Talk:Historical background of the New Testament/Archive 16

message: :The above account is false.  This section was originally created as a section in the Jesus article on the "historical Jesus" meaning the one discussed by Vermes, Sanders and fredriksen.  One editor entitled the section "in historical and cultural context" to convey that this is why Vermes, Sanders and Fredriksen´s views of Jesus differ from that of Christians.  An article that is solely about the culture and history of Jews would obviously simply be an article on Jewish history and culture.  No, this article is about a set of similar interpretations of Jesus informed by a study of the historicla and cultural context in which he lived.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the above is false

message: Nope. It isn't. I'm not gonna argue about this with you, you were there, cheesedreams was there, lots of folk were there, regardless that the archive of the original discussion is 'lost'. (and how did that happen?)  I know how this article happened to be created, I was the one who suggested that it be created and suggested the name.  Maybe it has changed and evolved to not be that any more, I still stand by what I said, and I think that its obvious I didn't say, as you characterised it: "solely about the culture and history of Jews" I said "the history and culture of the time in and place in which Jesus is traditionally held to have lived, without treating the subject of who Jesus was or whether he did or did not exist" as anyone can read above.  The time and place in which Jesus is traditionally held to have lived is not about Jewish history alone, as anyone can see from a cursory examination of the article itself.  The arguement arose between you and Cheesedreams about whether the section on history was too long and whether it was POV or not, and I suggested a new article to break out the relevant text, so that we didn't lose data but had an appropriate place for it... without an endless debate between the two of you. You seem to me to cherish arguments, but I don't.  
Remember the conext this quote from you came from?:
"Again, you miss the point. If the article is to provide background for the NT, then it should cover the history of Palestine as well as the Roman provinces in what is today Turkey and Greece from 70 to 382. But since the article covers an earlier period, it is providing background for the life of Jesus. Slrubenstein"
You and I both know the truth, and this is all I will say about it. User:Pedant 05:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: no it isn't

message: :The main record of the life of Jesus are the Gospels, in the Christian New Testament. These sources place Jesus in what became Roman Palestine (modern Israel and Palestine) during the early 1st century. The article Historicity of Jesus covers debates regarding the existence of Jesus, but if so then it is agreed by most Christians and academics who hold this view that it is necessary to understand the cultural and historical background in which Jesus is thought to have lived.
No objections to the first two sentences.  The function of the third sentence is to provide a link to a related article; I suggest that this sentence be abbreviated, made a patranthetical, and placed at the end of the paragraph e.g. (see Historicity of Jesus concerning debates specifically over the existence of Jesus).  The "but if so" clause is clumsy.  I would rewrite it for grace, but also to provide more information: "Many historians accept that Jesus existed, but argue that an account of Jesus' life must reject supernatural claims; take into account biases in the New Testament; and interpret Jesus' life in terms of its cultural and historical context."  This sentence is clearer, provides more information, and I think better introduces the article Slrubenstein
: I agree with the clumsiness of the third sentence construction. I may be concerned with the word "Many", the use of semicolons in a list <grin>, but I agree the sentence is clearer and more dense with information. - Amgine 22:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 2004? The above comment seems out of place, chronologically speaking. 
I just created several additional archives. There was a LOT of discussion in June. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro/opening 

message: I propose taking information from Cultural and historical background of Jesus and Historical Jesus and creating two seperate article: one focusing on history, and the other focusing on culture. I'd also propose less POV titles. For example Cultural background of 1st century Judea and History of Israel, 600 BCE - 150 CE. Reasoning: this article is really long, and this article doesn't really describe the cultural background, and parts of historical Jesus don't really describe the historical Jesus. I would love imput on this, and perhaps better title suggestions. If people agree with this proposal and we get some support, I'd propose creating two sandboxes in my userspace to start this process and I'd urge anyone interested to help contribute.--Andrew c 16:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Historical Jesus for my response. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am in principal opposed to separating culture and history.  They cannot be divorced one from the other. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe we need to just split this article up into "Early Second Temple" and "Late Second Temple" because 71kb is way large. The issue was that there were questions like "what languages were spoken in 1st century Judea, what were people's socio-economic status like, literacy, family life, social roles, religion, etc" all addressed in the Historical Jesus article that I wanted to split off into a "Cultural background" article, and then there is the history presented in this article that seems to fit into its own history section. Maybe we could combine the two ideas in one article, but like I said, I feel that we'd need to find another place (perhaps chronologically) to split that article just due to size.--Andrew c 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would separate Persian, Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and Roman into separate articles. The most relevant article for Jesus's ancient context is the Roman Period. --Haldrik 04:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Andrew's 2nd proposal. I'm not sure if we have enough data for four articles as Haldrik suggests, but I may be wrong. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 04:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that would be a cultural way to do it. I think that would work as well. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 06:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does "pre-Hellenic" mean the same thing as "pre-Hasmonaean"?  It seems to me that this is somewhat problematic due to the lack of clear historical materials on the early second temple period.  After Ezra, Nehemiah and the minor prophets close down in the 5th century BC, there's about two centuries where the sources are quite meager.  The "Early Second Temple" (however it is actually defined article would appear to cover a long period about which we have very little direct information, while the "Late Second Temple" article has rather an embarrassment of riches.  Not sure how to deal with this. john k 22:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In Israeli archeology, the periods are (usually) as follows: Biblical Period, Persian Period, Hellenistic Period, Hasmonean Period, Roman Period, Byzantine Period. Thus "pre-Hellenic" (pre-Hellenistic) equals the Persian Period, whereas "pre-Hasmonean" equals the Hellenistic Period. --Haldrik 03:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals 

message: According to Geza Vermes, such scribes were often addressed using a basic term of respect, "lord."
What is the exact term used (aramaic or hebrew or whatever) that is being translated "lord", and where's the cite for this? Thanks FT2 (Talk | email) 16:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will check,perhaps "adon?"  Good question.  I will see if I can find the answer. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite query 

message: Removed the following detail, seemed the text didnt justify its inclusion or belongs in other articles:
:* Jesus may have been born in Nazareth, and Joseph may have been his biological father.  The assertion that he was born in Bethlehem, and that Jesus was the son of Joseph and a descendant of David, would have substantiated the claim that Jesus was the Jewish messiah.
:* Jesus may have been anointed by John, at which point he could literally claim to be messiah, which means "anointed one."  The phrase "son of God" was often used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to an especially righteous person (see Names and titles of Jesus); some suggest that God adopted Jesus as His son when Jesus was baptized by John, a view known as adoptionism. 
:* the account of the Virgin Birth, and the claim that "son of God" means that Jesus was literally God's son and divine, represent a Christian view that may have developed during the period when Christianity was breaking away from Judaism. Virgin births of a flawless divine Son of God who is sacrificed are similar to beliefs of other, non-Jewish, religions at the time, and these may have influenced early Christianity, especially as larger and larger numbers of non-Jews were drawn to the new religion.
The italicizwed part I have kept though, it's useful background. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed chunk(s) 

message: 1st century Jewish beliefs, especially those that rose after the Torah was redacted (c. 400 BCE), deserve a section on this page. They're certainly relevant to a historical understanding of Jesus. Jonathan Tweet 15:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't clear "Jewish beliefs" - there are the beliefs of the Pharisees, Saducees, and Essenes primarily, most of which are spelled out. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  religious beliefs 

message: : Many historians argue that the Gospels took their final form after the Great Revolt and the destruction of the Temple, and need to be understood in this context.
: By contrast, many historians argue that Jesus was Jewish, and that his life and teachings must be understood in the context of 1st century Judaism.  Moreover, they depict first and second century Judaism — especially after the destruction of the Temple — as being in a state of flux, consisting of a variety of sects.
: Many view Christians as much as the Pharisees as constituting competing movements within Judaism that decisively broke only after the Bar Kokhba's revolt, when the successors of the Pharisees claimed hegemony over all Judaism, and Christianity emerged as a new religion.
I've tried to clean these up a bit, but they really need citing and attention from someone more knowledgable. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added some citations at some of these points Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many weasels in one short section... rewording or citing needed 

message: The Hittite empire collapsed long before the cormation of the Judean state. Look, I have nothing against Hittites or anyone from what is today called Syria or Anatolia, they just weren't important at the historical moment of this article.  Certainly, an article on the Ancient Near East or the history and religion oif Israel in its ancient near Eastern context would have to talk about Hitites and other groups - they just aren't appropriate here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the "historical moment" of this article? The First century? In that case much of the current article would not apply. Is the "historical moment" the entire History of the Jews up to the first century? In that case the Hittites would deserve at least a mention. 75.0.9.51 20:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The particular section you were editing discusses institutins that developed with the establishment of the monarchy and the First Temble app 1000 BCE - 500 BCE Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Battle of Kadesh is generally dated to 1274 bce, a few generations before the establishment of the First Temple. Are we assuming the Jews were nonexistant before the First Temple? (The Merneptah Stele has them there in 1208) Is pre-Temple Judaism irrelevant to the cultural and historical background of Jesus? 75.0.1.11 20:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You mean Israelites - Jews definitely did not exist prior to the Hellenistic period.  In any event your comment is a non-sequitor - the point of this section is not the history of Israel as a whole, it is the development of key institutions especially the monarchy, the Temple, scribes and prophets.  Please provide me with a verifiable source that claims that Anatolian polities were infuential in the formation of these institutions.  If you can provide a source that says this, in it goes. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for providing an appropriate source.  Nevertheless, 1100+ years before the birth of Jesus is not what i would call "historical context."  The Davidic monarchy (1000 years before the birth of Jesus0 is included because it is part of the cultural context which is not some vague amorphous inclusive thing, it refers to specific beliefs and institutions that play a role in the Gospel account of Jesus' life: the importance of the house of David; the origin of the Temple; the origins of the Saducees and Pharisees.  If Hittite culture influenced these, then it is worth noting that.  But how did they influence this context?  And according to what source? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You have to be more specific than that.  What role or contribution specifically does Hittite culture play in the cultural background of Jesus?  Note: I have not removed the reference to Anatolia, and i won't.  But if you want to mention the Hittites specifically, there needs to be a specific manifestation of the influence. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Anatolia is fine by me, how about adding Mycenaean? 64.149.82.109 20:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Cultural/historical background: Pottery, Olive, Grape, some sort of written language connection, i.e. not Hieroglyphs or Cuneiform. 64.149.82.109 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's just cultural/historical background. Different than say Indian or Chinese or Japanese or Ethiopian ... 64.149.82.109 22:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hittites 

message: I did a little editing, in part to make the historical trends clearer, and also to cut the article down - my edits and reorganizing got it down by 7 kb, not much but it is a little tighter at least. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  some editing