborate
A new compromise text is proposed taking into account discussions around User X's 2nd proposal
User X disputes elements of the compromise text and considers their own proposal superior
A new compromise text is proposed taking into account discussions around User X's comments
User X disputes elements of the compromise text
A new compromise text is proposed taking into account discussions around User X's comments
User X restates their intolerance of elements of the compromise text
User X restates their 2nd alternative text
A new compromise text is proposed taking into account suggestions from User X and others
The new text is voted on after "packing the house" has occurred.
The result of the vote is (2 supporting the compromise text, 5 against it)

dispute on Mandaeans and John the baptist

Mandaeans first came into existance in the 2nd/3rd centuries BC
There is no evidence that Mandaeans were followers of John the baptist
Mandaeans considered John the baptist a messiah
Mandaeans first came into existance in the 2nd/3rd centuries AD
Mandaeans were followers of John the baptist
John the baptist was Nazorean
Mandaean was a dialaect at this time
Mandaean is a modern synonym for Nazorean
Modern Mandaeans refer to themselves as Nazorean

dispute on divinity and the existance of other messiah's

first century messiahs and prophets never claimed they were divine
Josephus is not acceptable to cite
some first century messiahs and prophets claimed they were divine
Jesus did not claim he was divine
Josephus is acceptable to cite
Jesus did claim he was divine
Josephus states that the persons supposedly "messiah"s were actually thought to be prophets
the Jews had considerable law on false prophets
Josephus supports the idea that there were people claiming to be and thought to be "messiah"s

dispute over reaction of the jews to "other messiahs"

Sabbattai Lev (circa 1400) shows how Jews found "other messiahs" troublesome and offensive
Shabbatai Lev (circa 1600) does not shows how Jews found "other messiahs" troublesome and offensive
There is no evidence from the 1st century that Jews found non-mainstream beliefs troublesome
There is no evidence from the 1st century
According to historic record, as a group, Jews at the time were conservative
According to historic record, as a group, Jews at the time were sceptical of radical new interpretations
According to historic record, as a group, Jews at the time were disinterested in afterlife/salvation stories
According to historic record, as a group, Jews at the time were making many original claims
There was no "mainstream"
It is necessary to understand the Macabees to comprehend how Jews react to other Messiahs

Miscellaneous contemporarial details

dispute over the nature of the law

Jewish religious law was the main law of the land
Jewish religious law was mostly lenient
Jewish religious law was mostly legislative

dispute over significance of Jesus conversing in the Temple on the law

It was fairly standard that young people were able to converse on the law in the Temple
The evidence that young people would be expected to be able to converse on the law is rubbish
Jesus was remarkably unusual in being able to converse on the law in the Temple
The evidence that young people would be expected to be able to converse on the law is 100 years after Jesus

dispute over general demography of Jews at the time

"X% lived in towns, Y% in villages" is too demographic
most Jews at the time were hard working
in the circumstances of the age, there are not many "slackers" in village life
most Jews at the time were God fearing
there is no evidence that most Jews were hard working
there is no evidence that most Jews were God fearing
most Jews at the time were in villages
village people are less likely to be hellenised than city people

Development of later religion

This article should describe who followed the Pharisees (4 votes against 1, 1 abstention)
"Later forms of Judaism" followed the Pharisees rather than "Rabbinic Judaism" (1st vote-unresolved) (2nd vote - 3 votes against 1)

Discussion of the subsequent development of Christianity and how it connected to the gentiles belongs elsewhere not here (4 votes against 1 (+1 for a brief mention))

FT2s version of the paragraph discussing how christianity emerged is preferred (general consensus)

Originally the intent was to preach to the Jews. Some but not all requirements were removed, as it was felt that the new emphasis was on faith and not detailed laws. Thus there were 'Jewish Christians', Jews who believed in Christ Messiah. When the Jews as a community rejected this, the Christian message was taken to the gentiles instead. To make it palatable, and draw a line separating them from the Jews (who were by now becoming politically dangerous associates) many more of the restrictive laws were removed and the emphasis was shifted. The message that reached the gentiles was therefore a more universal one, in the sense that it was easier to digest, its appeal was more emotional than legalistic, and it did not contain many of the practices beliefs and rituals by which the Jews kept themselves separate from others.

Anything later than bar Kochba is irrelevant

Is it important that the manner in which christianity emerged indicates the historiography of the Gospels

The non-Jewishness of Christianity

dispute over the reaction of Rome to Jews and vice versa

The Jewish revolt was about seeking political and religious freedom vs. Romans.
The Jewish revolt was about poverty in the peasentry vs. the elite.
Jews at the time were under intense pressure from Rome
The Macabbee revolt indicates that Jews violently do not like their sense of identity threatened
As a group, Jews at the time tended to polarise under pressure.
even after Bar Kochba, Romans treated Jews better than Christians.
As a group, Jews at the time tended to be protective of their national identity
The ideas of how Romans treated early Christians is predominantly later Christian propaganda

dispute over reasons for christianity's non-jewishness

The jews were becoming politically dangerous due to rebellion against Rome
Christians deliberately shifted away from Jewish law to make themselves disassociated with the Jews
Christianity is easier to digest
Christianity being easier to digest is POV

dispute over importance of restrictiveness of some Jewish practises

Judaism's restrictive practices prevented non-Jews from converting to it or similar religion
Jews never believed non-Jews should obey Jewish law
Many non-Jews turned to religions with restrictive practices
it is logical that dropping more Jewish traditions made Christian beliefs more palatable
it is not logical that dropping more Jewish traditions should make Christian beliefs more palatable
Replacing halakhah by pure faith instantly made Christianity more acceptable to non-Jews
a teacher observing halakhah does not mean students will reject lessons in algebra
a train going at 100 mph does not mean that the driver had sausages for breakfast

dispute over reasons for early christianity to be amongst the gentiles

Early Christians failed to convince the Jews thus tried elsewhere
Early Christians were never part of Judaism
Early Christians failed to convince the Jews thus felt rejected
The Ebionites are those whose Christianity descended from the apostles themselves in person
The Ebionites are a strange Jewish sect, happening to be in Jerusalem, who misinterpreted Christianity
The Ebionites are not similar to early Christians, but very similar to Jews

dispute over early christians and orthodoxy

The early Christians were often at odds with groups they considered heretical
Historians think there was no disputation
Historians think there was no orthodoxy
Historians think the situation was "Iranaeus and Co." vs. "Anyone who disagreed with Iranaeus and Co."

The editors ( a summary exclusive to Wikipedia by the author CheeseDreams )

Consensus and inconsensuality

early discussions

Early discussions focused on achieving consensus, and included voting
A visible solution was reached on most of the issues
A version for discussion was drafted at a user talk page
Discussions were had
Submissions were made with regard to compromise
The article was unlocked
A draft of the changes was made on the article
A request for 48 hours non-editing to discuss the article was made
Most users respected the request

reversion war

User Y violated the request, rewriting the article substantially
User Y's version predominantly went against the consensus and the voting
User Z reverted user Y's version to the version about which a 48 hour non-edit was requested
User Y reverted it back to their version
User Z insisted on the concensus version being restored
User Y reverted it back
User Z reverted it once more
User Y's associates reverted it to User Y's version
User Z restored the discussion version
The revert war continued
The article was locked in the User Y state.

disputed behaviour

it is acceptable to make some changes
it is unacceptable to make large changes for this article in that state
it is fundamentally important to ask for a pause in editing to prevent edit wars
it is acceptable to make major changes to the article when it is so contested
Slrubenstein has the right to revert from FT2s version although the opposite is not true
if a page is not protected, editors have a right to work on it
the way forward is discussion on talk pages
it is inappropriate to ask for a pause in editing for the purpose of discussion
respect and decency demand that though one has rights, one should sometimes abstain from them
Saying one editor can revert, but the other editor cannot, is hypocrisy

the resulting 2 versions

The people User X invited to this page all support his version
3 users (none of whom invited the other) do not support User X's version
The value of a split depends on the nature of the articles
User X sarcastically suggests splitting the article
Splitting the versions into two articles will solve this problem
User X's version is NPOV
User X refuses not to edit both articles to how they think it should be
User X admits User X will never tolerate the other version
User X's version is POV not NPOV
The not-User-X version is complicated
The not-User-X version complies more than satisfies journalistic standards for readability
User X's version is appallingly unreadable
User X's version is exquisite

Issues with users on this talk page

"Packing the house" occurred between the sets of voting

It is a more important fact that Gerrymandering is unethical
It is a more important fact that Gerrymandering is currently allowed

Mediation was formally requested

It became apparant that Slrubenstein, Amgine, and CheeseDreams should formally request mediation between them (which has is now occurring)

FT2 as a mediator

At an early stage FT2 arrived and behaved in the manner of a mediator
Slrubenstein disputes that FT2 was ever treated as a mediator
Slrubenstein and JDG think that FT2 is agenda driven
Wesley, Amgine, CheeseDreams, think that FT2 is fair

Worth of scholarship

The lack of academic qualification does not mean one is unable to speak truth
Academic qualification does not mean one is always right
Amgine has secured access to ATLA.

User X thinks User X's opponents

Have done little or no research
Are mistaken and ignorant about many things
Write text riddled with the most ignorant of errors
Add material that has no basis in fact
Rely on votes about substance which is inappropriate
Do not rely on the historical record, unlike User X
Make things up
Use speculative arguments
Are ignorant of history
Have specious reasoning
Use inappropriate sources such as Google
Has innacurate and ignorant research unlike User X
Have no business working on this article as they do not trust User X's argument

User X's opponents think that User X(not all views held by all opponents)

Is committing hypocrisy
Has double standards - one for themselves, the other for opponents
Is unwilling to listen to criticism resulting from votes
Ignores valid arguments resorting to Ad Hominem such as "you are ignorant of history" and "your reasoning is specious and ignorant" and "that seems speculative" rather than producing a proper argument.
Thinks his view is fundamentally correct, and refuses to consider the possibility of inaccuracy
Resorts to criticising sources when they produce citable evidence against his case in an attempt to dismiss it
Have suspect accuracy of research based on User X's claim that "most historians do not think Hinduism existed before the 18th century"
Has admitted to only using 5/6 sources

Mud-slinging occurred

User X and User X's supporters stated to some of the people they see as opposed to them that

They are not acting in good faith
They are nuts
They are masturbating User X
They use silly argument
They are ignorant
They are all partisan and resent criticism
Their reasoning is specious and ignorant.
They are incompetent at using Wikipedia talk pages properly
Their stance is unreasonable
Their stance is obstructing User X
They are unscholarly and fringe (unlike User X)
Their reasoning is smelly poor quality fish
They are racist
They are rude
They start revert wars
They are gay atheists
They should be banned

Those who were not User X or User X's supporters stated of User X and of some of User X's supporters that

Some people think User X is not acting in good faith
User X is disrespectful
User X is uncivil
User X uses personal attacks
User X is a hypocrit
User X has no interest in consensus
User X is vain and arrogant
User X's case is so weak that he feels the need to round up supporters from elsewhere in order to win discussions
Some of User X's supporters threatened a revert war
Some of User X's supporters were referred to as Darling
Some of User X's supporters are neither neutral nor reasonable
Some of User X's supporters are crassly aggressive
Some of User X's supporters stated they would ignore the result of this discussion and revert the article to User X's version

Dispute of summary

CheeseDream's version of the disputed area of the summary

(1) -

??????'s version of the disputed area of the summary

(1) -

Original text (as per archive 6) of the disputed area of the summary

(1) -