Talk:Historical background of the New Testament/Archive 11

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 5

←

Archive 9

→

The next move

The article that was FT2s version

/OriginallyFT2

Editors contributing to this version

The article that was Slrubensteins version

/OriginallySlrubenstein

Editors contributing to this version

An alternative version

/fromScratch1

Impasse

Well, it seems that we're at a complete impasse. One long list of objections for each 'version', no willingness to compromise or move forward. Shall we just leave the page protected for a while longer? Wesley 04:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, this is very discouraging. At the moment, it still appears that unprotecting would just lead to obnoxious edit warring, rather than actual progress, so perhaps waiting is in order. john k 07:07, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I presented the long list above only to give Dr. Zen an oppotunity to explain why he prefers FT2's version over mine. I really do not want to leave this at a permanent impasse; I want to explore ways to move forward.

Given the length of my objections, I really would prefer to work from the current, protected version. But I certainly don't see that version as a finished product. In comments CheeseDreams has since archived, I proposed a few changes I thought necessary; Wesley and another editor suggested changing the word "fundamentalist" in the opening paragraph. I am sure there are other changes that need to be made. Wesley, I think you specifically have said you find merit in some of CheeseDreams' points. Would you mind being more specific, maybe summarizing those points you agree with and find value in? I admit that there is so much in what CheeseDreams says that I disagree with or am even offended by, that I might often miss what is of value. I don't know if this is going to make anyone any happier, but I honestly do want to see progress made on this article. Wesley, I went over your comments and as far as I can tell, the only points CheeseDreams raises that you agree with is that there should be more information on the forced conversion of the Idumeans, and more info about Herod -- and I too agree on these points. What else? Slrubenstein 20:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But I do have to make one thing clear: although I am quite willing to compromise readily when it comes to style, I take quite a different view when it comes to facts and scholarship. In such cases I really believe discussion towards some consensus is more important than compromise. Look, if I say that the Pharisees emerged at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, and someone else says they emerged at the end of the Hellenistic period (this is just a hypothetical to illustrate my point, I am not saying CheeseDreams or Dr. Zen have claimed this), then some compromise like "The Pharisees emerged in the middle of the Hellenistic period" or "Some say the Pharisees emerged in the beginnign of the Hellensitic period, others say at the end" would be wrong. In this case we would need to look at citable sources and figure out that would be right, not just seek some phrasing that tries to please everyone at the expense of verifiable accuracy. I say this only because many times CheeseDreams, Amgine, and FT2 seemed to think that compromise means I give in on one point, and CheeseDreams gives in on another. That may be a good way for politicans to compromise on budgets, but when it comes to encyclopedia articles ... we need to look at the substance of and sources for the claims, and not just make superficial compromises.Slrubenstein 18:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Ben Standeven's comments on SLR's version of the article

I will discuss the other version later. I have divided the comments into minor and major errors; the minor errors are grammatical and stylistic ones (they might as well be fixed now, by an admin), while the major ones are organizational or factual. (not so easy to fix.)

Minor points on SLR's version

Jesus lived in the Galilee and Judea (modern day Israel and Palestine)

I would change this to "Judea and the Galilee". (Also, didn't this region include part of modern-day Syria and Jordan, too?)

Some, people, including

The first comma needs to go.

In ancient Israel, as in most ancient Near Eastern societies, the institution of the priesthood was closely tied with the monarchy.

Many societies period!

Among the Children of Israel priests claimed descent from Aaron of the tribe of Levi, and were believed to have been chosen by God to care for the Tabernacle.

Was there still a Tabernacle in the monarchic era?

Depends on which scholars you believe. Some claim the tabernacle was put under the cherubim (the giant winged statues in the temple, which obviously weren't idols at all in the stereotypical ancient near-east giant pair of winged-creatures guarding mould), having the appropriate dimensions. CheeseDreams 03:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In 539 BCE the Persians conquered Babylon and in 537 BCE, inaugurating the Persian period of Jewish history. Cyrus the Great allowed Jews to return to Judea and rebuild the Temple (completed in 515 BCE).

First period should be a comma, I think.

This provided the condition for the development of various sects (including Josephus's "schools of thought"),

I think it's a bit too early to be talking about Josephus.

Moreover, many individuals unaffiliated with a politico-religious movement claimed a special relationship with God, in the tradition of the Nevi'im. In the south (especially Judea), this tradition was epitomized by prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah, who claimed to speak for God, and who primarily addressed issues of collective (national or communal) concern.

In the north (the ancient kingdom of Israel, including the Galilee), this tradition was epitomized by Elijah andElisha, who claimed be able to heal people and perform miracles, and who primarily addressed issues of individual (private or personal) concern (see Crossan 1992: 137-167).

I wouldn't have put these paragraphs in "Roman Era" myself.

During this period another class of prophets emerged

This clause is a bit too far removed from the previous reference to prophets to make sense.

These groups took onm different forms, with different methods, in the north (primarily the Galilee) and the south (primarily Judea.

What? Is this supposed to mean that northern and southern groups used different methods? Isn't very clear. Also, note the typo "onm", and the missing parenthesis.

The Sicarii, or "dagger-men" were urban terroriss

another typo.

It is unclear whether their leaders made messianic cleaims.

and another. I won't bother listing any more.

Menahem was a sicarii who

Shouldn't that be "sicarius"?

Jesus grew up Nazareth and began healing and preaching in agricultural and villagers and fishermen ...

Huh?

Once Jesus established a following (although there are debates over the number of followers) he moved...

The parenthetical can be deleted, as it is hardly relevant.

However, many of his teachings echoed the beliefs of the Qumran community (which was probably a branch of the Essenes); he may have engaged the Pharisees on matters of Jewish law; and his declarations that the kingdom was at hand echoed the Zealots.

Some of his teachings echoed those of the Pharisees, as well.

Many scholars argue that it is more likely that, like most Jews,

More likely than what?

All of these are very reasonable comments. When the page is unblocked, it should be pretty easy to incorporate/respond to these in the article. Slrubenstein 20:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Major problems with SLR's version

Specifically, they reject supernatural elements including miracles; argue that the Gospels were written from the point of view of, and in order to support, an orthodox Christianity that was emerging between the second and fourth centuries CE; and that an account of Jesus' life must make sense in terms of his historical and cultural context, rather than Christian orthodoxy.

Most of this is irrelevant; we only need the last clause, since the discussion is about the background of Jesus, not of the new testament.

I disagree -- in part because the Gospels remain an important source for historians, and in part because it provides more information on how critical historians deal with such sources. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the 1st century CE, when Jesus was supposed to have lived, most Jews were poor, politically marginalized peasants. Various elites and social movements, however, argued over the status of the Temple, laws and values embodied in sacred scriptures, and the restoration of a monarchy, Jewish sovereignty, and the kingdom of God. These institutions and issues all have their origins in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, around 1000 BCE.

This is a strange way to begin "The First Temple Era." We should either move this paragraph into the opening, or rewrite it.

Well, here is the issue: I believe this material (on the First Temple Era) provides important context for understanding the Second Temple Era in which Jesus lived -- it helps explain the relationship between kings and priests, and the importance of the Temple and scripture. Some people have argued that none of this material is relevant. I added the paragraph in question as a way to show how this section related to the article as a whole, i.e. to explain why this context is important. I think this is valid, but if you can think of a better way to achieve this, please make a suggestion. But the bottom line is this: the article is about Jesus in his historical and cultural context. We can debate how much context is required, but whatever context we provide, it has to be clear how it helps us understand Jesus. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've changed it to this:

Throughout history, most Jews were poor, politically marginalized peasants. However, in the 1st century CE, when Jesus was supposed to have lived, various elites and social movements argued over the status of the Temple, laws and values embodied in sacred scriptures, and the restoration of a monarchy, Jewish sovereignty, and the kingdom of God. These institutions and issues all have their origins in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, around 1000 BCE.

I think this is a bit less jarring as an initial paragraph.

In most ancient societies sacrifice was the only form of worship. Unlike many other religions of the time, however, the Children of Israel had sacred texts (later edited into the Torah, or Five Books of Moses) which contained moral stories and teachings, as well as laws,

What other religions of the time didn't have these things?

I agree this needs work. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the prophets (Biblical political and religious reformers who came from other tribes than Levi).

So Ezekiel wasn't a prophet?

Good point. We could rewrite it, "... who came from a variety of tribes" or something else. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done.

The Near East, especially during the Hellenistic period, was cosmopolitan. Several languages were used in the Levant at this time, and the matter of the lingua franca is still subject of some debate. The Jews almost certainly spoke Aramaic among themselves. Greek was at least to some extent a trade language in the region, and indeed in the entire eastern portion of the Roman empire. Pontius Pilate, as a Roman from Rome, would most likely have spoken Latin privately with his wife, but would probably have used Greek to handle day to day business in the province, though it is also possible (though perhaps improbable given his character) that he used Aramaic for this. Scholars debate whether Jesus himself spoke any other languages than Aramaic and (as a Jew) Hebrew.

Why is this in the "Hellenistic Period"? It seems to be about the Roman period, after all.

The cosmopolitan character begins in the Hellenistic period, although you are correct that most of this is about the Roman period. Would you suggest dividing it into two and redistributing it? Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes; I've moved the Pilate section onward into the Roman period.

Although the Hasmoneans were heroes for resisting the Seleucids, their reign lacked the legitimacy of the Davidic dynasty of the First Temple Era. It was around this time that the sages and scribes congealed into a political party known as the Pharisees, or "separatists." This term may owe to their rejection of Hellenic culture or to their objection to the Hasmonean monopoly on power. The political rift between the Saducees and the Pharisees became evident when Pharisees demanded that the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannai choose between being king and being High Priest. This demand led to a brief civil war that ended with a bloody repression of the Pharisees, although at his deathbed the king called for a reconciliation between the two parties. Alexander was succeeded by his widow, Salome Alexandra, whose brother, Simeon ben Shetah, was a leading Pharisee. Upon her death her elder son, Hyrcanus, sought Pharisee support, and her younger son, Aristobulus, sought the support of the Sadducees.

This seems overly detailed; this is an article about Jesus, not the Saducees and Pharisees.

I don't object to cutting it down, but let me explain my rationale. First, there has been considerable debate on these pages over who the Pharisses and Saducees were. Some participants in this debate think they were simply different religious movements. I think it is important to emphasize that they had their origins in political parties, otherwise people might think that politics and religion were more spearate in those days than they were. Also, this explains how the Romans ended up in the area, which is crucial to the context for Jesus. As I said, I agree it could be shorter. Can you suggest cuts while still conveying the important points? Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest something like:

Although the Hasmoneans were heroes for resisting the Seleucids, their reign lacked the legitimacy of the Davidic dynasty of the First Temple Era. It was around this time that the sages and scribes congealed into a political party known as the Pharisees, or "separatists." This term may owe to their rejection of Hellenic culture or to their objection to the Hasmonean monopoly on power. During the reign of Hasmonean king Alexander Jannai, a brief civil war erupted, which ended with a bloody repression of the Pharisees, although at his deathbed the king called for a reconciliation between the two parties. His elder son, Hyrcanus, sought Pharisee support, and his younger son, Aristobulus, sought the support of the Sadducees.

Throughout the history of the region bandits or brigands had long been active. ... During the Great Revolt Josephus was sent to command the Galilee in 66 CE. He raised an army that consisted primarily of local bandits. ...

So what? What have bandits got to do with Jesus? (Or Sicarii, for that matter?)

More importantly, what has Josephus' political career got to do with background to Jesus who (if he actually ever lived) died over 30 years before. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Three things: first, several editors on this page have argued that these bandits were actually messianic movements, and it is important to show how and why they were not. Second, they reveal that unrest in the region was not only religious in nature. Finally, one way to understand the importance of Jesus was how he was different from these (and other) elements. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Between 67 and 68 CE, these peasants, perhaps led by bandits, formed a new political party called the Zealots, which believed that an independent kingdom should be restored immediately, through force of arms. It is unclear whether their leaders made messianic cleaims.

OK, Zealots I can see. But we should still try to make the relevance clear to the reader.

Actually, there is absolutely massive scholarly disagreement as to when the Zealots formed, and who composed them. To state that they are a certain group of peasents is to indulge Slrubenstein's pet theory. Many scholars think that Jesus may have been, or have been involved with, Zealots, which clearly places them much earlier. CheeseDreams 17:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Two, Menahem ben Judas and Simon ben Giorasse (who was killed after the defeat by the Romans) had messianic claims. Menahem was a sicarii who entered Jerusalem to break off a standoff between the rebel aristocrat Eleazar, and his father, the loyal aristocrat Ananias. Menahem killed Ananias, and Eleazar then killed Menahem (the remainging sicarrii fled to Masada. Simon ben Giora took commeand of Jerusalem. Although he successuflly fought off the yrian Legate, Cestius Gallus, he also turned against the Jewish aristorcracy.

I don't see any support here for the claim that these people had "messianic claims." I do see several typos, which I won't even try to list.

I think the text in question has been appallingly written, and doesn't even amount to basic standards of readability taught in school english lessons. CheeseDreams 17:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. I resisted including these, and it was because other editors insisted that I felt the need for more explanation of the Zealots and Sicarii. But if you think it should be cut or rewritten, I am completely with you on this. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've cut it for now.

The Gospels provide two accounts of Jesus' birth: according to one account, he is the son of Joseph, a descendant of David; according to the other account, he is the son of God, and divine. Christians do not view these two accounts as irreconcilable, but most critical Bible scholars suggest that these accounts were developed after Jesus' death, in order to substantiate the Christian belief that Jesus was the messiah. The first account, that Jesus was the son of David, would have substantiated the claim that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. The second account, including the Virgin Birth, substantiates the claim that Jesus is the Christian messiah.

I don't think most of this is relevant.

I don't think it is relevant remotely. Messiah and mosiach are adequetly defined by their respective articles. The meaning of the term should be described by summarising those articles and pointing the reader there by a link, and not by quoting the bible. Oh, and Christians are not the background to Jesus, they came AFTERWARDS. CheeseDreams 17:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it is because it relates to two different notions of what "messiah" means; and contention over the meaning of "messiah" is a crucial issue in debates between Christians and Jews and in the historical analysis of the time. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to the Gospels, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It is possible that this claim was made by later Christians who wanted to stress ways in which Jesus fulfilled Biblical prophecies.

Either way, what difference does it make?

Ben, don't you think it rather irrelevant to show how historians read sources, and merely point the reader to the articles historian and historicity and historiography by links in a brief introductory paragraph? CheeseDreams 17:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gets to how historians read historical sources. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Once Jesus established a following (although there are debates over the number of followers) he moved to the Davidic capital of Judea, Jerusalem, and began preaching in the wildernesses of the Negev and Jordan. He went to the River Jordan to meet and be baptised by the prophet Yohannan (John) the Baptist.

Order here is backwards; he was baptised first.

What is the point to that? Does it matter what Jesus did to his background? I hardly see that the background would change whether John baptised him or not, or whether Jesus went hither or thither before or after it occurring. CheeseDreams 17:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay (I didn't write this) Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've fixed it now

Since Christians believed that Jesus had already replaced the Temple as the expression of a new covenant, they were relatively unconcerned with the destruction of the Temple. When Christians failed to attract a large number of followers from among the Jews -- perhaps because, in the aftermath of the revolt, Jews were afraid that talk of a new king and a new kingdom would provoke Roman wrath, or because most Jews did not feel that the destruction of the Temple signified the abrogation of their covenant with God, or because Jesus' central teachings (to love one's neighbor, and to love God with all one's heart, soul, and might) were also fundamental to Jewish teaching -- they turned to Gentile converts, distanced themselves from the rebellious Jews, and emerged as a new religion. Paul reasoned that if, thanks to Jesus, Gentiles do not need to be physically circumcised or obey other laws in order to have a relationship with God, then Jews no longer need to be circumcised or obey the law either. Unlike Judaism, which holds that it is the proper religion only of the Jews, Pauline Christianity claimed to be the proper religion for all people.

This is oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy. Paul was already dead at this point, there already were Gentile converts, and it was not the "Pauline" but the "Johannine" Christians which "distanced themselves from the rebellious Jews".

This is an appallingly POV paragraph, and should be changed. CheeseDreams 17:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this can be handleed by moving the section, "Paul reasoned that if ..." earlier. It is an important point that helps explain how Christianity began to deiverge from Rabbinic Judaism. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK; the last sentence is in the previous paragraph; the next-to-last is gone (it's mostly superfluous.).

The section on Rabbinic Judaism should be drasticly reduced in size, since it is mostly irrelevant. (The Talmud is hardly part of the historical background of Jesus!)

Now, I remember almost 100% of people, except Slrubenstein, supporting phrasing later forms of Judaism in preference to Rabbinic Judaism, so why is it still Rabbinic Judaism being discussed? CheeseDreams 17:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I haveno problem with cutting the section down. I agree that it is not part of the "background" -- but it is part of the context (context involves what comes before and after the text in question) and important in explaining why so many Jews and Christians have an understanding of Jesus that is at odds with the views of critical historians. It shows how the period in which Jesus lived was able to give rise to very different forms of Judaism, which later became different religions. Slrubenstein 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments on "Earlier material from article"

In general, this material is superfluous, since it just duplicates the first half of the article.

But the "Religious Factions" section provides important information on what each faction beleived in Jesus' day; material which is rather lacking in the first half.

Ben Standeven 03:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On John

Ihave two problems with the John section. The NT presents John as a prophet, not as a messiah. What sources claim that he was a messiah or candidate for messiah? The paragraph as is is vague. Since this is a contentious claim it has to be verifiable. What can we cite? Also, why is mandeanism relavent here? Mandeans did not come into existence much later, and I think in Iran. Slrubenstein 20:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to the Mandaeanism article, Mandaeans claim John the Baptist as one of their greatest teachers. The same article claims that Mandaeanism as a religion goes all the way back to Adam, the first man. I really don't know how reliable any of it is, but I suspect that's why Mandaeanism is being brought up in this article. Wesley 03:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think plenty of Jews in the first century also considered John a great teacher. It is only the claim that he was a messiah that I question. Also, I know of no evidence for Mandeanism existing in 1st century Palestine. The article on Mandeanism doesn't provide much verification either. Slrubenstein 18:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree the evidence for this section appears to be weak. Does anyone object to it being deleted for lack of support? Wesley 17:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, totally. The Mandaeans, as I have repeatedly mentioned, are the Nazoreans that the bible and other texts mention, the Mandaeans still call themselves this, the name Mandaean actually only being used by non-Mandaeans, like the term Sabians was used before it. CheeseDreams 03:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ben Standeven's Comments on FT2's version

As before, I have divided this into Major and Minor sections. The latter should be fairly short this time, since I have fixed most of these errors myself. (I didn't feel comfortable fixing the major mistakes without some discussion, though.)

Minor Points

For those who believe in his existence, Jesus is generally taken on the authority of the Gospels and early Christian history to have lived in Roman Palestine (modern day Israel, Palestine and Jordan, historically the central Levant, which included Judea) from 6 BCE - 30 CE. It was in this place (and within a century after this time) that Christianity is alleged to have arisen, and the writings of its early leaders place Jesus and his peers in locations such as Galilee and Jerusalem within their recent past.

There are people who believe Jesus existed, but don't believe that he lived in first century Roman Palestine?? Who? Is there any serious question about whether Christianity arose in this time period?

Apparently theer was a comment on an earlier talk page some believe it originated in africa or something? Not sure. FT2 08:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

There are actually some groups which believe Jesus was black. These groups tend to exist in parts of central africa. They do have a name, but I don't remember what it is. CheeseDreams 17:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Academics and historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, tend to agree that one cannot fully understand the origins of Christianity or current societal norms, or Jewish, Christian, and Western history, or Jesus himself and the story of the Gospels, without a good understanding of the complex and volatile powder-keg of religion and politics which formed the cultural and historic context of those turbulent and formative times.

Seems a bit overwritten. I would change it to:

Academics and historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, tend to agree that one cannot fully understand the origins, history, and societal norms of Christianity (and hence Western civilization), or Jesus himself and the story of the Gospels, without a good understanding of the cultural and historic context of this era.

Is it important to make clear, that it was a very turbulent era? That itself is a key part of understanding the background, that it wasnt simply (as a reader might think) calm and stable, there were many tensions? FT2 08:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Not enough to put it in the header, I don't think; the reader can figure it out from the article content. 69.27.33.79 20:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

so words borrowed from Judaism such as "Messiah", "Saviour", "Messianic Era", "Apocalypse", "Apocalyptic Era" or "End of the World"

Very few of these words were borrowed from Judaism.

It's important to recognise that the Jews thought about many things in a fundamentally different way from the new christians, and so words borrowed from Judaism such as "Messiah", "Saviour", "Messianic Era", "Apocalypse", "Apocalyptic Era" or "End of the World" probably had very different meanings to the Jews of the time, than they did to the later Christians. Other groups may have had Messiah-type figures, beliefs or legends too. The cultural-religious legend of "someone special who will come at some unknown time to put everything right" is very widespread. So it is important to understand when a term is used what exact kind of being, mission, role, origin, or nature was signified, and what exactly would happen to the world as a result.

This writing in this whole paragraph seems a bit off to me, but I can't think how to improve it.

Seems partly POV to me, basically, the phrasing different way from the new christians should be different way from SOME of the new christians. There were plenty of Jewish christians. See Jerusalem council and Ebionites. CheeseDreams 17:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(There is little historical evidence that the Pharisees were more popular during this time: this is a view held by older historians but disputed by more recent historians).

This is stated twice: once in Religious Allegiance, once in Saducees and Pharisees.

Of all the major Second Temple sects, only the Pharisees remained (but see Karaite Judaism). Although they had accepted the importance of the Temple, their vision of Jewish law as a means by which ordinary people could engage with the sacred in their daily lives, provided them with a position from which to respond to all four challenges, in a way meaningful to the vast majority of Jews.

The "challenges" were mentioned ages ago. Also, the time frame of this paragraph isn't clear. Is it 200 CE (as stated in the previous one)?

Should be around 74AD. The Kairites claim that they have continuous existence through this period and so dispute the description, though most scholars discount the Kairites' claims. The but see... should be changed into although Kairite Judaism disputes this and claim they themselves also remained, a claim disregarded by most scholars.

Christians generally believe Jesus lived and preached to the agricultural villagers of the Galilee and the hill city Jerusalem at this time.

Which time? Surely not 400 CE, when the Talmuds were compiled?

Religion was part of daily life, however the region was a blend of religious law and civil law, and broadly secular in politics, with religion interspersed throughout daily life.

This sentence is incoherent.

How about The region had its religious and civil laws intimately entwined together, and though the political establishment was broadly secular, nethertheless, religion was interspersed throughout daily life.

Looks good to me. (I notice you slipped in a "nevertheless"...)69.27.33.79 20:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Roman citizens whose countrymen were fomenting rebellion against the Empire.

Most Jews weren't actually citizens.

Some Jews would have been scared of the consequences of even a slight appearance of disloyalty, and this could hypothetically have lead to groups that appeared to preach provocatively being negatively perceived or even persecuted by some

"Hypothetically"?

Safer wording. The issue of this statement is basically that "the fear of retribution could have led to certain activities by jewish splinter groups being negatively perceived or persecuted". It makes sense, and its almost certainly accurate, but its not been easy to pin down a specific example, hence "hypothetically". FT2 08:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Without assuming the accuracy of the New Testament, examples are difficult, and thus the term hypothetically. Equally, could hypothetically can be replaced by , according to scholarly opinion, CheeseDreams 17:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is very easy to pin down a specific example. According to the NT, bewfore his conversion Paul persecuted Christians. Slrubenstein 19:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Major Points

The original inhabitants of Roman Palestine were non-Jewish tribes such as the Canaanites and Philistines. According to legend, the Jews entered the region around the 13th - 14th century BCE, subduing the pagan tribes and around 1000 BCE forming the first Jewish kingdom under Saul, then David and then a succession of lesser kings, prophets and priests.

I would have said the "original inhabitants of Roman Palestine" were Neanderthals, or specimens of Homo erectus. Does anything in this paragraph really matter?

Good point. Only as a starting point. How about: "Judaism arrived in this region around C13-14, subduing the existing pagan tribes and..." FT2 08:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better to state By the first century AD, Judaism had been continuously established in the region for over 500 years. Thus totally avoiding the article becoming a history of the levant until 0AD. Also the phrasing totally avoids the issue of whether or not Judaism existed before the babylonian captivity (some scholars question whether the persians made it up, e.g. the Book of Esther is about Babylonian gods - Esther=Ishtar, Mordeccai=Marduk, etc., other scholars think that the form of Judaism before the babylonian captivity was that of the Samaritans, or that it was almost 100% identical to a form of canaanite polytheism, pointing out the many many Asherah and other additional gods that were worshipped and Hezekiah and Josiah tried to abolish them, but their reforms were undone) CheeseDreams 17:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The point of the names is that they are talking about the replacement of the gods of the people conquered by the babylonians - the rejected bride Vashi (or whatever her name is) is the name of a god in the religion of the people that the babylonians had recently conquered. Esther's other name (the pre-throne name) merely means wife or something similar, and is actually the exact title given to Ishtar. Other names are actually those of relevant cities. See Book of Esther for a more precise outline of this. Xerxes (nor for that matter Artaxerxes, whose name is slightly more plausible to be meant by the hebrew version of it) never had such a wife as either Vashi (or whatever) nor Esther. He was quite happily married throughout the entire period in question to someone else. There was never a Mordeccai either.

The story doesn't really fit the historical context one bit as real people. It doesn't fit the relevant time-period's ethical code either terribly much. The story fits the description of what happened to the conquered religion quite aptly, so do the names. Make of that what you will. CheeseDreams 03:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Book of Esther is not "about" Babylonian gods, it is about Jews in Persia. The point of the names is that the heroes of the story were assimilated Jews -- like having the heroes of a story about Jews today with the names Mary and Chris. Slrubenstein 20:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, the Book of Esther is about the replacement of the gods by the babylonians during the assimilation. See Book of Esther for details. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Each of these empires in turn started benign and later gradually became intolerant, both culturally and religiously.

What evidence is there that the Achaemenids ever became intolerant of the Jews?

They told them to go back to Judah, and to leave babylon. CheeseDreams 17:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Culturally the Jews were for the most part hard-working, God-fearing, deeply religious farming villagers, mostly self-governing, with a hereditary priesthood and kingship, though the succession of hereditary kings with actual authority had ended with the Babylonian exile.

Seems POV to me. How about reducing it to:

At this time, the Jews were mostly self-governing, with a hereditary priesthood and kingship, though the succession of hereditary kings with actual authority had ended with the Babylonian exile.

I think it should be important to point out the nature of the culture as a predominantly agricultural (and thus farming) one, and together with the fact that in almost all known cultures the country dwelling groups tend to be deeply religious, more so than the city dwellers. CheeseDreams 03:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(other tribes surrendered their beliefs when conquered).

Actually, they were usually allowed to retain their beliefs.

Allowed yes. But in practice...? FT2 08:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hezekiah and Josiah, for example, smashed the idols, and destroyed all religious places outside Jerusalem (according to the Tanakh), I don't see how that is allowing them to keep their beliefs. CheeseDreams 17:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking more of other conquerors, rather than the Jews themselves. 69.27.33.79 20:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the important point to remember is the word other, in your comment. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Around this time, the sages and scribes congealed into a political party known as the Pharisees, or "separatists". It is not clear whether the term signifies their rejection of Hellenic culture, or their objection to the Hasmonean monopoly on power. The political rift between the Saducees and the Pharisees became evident when Pharisees demanded that the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannai choose between being king and being High Priest. This demand led to a brief civil war that ended with a bloody repression of the Pharisees, although at his deathbed the king called for a reconciliation between the two parties. After the death of Alexander and his widow Salome, the elder son, Hyrcanus, sought Pharisee support, and the younger son, Aristobulus, sought the support of the Sadducees.

This paragraph needs to be shortened, IMAO. I suggested a replacement in my comments on the other version.

By 1 CE, the Roman Empire was somewhat more corrupt than it had been; the overseers of Roman Palestine were capable of great brutality and some had become ruthless dictators, answerable to nobody except the distant Senate in Rome for their actions. Political murder was commonplace - some Roman governors killed their own children to prevent uprisings, slaves were torched as novelty fires for events, Herod imprisoned many leaders of the community with orders they should be slaughtered when he died, and a large number of the non-Roman classes (Jews and non-Jews equally) lived their lives, many were desperately poor, and prayed to their various gods.

Er, what? This paragraph is terribly written! How about:

These overseers were capable of great brutality, and some had become ruthless dictators, answerable to nobody except the distant Senate in Rome for their actions. Political murder was commonplace - some Roman governors killed their own children to prevent uprisings.

That seems all that can be salvaged.

Yup, works for me FT2 08:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

True. I do however think we should mention that Pilate was widely considered by all historical texts, outside of the bible, as being one of the worst of all, specifically being so bad that Rome was repulsed and demanded his return to rome (where he disappears from historic record). CheeseDreams 17:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK; we can change "some had become" to "some (most notably Pontius Pilate) had become". 69.27.33.79 20:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Christianity arose in the first centuries after this revolt. At first it existed side by side with Judaism as a sect within it; later, especially after the expansion of proselytism among non-Jews by followers of Paul of Tarsus, it became a separate religion, though the structures that would characterize later Christianity developed only gradually.

This is a very creative timeline... Most history books say that Paul lived before the Bar Kochba revolt.

Followers of Paul would have lived after Paul, particularly those that followed him when he was old. There are two issues here. The first is that some scholars think there were two factions even in the beginning - those who supported Judaism and those who didn't, and thus always had a sect within Judaism AND a non-Jewish group. Acts, and the undisputed Pauline Epistles, are thought by many scholars to record the issue of this schism. Secondly followers of should be changed into those who ascribed to the opinions espused by thus avoiding the issue of the timeline. CheeseDreams 17:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Paul died around 62-67, IIRC. So it's unlikely any of his followers were still alive during the Bar Kochba revolt, 70 years later. 69.27.33.79 20:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The First Temple Era should be in the History section, since it is about history, rather than contemporary events. Better yet, it should be deleted, thereby eliminating the rubbish about other religions not having priesthoods or holy texts. We can keep: The religion of ancient Israel, like those of most ancient Near Eastern societies, centered on a Temple, served by a caste of priests, who sacrificed offerings to their god. Among the Children of Israel priests claimed descent from Aaron of the tribe of Levi, and were believed to have been chosen by God to care for the Tabernacle.

That looks like something remaining from Slrubenstein's changes. The Zarathustrians certainly had priesthoods (one group being the magi) and holy texts (the zend Avesta - one part of which is thought to date from 1300BC at least).

Secondly, it is completely wrong. Even according to the bible. There were plenty of non-Temple parts Hezekiah felt the need to destroy them, clearly evidencing that they existed. The people restored them to the extent that later on Josiah destroyed them again. But yet again the people restored them. The priests of Shiloh, thought by scholars to have played a major part in the creation of the old testament (this group includes the prophet Jeremiah, and Samuel who allegedly appointed the first king, and those who scholars thought wrote Deuteronomy, and the Joshua - Kings version of the history (as opposed to the Chronicles version), and were seemingly supported by Josiah), did not claim descent from Aaron although they were levites. Specifically they were the earlier religious priesthood in power (being removed from power, supposedly, by Solomon). Their vying for power continued, and is thought by scholars to have been one of the issues in the creation of the Saducees (the Zadok-ites, Zadok being the Aaron-related priest that broke the duel priesthood of the Shiloh priests and the Aaron-related priests, and completely disenfranchising the Shiloh group, in the first place) CheeseDreams 17:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. First, of all, I explicitly said "first temple period" and you are referring to events before the first temple. Second, Eli was indeed descended from Aaron. Slrubenstein 20:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The above should explain the issues the Zadokites had over the priesthood, and the issues that others had with them. Secondly, the high priest, head of his party of the priesthood, which was expelled by Solomon, gaining the Aaronids full control over the priesthood, was not Eli but Abiathar. I don't think a competent scholar would confuse these two. CheeseDreams 03:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not confuse Eli with Abiathar. It is you who is confused. You wrote about the priests of Shiloh -- which is why I mention Eli. Eli was a priest of Shilo. Now you mention Abiathar. But Abiathar was also a descendant of Aaron. Slrubenstein 21:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In this paragraph, we should be thinking of Jesus' era, not the First Temple period; that period should be described in the History section, if at all. In Jesus' day, the Temple was the focus of Judaism (although the Samaritans revered Mount Gerizim as well). 69.27.33.79 20:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was spelt Gizraim, and that the Samaritans revered it instead of rather than as well as? CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, there isn't much mention of the Samaritans in the article. Given that they appear in Jesus-stories, it should be explained what their significance is. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, the Second Temple Era should be reduced to: The reconstruction of the Second Temple had provided the condition for the development of various sects (which Josephus called "schools of thought"), each of which claimed exclusive authority to represent "Judaism," and typically shunned social intercourse, especially marriage, with members of other sects. The Pharisees and Saducees were two such groups, though there were very minor groups aside from these.

Josephus claimed 3 main groups (and an unnamed 4th), the Essenes were the 3rd. The POV that the Pharisees and Saducees were the main groups, and the Essenes were not significant, is Slrubenstein's POV. Most scholars opine that there were 3 major groups (assuming the 4th to be the Zealots, who appear to have developed during the 1st century AD and not before), being the Pharisees, Essenes, and Saducees. Excluding the Essenes from this is quite POV (and is usually done by those with strong Christian or Jewish opinions, due to certain properties the essenes had, and the implications of the state of affairs this implies).CheeseDreams 03:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK; we can mention the Essenes here too. 69.27.33.79 20:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In most religions, the priests are the mediators between man and God. They act as spokesmen for God, a very powerful position, with near-ultimate authority in a theocracy.

I can't think of any religion like this, except for some branches of Christianity, and arguably Tibetan Buddhism (but there the priests are Gods).

Roman Catholicism, Greek/Russian Orthodox, Official Anglicanism (anglican practice varies wildly from its official beliefs), Shamans, etc.

The priest represents a window between god and man. Many low church factions hold that God works through the priest, wheras many high church factions hold that the priest opens a window for the congregation to god (like Icons) - and as such fundamentally affects whether the priest faces the congregation during Communion/Mass or faces away from them.

Iran is currently a theocracy for example (though it is slowly becoming secularised, a process that will eventually result in a secular state, unless America deigns to interfere and thus increase religious sentiment there). Southern Iraq is a theocracy controlled by Ayatollah al-Sistani. Egypt is effectively a theocracy, as is Saudi Arabia.

Ayatollahs have extremely large amounts of power, in england the Witchfinder general had extreme power, as did the Pope in europe before the renaissance. These are all religious positions. CheeseDreams 17:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I forgot about Shi'ite Islam. Note that the Sunni branch doesn't have any "mediators between man and God", as I understand it; the "clerics" are simply in charge of interpreting the Koran. 69.27.33.79 20:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And about Sufi Islam, and other minor branches. The Sunni probably equate to Southern Baptists more than Christianity in general. The easy way to remember that there are two major Islamic branches is the phrase Sunny and Cher. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Most pagan and tribal religions are this way. At that time, the number of religions where priests were *not* powerful and sole divine intermediaries seems small. FT2 08:02, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Witchdoctors being a good example in the case of many tribes. CheeseDreams 17:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is your evidence? This may be true of states, but I can't think of any tribes where this is the case. Slrubenstein 19:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Originally the intent of the new believers seems to have been to preach to the Jews. Some but not all requirements of strict Judaism 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. It is hypothesised that to make it palatable, and draw a line separating them from the Jews (who were by now becoming politically dangerous associates due to their rebellion against Rome) many more of the restrictive laws were removed and the emphasis was shifted.

More timeline problems. The original christians were followers of "strict Judaism". The gentile converts to Christianity were not required to follow the full Law, however. This was due to the arguments of Paul, not any consequence of the revolts.

Paul reasoned that if, thanks to Jesus, Gentiles do not need to be physically circumcised or obey other laws in order to have a relationship with God, then Jews no longer need to be circumcised or obey the law either.

Where did he do this? It doesn't seem to be in the Biblical canon.

General Comment

Again, there seems to be more material on the development of Rabbinical Judaism than on Christianity; that just isn't right...

User:Ben Standeven

Ben, I appreciate your comments on both versions. It seems you have worked directly on the current version, and I thank you for your work. Do you believe there is anything that is in FT2's version that ought to be in the current version? Slrubenstein 18:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes: I think the FT2's Maccabee section is better than the current one (well, not exactly; there is no section in the current article!), and the "Linguistic terminology" section should be added (preferably under a more decsriptive name):

The Jews thought about many things in a fundamentally different way from the new christians, and so words and concepts borrowed from Judaism such as "Messiah", or the end of the world, probably had very different meanings to the Jews of the time, than they did to the later Christians. Other groups may have had Messiah-type figures, beliefs or legends too. The cultural-religious legend of "someone special who will come at some unknown time to put everything right" is very widespread. So it is important to understand when a term is used what exact kind of being, mission, role, origin, or nature was signified, and what exactly would happen to the world as a result.

I've done a bit of rewriting, but others might want to do more. Ben Standeven 03:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Separate side note, I have reviewed this article after a long break, Ive simplified it a lot of places but deliberately not changed the content or layout, just cleaned up a lot of wording. It was starting to read in part like a textbook - unwieldy, excessive less necessary detail, and turgid in style, rather than an encyclopedia. I havent changed much, but Ive made a lot of sentences read better and more focussed in small ways, I think) FT2 09:34, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I forgot ot sign in in my earlier comments; so User:69.27.33.79 is me. Ben Standeven 20:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They seemed too reasoned to be Slrubenstein, so I made an educated guess as to their author. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jesus' birth in the Gospels

I dispute the claim made concerning the Gospel accounts of Jesus' birth:

The Gospels provide two accounts of Jesus' birth: according to one account, he is the son of Joseph, a descendant of David; according to the other account, he is the son of God, and divine. Christians do not view these two accounts as irreconcilable, but most critical Bible scholars suggest that these accounts were developed after Jesus' death, in order to substantiate the Christian belief that Jesus was the messiah. The first account, that Jesus was the son of David, would have substantiated the claim that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. The second account, including the Virgin Birth, substantiates the claim that Jesus is the Christian messiah. Most of the material in the Gospels focus on the last year of Jesus' life, and most scholars focus on this period.

Matthew and Luke both claim that Jesus is divine, the Son of God, and that he was born of a Virgin. One of the two provides a genealogy that includes Joseph, but qualifies it by saying Jesus was generally thought to be Joseph's son. The other genealogy I believe is Mary's. Wesley 17:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this should be cut, but it could be reworded. Everyone agrees that Matthew and Luke have Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary and God. But E.P. Sanders and other historians see the geneologies as evidence of another view of Jesus that was muted as Christianity took shape. How would you phrase this? Slrubenstein 17:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The greek actually can be translated young woman instead of virgin as MANY scholars have actually suggested, particularly those assuming Jesus existed, and the texts are reasonably reliable, but that Jesus was not supernatural.

Son of God is a phrase that many scholars (see the article Son of God) think is just a polite 3rd person self reference (like one is a grandmother, is a version of I am a grandmother, in english), and not a claim to divinity. CheeseDreams 17:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, this is not what son of God ever meant. Slrubenstein 21:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cheesedreams probably meant "Son of Man," the meaning of which is more often contested. Wesley 04:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did, in that description. BUT, by Son of God, I meant LOOK AT THE Son of God ARTICLE - THERE IS CLEARLY A NON-HE-IS-DIVINE MEANING TO IT CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know, Cheese, I wrote that passage you are now quoting. And as the article makes clear, "son of god" did not mean, as you claim above, "a polite 3rd person self reference " Slrubenstein 00:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "young woman" vs. "virgin" translation issue is actually regarding the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14, which I think in the Masoretic text is "Almah". Matthew makes plain in 1:18-25 that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, and quotes Isaiah 7:14 in v.23 calling her parthenos in the Greek, which clearly means virgin and also happens to be the way Isaiah 7:14 was translated in the Septuagint. The texts we have of Matthew and Luke both clearly claim a virgin birth. I won't take time to go into the gospels' claims of Jesus' divinity, as I don't think that bit is immediately relevant to the paragraph we're discussing.

No, I meant parthenos, Isaiah 7:14's translation into the Septuagint being concrete evidence of this usage. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I tried rewriting it, please check it, Slrubenstein 19:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it's better, but I'm not sure what is meant or implied by drawing a distinction between "Christian messiah" and "Jewish messiah". Also, is the "suppressed account" supposed to be certain passages in the current Gospel texts, or hypothetical passages no longer present in the Gospel texts we have now? I would imagine the latter if in fact they were suppressed, but I'm not sure that's what is meant. Wesley 05:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By Jewish messiah I mean a human being who is descended from David and will restore that monarchy. By Christian messiah I mean a being who is both human and divine who offers salvation to all humankind. Do you accept this? If so, is there a better way to express it in the passage in question? Also, by suppressed I mean a third possibility -- a hypothetical account that is not in the text, but that is consistent with something in the text, namely Joseph's genealogy. All that is missing -- what is suppressed in this account -- is saying that Jesus was Joseph's son. Slrubenstein 21:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NO PERSONAL RESEARCH and WEASEL WORDS are somethings people frequently mention. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Christian idea of messiah is both what you said, and a descendant from David who will reestablish his rule on earth. The reestablishment of earthly rule has obviously not happened yet, but it is still anticipated. In the words of the Nicene Creed, "He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there shall be no end." In order for the messiah to fulfill both the prophecies of a conquering king, and of the "suffering servant" of Isaiah, two comings were necessary. I don't claim this is what Jews prior to Jesus thought or expected, but what Christians believed after Jesus' coming; it can be seen in books like 2 Thessalonians and of course Revelation. Wesley 04:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2 Thessalonians is thought to be forged by the majority of modern scholars (unlike 1 Thessalonians), and as for Revelations, that probably counts as the most dubious of all texts in the bible, even the official church was uneasy about including it. Now of course, that does mean that official christianity did support whatever it contained, but please be careful about quoting from it. And revelation is mostly rehashings of the old testament, including Ezekiel and Daniel, so has a lot to do with early Jewish mysticism which was finally codeified (after many many centuries of further evolution) in the Kabbalah. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, the Kabbalah, or rather Jewish mysticism from the period 200BC-1AD (there was no year 0) actually has rather a lot of importance, and should be mentioned in the article. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2 Thessalonians was well accepted by the early church as authored by Paul; whether it was forged or not has no bearing, since either way it influenced and/or reflected the beliefs of Christians at that time concerning Jesus' second coming. Yes, Revelation has echoes of a number of Old Testament prophecies, and acknowledges that many of them are not yet fulfilled but still expects that they will be. It was not initially as well accepted as most other NT books, I agree; it probably had the hardest time being accepted into the NT canon, of those that were ultimately accepted. This was at least partly due to fears that it would be widely misinterpreted and misused, fears that today appear to have been not entirely without foundation. Wesley 02:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the KJV, Luke traces back from Joseph (who is, indeed, "supposed" to be Jesus's father). Matthew traces forward to Joseph, husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus. The two genealogies are entirely different after David (in Matthew it goes through the Kings of Judah to Zerubabbel, and so forth, in Luke it goes through David's son Nathan, and then through various unrecognizable names) neither genealogy goes through Mary. john k 21:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I totally dispute the relevance of discussing either the birth of Jesus according to the Gospels or its historicity. This is about background. CheeseDreams 17:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's the background of Jesus, thus some brief mention of him is warranted, as has been discussed before. Wesley 05:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a summary of what the bible claims of Jesus on Jesus and New Testament views of Jesus (or whatever it is called), and on the respective religious interpretations of them. There is no need to endlessly repeat it in an article about background.

I don't think his place of birth is all that relevant; what matters is whether he was raised in Nazareth. (Some people don't believe there was such a place.) Ben Standeven 21:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Would that discussion belong here or somewhere like Historicity of Jesus? Wesley 02:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All of the historians I have read accept that Jesus grew up in Nazareth. This historians that I have read question whether he was born in Bethlehem, and question whether he was born of a virgin. They (Sanders, Fredriksen, for example) argue that these elements were added to the story of Jesus to reflect beliefs Christians developed after Jesus' death. I understand most Christians would reject these views, but I think they are common among critical historians. Slrubenstein 00:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

explaining some changes

I am reverting some (not all!) of FT2's changes. For example, I do not see how "it should also be considered in the context of his historical and cultural context," using the word "context" twice, is an improvement in style. Second, the issue in the first paragraph is not the emergence of Christianity, it is the emergence of orthodox Christianity. Third, the clause, "religious and political institutions argued over the status of the Temple, the laws and values embodied in sacred scriptures, the restoration of a Jewish monarchy, and Jewish theology" doesn't make sense (institutions do not argue). Fourth, the name of the tribe is Levi, not Levites. Fifth, "ideally" is better than "in principle" because the Kings of the Kingdom of Israel did not accept the principle of Davidic kingship. Sixth, the sacred literature of the kingdoms of Israel and Judea were most definitely not the Tanakh; it was not even the Torah (most scholars believe the Torah was redacted during the Babylonian Exile). Sicth, I don't know of any evidence that the sages of the Second Temple were ever called "reb." Where does this come from? There are other errors of fact. Seventh, to say that Jews under Seleucid rule longed for freedom from foreign domination and a return to Jewish rule is redundant and poor style. Also, there is no evidence that everyone longed for a theocracy. Eighth, FT2 calls the Maccaberan kingdom "the second Jewish Kingdom" which is flat out wrong. This was discussed before -- I and others asked FT2 what evidence he had for calling it "the second Jewish Kingdom" and he could come up with none. Slrubenstein 18:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will, at some future point, restore FT2s changes. Reverting something because it doesn't support your POV of what the facts are is terribly childish, and really rather pathetic. I won't be doing it now as I am still catching up after returning from holiday, and besides I need to get some food from the supermarket, and Wikipedia seems curiously slow. CheeseDreams 17:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that any edit I make is POV and therefore will be reverted? Are you saying that I cannot work on this article? Are you trying to ban me? You do not have the right to ban me unilaterally without due process. Slrubenstein 19:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, the last 3 words of that sentence should be highlighted, with the emphasis on without. Watch this space, as they say (though obviously without the link embedded in their speech). CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And what does "POV of what the facts are?" Facts are facts. When I say the name of the tribe is "Levi," not "Levites," that is not a "view" of a fact, it is a fact. Slrubenstein 19:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(On a pure linguistic point, its entirely accurate to say that the tribe of Levi is the tribe of the Levites. "The Levites" is the accurate collective name for people in the tribe of Levi. Your comment sounds as if you are dismissive of an entire piece if a turn of wording isn't how you'd say it. - FT2)

You say you will revert my changes. You accuse me of being childish for making changes to the article. Does this mean you are being childish when you make changes to the article? Slrubenstein 19:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, I have not made changes to the article.

They were made by FT2 and others.

CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.s. if you believe in the principle let he who is without sin cast the first stone you should know that I am casting the second, (I have put the first stone in a glass presentation case awaiting he who is without sin). CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ancient societies and law

In what other ancient Near Eastern societies did people worship their Gods through laws? I know that such societies (e.g. Babylonia, Sumeria) had written myths and also written laws, but were these for the purpose of worship? Slrubenstein 15:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Following Ben's comment, I have added more information on the origins of the Maccabean revolt, and on "messiah." I did not use all of FT2's material only because the article is getting long. I'd appreciate it if Ben and others would look over what I added. Slrubenstein 17:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Would the reader kindly remind me and others how many times the Zarathustrians have been mentioned on this talk page? CheeseDreams 17:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reliability and sources

I have discovered the following about Slrubenstein's sources

Crossan advocates using just the Bible, and the Apocrypha, is absolutely everything required to determine the Historical Jesus. Most scholars consider this an extremely fringe view, and as such, not only is Crossan a fringe, rather than mainstream, source, but his reliability in the matter of Jesus in History should be questioned.

You are lying. Crossan is not fringe. Also, Crossan does not advocate using just the Bible and Apocrypha; he uses other sources. Moreover, I refer to him, but to several others who do rely, extensively, on other sources. Slrubenstein 19:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, Crossan makes the comment in his comments on (literally written on the surface of) Miller's volume which contains his translations of much of the apocrypha. Read it for yourself. CheeseDreams 03:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

John Dominic Crossan? The guy in this debate who is reported as suggesting that we should "accept the Biblical record only in so far as it is deemed historically verifiable or at least historically likely"? You seem to be wrong, CD. Can you bring something to the table that suggests Crossan believes otherwise?

As I have said above, he makes the statement himself in a comment he makes written in Miller's volume on the translations of the apocrypha. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But SlR, please note that CD said that view is a fringe view, and that Crossan is a fringe source "as such". If CD were right, this would essentially be correct.Dr Zen 04:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cohen's book concerning the subjest is called The Historical Jesus. Which everyone except Slrubenstein has stressed is not this article.

You are lying; this is not the title of Cohen's book. I refer to two books by Cohen and provide the titles in the article Slrubenstein 19:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, you have only to look for the book on Amazon, or ask in your local bookshop (which may not be as comprehensive as mine). Its there plain as day. CheeseDreams 03:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bubelah, stop lying. You are deliberately misleading people if you claim that this was one of my sources (you open this section claiming to report your "discoveries" about my sources). You know perfectly well that I never used Edmund Cohen as a source. I used Shaye Cohen, who is the preeminent scholar of Second Temple/late Antiquity Jewish history. This is my source. My source never said anything about Jesus and Koans. Your source may, but your source is not a reputable scholar of Biblical history or critical Biblical studies or Late Antiquity Jewish history. Your source is a psychologist who is using Jungean theory to interpret Jesus. Pretty fringe. Slrubenstein 18:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, I am not so foolish as to use either (or any of the other) Cohen as a source. And, as I stated before 9th Jan (specifically at 03:42, 8 Jan 2005), the work is by Crossan not Cohen (and it is mere amusing coincidence that someone also called Cohen wrote a book by the same title). But then if Slrubenstein is unable to accurately report Crossan, I would hardly expect him to be able to read the next few sentences properly. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But, more importantly, Cohen's book is a discussion of the theory that Jesus used koans and zen-like teachings to the extent that the back cover of the current UK edition of the book clearly states that a prime purpose of the book is to present and support that theory. This reveals two things

You are lying. The two books I cite by Cohen do not duscuss the theory that Jesus used koans. Slrubenstein 19:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, you have only to look at the back cover of the book. It is plain as day. Written in white on black. Its quite a big book, quite easy to find on a shelf. CheeseDreams 03:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, bubelah, stop lying. You claim to have made discoveries about my sources. You know full well that the book you keep referring to was never, ever, one of my sources. Slrubenstein 18:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I should point out the rather important explanitory qualifying comments I made at 03:42, 8 Jan 2005, which Slrubenstein appears entirely unable to have read by 18:43, 9 Jan 2005 - which does rather question whether he is capable of reading important qualifying points from his alleged sources. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since, apparantly, the idea that Jesus used koans is a fringe theory (I myself disagree with this assessment, but that is irellevant), then Cohen is a fringe work, and should be distrusted from reliability.

I agree 100%. Edmund Cohen is a fringe work that should not be trusted. Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with Shaye Cohen, the source cited in the article. Slrubenstein 18:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Once again, Crossan not Cohen. Edmund Cohen has nothing to do with this at all, bar the fact he wrote a book by the same name.

Since Slrubenstein originally claimed that Jesus did not use koans, and that I had made the idea up, but simultaneously claimed Cohen as a source, how reliable can Slrubenstein's reporting be? It appears that not only was he extremely selective about which parts of Cohen he valued, but also that he did not read the majority of the work.

Okay bubelah, are you trying to make a joke, or are you a complete moron. You can't seriously be suggesting that if I reject work by Edmund Cohen, I have to reject work by Shaye Cohen? Do you really think that all Cohens are the same people? Maybe this is another form of your racism, "they all look alike to me." Slrubenstein 18:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yet again, someone is incapable of reading that it was Crossan not Cohen.

I should also point out (no particular reason for doing so here but it seems as good a place as any) that Slrubenstien openly admitted on John Kenney's talk page quite a while back that Bubelah was a term used as personal attack (the explanation of which he was happy to provide off site via e-mail). Wikipedia has a policy on Personal attacks. Someone ought to read them. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I therefore suggest that Slrubenstein's arguments against FT2, Amgine, Ben, and myself, should be entirely disregarded as not holding water, nor coming from a reliable source. Thus casting doubt onto the validity of his arguments for his own text. CheeseDreams 17:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just because you can tell three lies in a row does not mean that my arguments are wrong. Making things up is not the way to write an article. Slrubenstein 19:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, the word hypocrisy springs to mind. CheeseDreams 03:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Ive got the names a bit mixed up. The book in of the koans theory is by crossan.

Boy. If you get this mixed up,

It isn't very mixed up is it darling reader?, just mixed one source's name with another, it doesn't change the fact that one source does state X, and Slrubenstein failed to either read it or report it. CheeseDreams

how can we take anything you say seriously? Slrubenstein 18:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

how can we take anything Slrubenstein says seriously? CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The same factual accuracy of reporting issues still arise. Someone hasn't read the text properly, if at all. See the back cover of a different edition to the black one, viewable via this amazon page [1]. A source of Slrubenstein claims the koans theory. Whats it to be? Accept koans or discard Slrubenstein's claims of research? You can't have it both ways. CheeseDreams 03:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the same factual accuracy of reporting issues still arise. Someone hasn't read the text properly, if at all. But the "someone" is you, CheeseDreams. You clearly didn't read Crossan's book (you know, those pages between the front and back cover). If you had, you would see that Crossan does not claim that Jesus was using koans. You are not quoting Crossan, you are quoting the New York Times book review. It is the opinion of the reviewer, used by the publisher as a blurb to seel more books.

Crossan, darling reader, like other writers, picks and chooses which of the reviews he will or will not allow on his book. The point is that he didn't prevent it being written on his book, nor did he attack doing so in print. Given his need to preserve his scholarly reputation, by not doing so, he clearly deems that they are not against his opinion. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me that the publisher would highlight the zen comparison to sell books -- it appeals to a wide audience who aren't especially concerned with critical history. But the fact remains, Crossan himself never made this claim. Here we see the difference between my research and CheeseDreams. I read books. She reads the blurbs on the back covers. Slrubenstein 18:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, I read both. I do not dismiss one or other part of a book just because it appears to be less worthy in my POV. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The back cover blurb of a book is not, properly speaking, part of the book. I would imagine that its contents would normally be determined by the book's publisher rather than the book's author, but this is just my own speculation based on one or two authors I've talked to. On the other hand, I personally don't mind admitting that I often read the back cover blurb of a book and then decide not to read the entire book. One purpose of the back cover is to help potential readers make exactly that decision. (shrug) Wesley 05:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. They asked for sources for suggesting a resemblance to koans. You've provided several. One seems to be from a source even SLR thinks is reliable. You've got to ask at this point what on earth is motivating further resistance to mention of the idea.Dr Zen 04:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Dr. Zen, she hasn't provided any, and not from any source I consider reliable. Slrubenstein 18:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cohen on the other hand believes the bible was written as a psychological trick and vehemently criticises Christian fundamentalism, see his book The Mind of the Bible-Believer (Prometheus Books, reprinted 1991). He believes that the gospels are NOT to be trusted as reliable, further that they should be viewed with suspicion, which is quite against what Slrubenstein's version implies. CheeseDreams 03:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could you find a quote of Cohen's saying so?Dr Zen 04:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Zen, even if she could find a quote, I would reject it. Edmund Cohen simply is not a credible historian or Bible critic. Slrubenstein 18:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, Edmund Cohen is a psychologist. The book I mentioned is clearly about the psychology of literalism. For Slrubenstein to suggest that it should be rejected because Edmund cohen is not an historian or biblical scholar, clearly demonstrates conclusively that (a) Slrubenstein does not read what is written properly, and thus is unreliable as a reporter of the content of sources and (b) Slrubenstein automatically dismisses anything that disagrees with him regardless of the argument. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and there is this about Cohen too, W.r.t. Shaye Cohen's text From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Shaye Cohen, according to a review of the text discusses the sects of Judaism that existed during this time, beginning with the Maccabean revolt, and working through the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Christian movement, and Jewish people scattered throughout the Mediterranean world. He shows how Judaism was always a religion that emphasized practice and tradition over doctrine, while not denying that Judaism had a theology. One may also question his conclusion that the dialogues betwen Jesus and the Pharisees reflected more of a post 70AD situation than something that really happened in the life of Jesus. Note the presence of the Essenes equal to the Sadducees and Pharisees, in the description. Note the non-mainstream view of the importance circumcision had. Note the controversial view of the made-upness of the gospel accounts of Jesus' dialogues. Note what Slrubenstein claims. CheeseDreams 04:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As you seem to be focusing on Slrubenstein rather than this article, your comments are off topic and approaching what some might call a personal attack. Wouldn't it be simpler to simply cite Cohen or Crossan or whoever else in support of whatever changes you wish to make to the article, for instance? Wesley 04:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My point is focusing on Slrubenstein's arguments claiming to be based on sources and criticising others for not using sources. My point is that these arguments are baseless, and must be dismissed. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are way out of order, Wesley. SlR is the main obstructor of CD's putting in her POV.

Actually, I am trying to allow FT2 and amgine and others to be able to produce an article based on the principles of wiki and not on the principles of User:Slrubenstein. I have made very little in the way of actual edits to the article whatsoever. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He does so by suggesting that she cannot source her claims. If she is using the same sources that he does, then that is a valid point. I agree that she'd serve herself best by quoting them but I think it's fair enough for her to show that his obstruction is not wholly valid.

And stop accusing CD of personal attacks, or insinuating that she is making them. This kind of tactic seems to me aimed at shutting her up rather than engaging with her

It won't work, I simply ignore the accusations because I don't respect the accusers. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-- something that has been going on throughout this process -- and further designed to create more "evidence" for her next show trial.Dr Zen 04:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No wikipedia editor has an inherent right to put in their POV. As editors, we all have the right and responsibility to present various POV's neutrally, some of which we may share, some we may oppose, some we may care less about. If CD was actually trying to put in her POV, than she ought to be obstructed from doing that. Same for anyone else, including SLR or myself. CD says she's pushing for the principles of wiki, which is fine in general, but with the important caveat that on Wikipedia the general wiki principle should be tempered with the principle of verifiability. Wesley \

With regard to using the same source as SLR, I agree that would be a valid point, but should be used in this article at least to bolster support for a particular edit to the article, not to discredit another user. SLR seems to claim that they are not using the same source, but are citing two different people who happen to share the same last name. I admit I haven't looked close enough to personally verify whether the same Cohen is being cited by both. If CD made an honest mistake and confused two different Cohens, I would be pleasantly surprised to see her admit it. Wesley 05:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've just been reading the archive

A minor, possibly petty point really.

Slrubenstein made a comparison to Dusseldorf claiming everyone knew that the capital of England is London.

The capital of England is the city of Westminster. The city of London is some 2 miles east.

CheeseDreams 18:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then you had better correct the Wikipedia article on England, from which I derived this fact. According to Wikipedia, the capital is London. Slrubenstein 19:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are we confusing "seat of government" with "capital" again? Parliament does meet in the City of Westminster (which is, however, a part of Greater London, and was part of the County of London from the inception of the latter, and was considered to be part of a broadly defined entity called "London" for some time before that.) Even so, this is not particularly relevant. Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands, but the government is located, and always has been, in The Hague. Given that a great deal of what people normally refer to as "London" is, in fact, in the City of Westminster, this is clearly an even less questionable case. john k 20:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The capital of the Netherlands is the Hague, not Amsterdam. Ask a dutchman. Amsterdam is just the busiest most cosmopolitan place.

According to the post office, the people who decide where the addresses you write actually are, the City of Westminster is part of the county of Middlesex (it is in fact the County town, i.e. the capital of Middlesex).

Greater london is an administrative area, and does not replace the counties, according to the official government position. Likewise although Greater Manchester is an administrative area, Wilmslow is in Cheshire. CheeseDreams 03:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

None of this is relevant to this article. Might be helpful for England and Netherlands articles though. Wesley 04:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did actually state that at the start of this section. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, this has all been hashed out in some detail, actually. The question of administrative areas and counties is rather vexed, in my understanding. You have not only the Traditional counties of England, but also the Ceremonial counties of England, and the administrative counties of England. All very confusing. Middlesex has not existed as a governing entity for a considerable time, and even before that its reach had been removed from inner London, which was the County of London from the late 19th century. But, as Wesley notes, this is utterly irrelevant. (Actually, CD, if you're interested, there's some ongoing discussion of how to disambiguate English cities - whether with traditional county, ceremonial county, or administrative county/area, over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names).) john k 06:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Also, as I said, the capital of the Netherlands is, by its own constitution, Amsterdam. The Hague is the seat of government. If a country says in its constitution that a city is its capital, I don't see how it gets any clearer than that. Amsterdam has always been the official capital, and it has never been the seat of government, so it's not as though things have changed recently.) john k 06:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edits to current version

There is an inherent POV in some of the current text, and a lot of detail and poor wording. In some places, the views of bible critics, historians and academic approaches have also been privileged without reference to other views. There are also at times too many facts which while historic, are not relevant enough to justify space in the article. We do not need to know the name of many people cited, for 2 reasons, (1) Wikipedia allocates a recommended 32k to each article, and (2) this is a historical background to a period, not an actual history.

I have put through the following edits to rectify this, and in order to avoid revert issues, explanations below for each of them pretty much. THESE ARE NOT STATED TO ARGUE EACH. They are stated since without sdoing so, its likely that someone will assume they are for no good reason and revert them. If anyone happens to disagree with any of them, these are here mostly to explain the reason beforehand rather than let it appear they are for no good reason.

The problem is, many of your edits are poor style, and distort facts.

Oh yes, dear reader, here Slrubenstein is being totally civil, unbiased, not arrogant, hypocritical, or vain whatsoever, and not even verging on personal attacks. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussion, so let's discuss your changes. Please do note that I have kept several of your edits. In some cases your edits do improve the article, and I certainly can't argue against that. But many of your changes do damage to the article. I will explain why. Slrubenstein 19:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Introduction
1. "Many critical Bible scholars and historians, however, accept that Jesus lived, but reject the Gospels as a literal account of his life" --> many people believe this, not just scholars. Some of these are biblical scholars, but most are not.

agreed Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. "and in order to support, an orthodox Christianity that was emerging between the second and fourth centuries CE" --> simplify. "To support an emerging christianity".

Wrong. You are simplifying the sentence, but you are also distorting the facts. At issue in the process by which the Gospels were redacted and canonized is not the emergence of Christianity, but the emergence of orthodox Christianity. There certainly were different forms of Christianity in the first and second centuries before orthodox Christianity was established. For you to identify "orthodox Christianity" with "Christianity," as you do in this edit, is for you to take the point of view of orthodox Christianity. NPOV requires the recognition of other Christianities that were not orthodox. Slrubenstein 19:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, a careful observer will note the clear use of the word an rather than the word the. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. "Moreover, they claim that " --> the "moreover" isnt relevant. "They feel". Simplify.

"They feel" is not simpler than "they claim," it is the same number of words.

Darling reader, it has less letters. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They claim is superior because it is more accurate. We really do not know what people "felt," feelings are internal and subjective.

Darling reader, we do if they tell us. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We do, however, know what they claimed. Slrubenstein 19:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way, despite my objection you reinserted the phrase, "it should also be considered in the context of his historical and cultural context, rather than just in terms of Christian orthodoxy." Why? Surely you are willing to accept some criticism of your work? I have agreed with many of your changes, can't you agree to any of mine? Don't you see how this phrase uses the word "context" redundantly which is poor style? Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. "Helenistic culture" --> Hellenism. Simplify the wording (again).

Agreed Slrubenstein 19:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1st temple era
1. "most Jews were poor, politically marginalized peasants" --> POV feel, changed to "most Jews were economically poor and politically marginalized peasants"

what do you mean by "POV feel?" I see no semantic difference between your version and mine. They communicate exactly the same information. The only difference is you add the adjective "economically" to modify the word "poor." As you yourself have stated, we should try for simpler prose. Poverty is an economic condition, so "economically poor" is redundant. Slrubenstein 19:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Spin is the choice of wording to produce an apparantly similar sentence, but at the same time leading to a conclusion suitable to the spinner, for example "economically poor and politically marginalized" being changed into "poor, politically marginalized" has the implication "they were really suffering quite badly" (as in ah, poor thing), and suits the "jewish revolt was class war" fringe POV rather than the alternative more clinically emphasised wording. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. "Nevertheless, various elites and social movements argued over the status of the Temple, laws and values embodied in sacred scriptures, and the restoration of a monarchy, Jewish sovereignty, and the kingdom of God.". (1) Words like "nevertheless", "moreover" are very over used. Simplfy dammit. (2) "kingdom of god" is more neutrally expressed as "theology".

It is not more neutral. At best, these are just two different ways of saying the same thing, except "kingdom of god" is English, and "theocracy" (which is what I assume you mean; theology makes no sense at all in this context) is Greek. I say, go for English when possible.

Darling reader, according to dictionaries, theocracy is an English word, it does not actually exist in Greek (even though it is derived from it). CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But "theocracy" is a modern idea and I am not sure that what people two thousand years ago meant by "kingdom of God" is precisely what we mean by "theocracy." Let's just go with the simpler, English phrase. Slrubenstein 19:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Readers should be aware that they are not 2000 years old, and are in-fact modern. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(3) This is the wrong impression. It implies the essense was argument over theological issues. The essense was jockeying for power, and within that, there was argument over theology.

I agree that at times especially during the Hasmonean period there was jockeying for power. But for most of the time period the various groups were not jockeying for power, they were different communities. I have modified the sentence to allow for both points; surely you will accept this compromise as reasonable. Slrubenstein 19:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, doesn't Slrubenstein's objection suit his POV so wonderfully? CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(4) Replaced sentence by "Various political and religious groups, and social movements jockeyed for position, and religious and political institutions argued over the status of the Temple, the laws and values embodied in sacred scriptures, the restoration of a Jewish monarchy, and Jewish theology".

1. "ruled ideally" --> "ruled in principle". Ideally is ambiguous here, does that mean they tried to make it that way if they could? Thats what "ideally" uusually means. "In principle" says that was how people agreed it was supposed to be, but it wasnt always that way.

Yes, this is what I mean by "ideally." Ideally is better than "in principle" because the Kingdom of Israel shared the ideal of divine legitimation with the kingdom of Judah -- but the Kingdom of Israel was never, even in principle, ruled by kings with divine right. Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, ideally is a terribly ambiguous word in this context, most readers misinterpreting it as the normal meaning of the word, rather than the usage according to a certain set of ideals CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prophets
1. "which would later be redacted into the Torah" --> "later edited into the Tanakh, basically the Five Books of Moses and Prophets". (1) redacted is POV, it assumes a redaction, which not everyone agrees is the case,

It is no more point of view than "edited," which assumes editing. "Redaction" is better because this is the word that all critical Bible scholars and historians use. Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(2) the jewish holy books were more than the torah even at that time.

First, you are a little confused -- because there was no Torah at that time, there were different books. But the books we know of were later redacted into the Torah during the Babylonian exile. It was only the books of the Torah which were used by kings during this time to govern, or justify their governance. The books that were eventually edited into the Prophets and Writings come much later. Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(3) the torah may or may not have been edited but the tanakh certainly was.

1. replaced many semi colons by new sentences. Again, simplicity, this is a general encyclopedia.
2. Children of israel --> israelites (simplify!)

I agree simplification is a good thing, but in this case we have to stick with Children of Israel, which includes Judah and Benjamin. "Israelites" could too easily be taken to refer only to the Kingdom of Israel. Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, the phrase Children of Israel, apart from being complicated, is also extremely POV - it has the vague implication that someone called Israel actually existed, and that the Israelites are all descended from him. A better term would be hebrews. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. "similar" sacred texts --> removed word, they were not "similar" to most pagan tribes texts.

I changed it to "similarly had." Be that as it may, you are wrong. The bulk of critical Bible scholarship has proven that the Hebrew Bible borrowed extensively from the literature of what you call "pagan tribes" (the Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians, etc.) Indeed, many of the stories of the Torah, and almost all of the plot and rhetorical devices, come from the literature of what you call "pagan tribes." Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, the term "pagan tribes" in this context is usually understood to refer to the Canaanites, and the possibly related tribes such as Moab etc. The assumption that it is used to refer to the ancient Empires is wholly prejudiced. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. "Moreover, they had a class of prophets who often criticized the king" --> "prophets criticised the king...". Another damn "moreover" that doesnt justify its length (simplify!)

Okay! Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. ". During the First Temple Era, these prophets were a potent political force" --> "and provided another potent force". Simplify !!!
2. Split long para, ease of readbility.
Persian
1. "He appointed Zerubabbel (the grandson of the last Judean king, Jehoiachin) governor, but did not allow the restoration of the kingdom" --> (1) most of this is too much detail. All we need to know here is, he did not permit the restoration, not the family tree of those involved.

Totally too much detail. Why are we talking about before the babylonian captivity in an article about background to 1AD? Historical background doesnt mean the entire history . Historical background to WWII does not go into detail about the norman conquest, Charlemagne, the Romans, or Alfred the great. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually it was either you or CheeseDreams who added the name of Zerubabbel. In the spirit of compromise I kept it. If you or she now think it should be cut entirely, I don't object. Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(2) Monarchy is less loaded a term (less POV) than "kingdom" in a religious context.

Again, your notion of "POV" eludes me. What is the "POV" of kingdom, and what is the "POV" of monarchy? Why do you think monarchy is less POV? In fact, the words do have different meanings, but it doesn't have to do with POV. "Monarchy in this context could also mean dynasty -- that is, Zerubabbel or a member of his family in power. "Kingdom" does not just refer to the government or dynasty in control, it refers to the polity itself. And this is the relevant point here -- the Jews were not allowed to restore an independent polity. Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kingdoms require a king, dear reader, monarchies just require a ruler. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. "The end of the Babylonian Exile saw not only the construction of the Second Temple, but, according to the Documentary Hypothesis, the redaction of the Torah as well. " --> Again, (1) POV assumption that the torah was redacted and

No, it states that the documentary hypothesis says that the torah was redacted. This is a factual statement. Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(2) doesnt justiofy space in the article. Whether the torah was or was not redacted at this time is not sufficiently close to matters to impact the background. Removed.

Since scriptures are used both as historical sources and as religious texts to justify politics, when different texts were codified is most definitely relevant. Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, source criticism belongs in articles about criticism of the sources, e.g. documentary hypothesis, or Shaye Cohen. Articles on renaissance art do not go into source criticism about the content of the articles, for example. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Rabbi = great one". Since when?! Look up the Rabbi article: "The term means teacher, or more literally my master (from rav which is equivalates to something between sir and Mr. in English)... commonly refers to the spiritual leader of a Jewish synagogue.". Moved to the end oof the section, where it flows better.

I just don't know what to say. Obviously you do not speak Hebrew. "Rabbi" means great one. And it was used to address sages and scribes, just as the passage says. By the way, it was you who added "reb." I deleted it and here you go again, putting it back in. Why? "Reb" was not used to address these sages and scholars. "Reb" does not mean scholar or sage. It isn't even Hebrew. Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, biblical hebrew and modern hebrew have only a tenuous connection to each other. Rabbi means teacher, and was translated as such for centuries. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. "a practice which was institutionalized after the return from the Babylonian exile" --> superfluous for this, we dont need to know this to have a background, we just need to know it was being done, how, and since roughly when.

Okay! Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. "and identified with the prophets (Biblical political and religious reformers who came from various tribes)" --> removed pending evidence that (1) early sages did identify themselves with with the prophets, and (2) its sufficiently necessary to say so, justify space in a background article.

My source is the Schwartz book, listed in the bibliography. I can provide a page citation if you insist, but this is so commonly known I didn't think it needed a citation. I do think it is relevant since the status of the Pharisees (who come out of this group) is a major issue in the article. Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, I was always under the impression that the status of the pharisees was only a major issue in the Pharisee article, and that the major issue in this article is background. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hellenistic period
1. "Upon his death in 323 BCE, his empire was divided among his generals. At first, Judea was ruled by the Egyptian-Hellenic Ptolemies, but in 198 BCE,the Syrian-Hellenic Seleucid Empire, under Antiochus III, seized control over Judea. " --> yes its accurate. But its just too long. Again, we want a background to the period, more attention on the culture nearer the time. We dont need to know all the dates, and every general's name to get the gist of it. In fact as the Ptolemaic empitre didnt seem to impact the background much, I've simplified this all the way diown to "By 198 BCE, Judea was a part of the Seleucid Empire, a Syrian-Hellenic successor, following the breakup of Alexander's empire." to keep the word count short and simple.

I agree. Doesn't that now mean that Slrubenstein needs to submit to your choice, given his statement that he will do so below? CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise on this if others agree with you. Can we wait and see? !Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Is there a reason why Cohen's view is favoured over other views with such a large quote? What do other perhaps less common views say? (2) Ive summarised it, we dont need the full quote, they can look that up if they need to.

I favor Cohen's view because he is the leading historian of the period right now. I think the long quote is important because many people involved in this article -- if not you than CheeseDreams or Amgine -- have suggested that there was a division between Hellenistic and traditional Jews. If this is somthing that many non-scholars are mixed up about, then the article should address it. Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Darling reader, one source is never the general view of academics, but always only the view of that one source. A general view comes from a general selection of sources, not from one. Particularly not from one repeatedly and consistently used by one editor in preference to using others. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cultural struggles with Hellenism
1. Removed yet another damn "Nevertheless" and yet another equally damn "Moreover" that added nothing but word count. SImplify your wording !!

Okay! Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Political Struggles with Hellenism
1. (Simplified again: I know I wrote much of this newly-added-back text, but Im applying the same scale, too much detail, fair's fair).
2. "According to Maccabees (a partisan account), Jason bribed the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes, who in turn appointed Jason High Priest. Jason and his supporters then began building a gymnaseum. When Antiochus IV demanded tribute from the Temple treasury in 171 BCE, however, Jason refused. Another priest, Menelaus, then bribed Antiochus, who then declared Menelaus the new High Priest. The result was a civil war ... When Menelaus had Onias III (who had accused Menelaus of stealing from the Temple treasurey) killed, huge numbers of Jews flocked to Jason's side. In 167 BCE Antiochus invaded Judea" --> "A period of political intrigue followed, with priests such as Menelaus bribing the emperor to win the High priesthood, and accusations of murder of competing contenders for the title. The result was a brief civil war, which ended in 167 BCE when Antiochus invaded Judea...."

I think we need to include a link here (e.g. under the words period of political intrigue, or as an addition of a form like recorded in X (as well as in other texts), to point to the detail (e.g. to Maccabees). CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Likewise simplify the entire history of the war against antiochus --> "Conflicts arose when Antiochus began a program of forced Hellenization with the support of the priestly aristocracy. Ultimately this resulted in rejection of the attempt to undermine Judaism, and a revolt by Mattathias and his son Judah Maccabee. Although the rebellion was successful within two years, fighting continued against subsequent emperors for almost another 20 years beyond that."

Agreed.CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with simplification in principle. I think it is important to keep those details which indicate that this was not simply a conflict between Jews and foreigners, though. If such details are cut, people will be left with the absolutely mistaken impression that Jews could not tolerate foreign domination. I have made a number of cuts, following your lead (but keeping some stuff you cut) Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Saduccees, Pharisees and Essenes
1. ""One of the earliest competing movements was the Essenes, who were originally led by a group of priests who either rejected the Seleucid appointed high priests, or the Hasmonean high priests, as illegitimate. " --> "The Essenes were another early movement, who are believed to have rejected either the Seleucid appointed high priests, or the Hasmonean high priests, as illegitimate." name the group first. Improved readibility.

Okay! Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. "they esentially rejected the Second Temple. They argued that ..." --> "they also rejected the Second Temple, arguing that " (flow)

Okay! Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. "Although their lack of concern for the Second Temple alienated them from the great mass of Jews, their notion that the sacred could exist outside of the Temple was shared another competing group, the Pharisees ("separatists") which had its origins in the relatively new group of authorities of scribes and sages."" --> "Their belief that the sacred could exist outside the Temple was shared by a further group, the Pharisees, or "separatists", which had its origins from within the scribes and sages." ( wording far too long and too hard to read)

I just cut the word "competing" Slrubenstein

Religious and Cultural Life During the Roman Period
1. Synagogue - wikify, and leave the detail of what it means in every other langauge to that article: "Within Roman Palestine, Jews established synagogues (Greek; in Hebrew, Bet Knesset, in English, House of Assembly). Outside of Roman Palestine, Jews established proseuchai (Greek; in Hebrew, Bet Tefillah; in English, house of prayer)." --> "Within Roman Palestine, Jews established synagogues (meeting, or assembly houses) and elsewhere "proseuchai" (houses of prayer)". Meeting houses is not the literal meaning of the words, but its a better "flavour" of translation.

Okay! Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. "For example, the "Shema" was recited twice daily in the Temple and people who lived far from the Temple assembled in proseuchai to recite the Shema twice daily. " --> "For example, the "Shema" was recited twice daily in the Temple whereas elsewhere people met in the proseuchai for this purpose."

I changed the phrasing, but have tried to shorten it as you suggest. Slrubenstein 19:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FT2 10:20, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Review of comments:

For the most part, yes, I agree with manty of your points. To keep text to a minimum I'm going to list only the few i feel need review.

"To support an emerging christianity" - I see your point. I meant it in terms of "the gospels were written to support christianity in general", regardless of type. So there is no implication (to me) that this was orthodox or non orthodox. It was christianity in general that matthew luke etc wrote to support, not one branch of it.

That is unfortunately totally POV. Many view Matthew as being a version written for Jewish christians, and Luke for Pauline Christians, for example. Many scholars further think that these two groups were seperate competing branches, and that there is suppressed evidence of this in Acts and in the disagreements between Acts and Galatians, as well as in extra-biblical sources. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Based on what I have read, the Gospels as we know them were written or edited to support the emerging orthodoxy, not Christianity in general. See Bart Ehrman The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture but I've read some others that make this point. Slrubenstein 20:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Poor, marginalized" is one of those cases like "he's poor hard-done by". It sounds like a sob story even if literally the words are true. I just want to remove that feel from it, is all, by minor word change, to ensure poor = economic, not poor = pitiful.

Agreed. We should not address the morality or try to encourage empathy with or of any one (or many) group(s). This is supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedia, not a polemic to encourage feelings of support for the oppressed group X. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine anyone reading that paragraph would think poor=pitiful, although really, shouldn't we feel sorry for poor people? Slrubenstein 20:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"kingdom of god" - this is an expression with a lot of meaning. What I think it means in thjis context though, is they discussed religious beliefs related to the world to come and messianic era, etc. The general term for religious beliefs is theology, and thats what was being discussed, in general. If you sopecifically want to say that the messianic era was a major topic of discussion, and various elites argued over the nature of the world to come, can we use "olam haba (The World to Come)", which doesnt carry the same loaded meaning in english, and is probably more accurate too.

No, you misunderstand. What was being discussed was the restoration not of theology, but the restoration of the kingdom of God. Your use of "olam haba" although well-informed is in this case anachronistic; the concept of olam haba may have its origins in the Pharisees but is most developed in the Rabbinic period, much later. David's kingdom was a kingdom of God, and they were arguing over the restoration of that. Slrubenstein 20:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see another "Nevertheless" has crept in :) Lets remove it :)

As for the rest, I see a lot of reverts and no explanation.

Yes, I noticed that as well. It is generally called being a POV warrier, and is against wikipedia policy, and the general principles of (a) being civilised and (b) being a wiki. CheeseDreams

can you add explanations so we can keep track what we agree, and not revert them all wholesale. FT2 20:00, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I will try. I didn't provide explanation in cases where you dind't provide explanation, but will try to remedy that ASAP. Slrubenstein 20:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)