Talk:Jesus/Archive 45

message: "...all other events in the Gospels are set in ancient Israel." I don't think any events in the Gospelsa are set in ancient Israel. They're set in Roman Judea. PiCo 07:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iudea, Perea, and Galilee mostly, with stopovers in Samaria. Calling it Israel is an anachronism, but it's the same piece of real estate as ancient(er) Israel. Nowadays Israelis and Palestinians fight over some of the land. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't Iudaea be more accurate? I don't think the letter J was invented yet. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 08:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, lower case letters weren't invented yet either. :D --Haldrik 09:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but I didn't want to be accused of SHOUTING. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 17:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, we say that Muhammed was in "Arabia" (not the proper "Saudi Arabia"). Same basic idea as here. --MonkeeSage 09:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, no.  "Saudi Arabia" would be a complete anachronism, since it refers specifically to the Saudi Dynasty, which didn't rule Mecca until the 1920s (and the state of "Saudi Arabia" didn't exist until 1932, I think).  In terms of what term to use, "Judaea" is bad because it doesn't include Galilee, which was the main site of Jesus's preaching.  I'm not sure what the best term to use is. john k 00:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Methinks we need a map. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 00:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Would any of them qualify under fair use? :/ Homestarmy 21:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's © 2002 by the website. I suppose we could always email the webmaster to ask permission. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 01:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this along the lines of, "George Washinton Slept Here"? Jim62sch 17:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: JimWae had a valid point earlier. We need a map. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Good work. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Are there any major cities and places that are not included? Are there too many historic cities included that should be removed because Jesus didn't go there? Should I add in lines for historic roads between major cities? Also, one of my sources made a distinction between towns and Hellenized cities, should I do the same? Finally, should there be a line tracing Jesus' movement (Ehrman had a map of Asia Minor/Medeteranian that traced Paul's ministry according to acts/epistles)? (If the answer is yes to the last question, I'd need help in compiling the list of places and order).--Andrew c 23:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It shouldn't be too hard to add Idumea, the historic land of the Edomites. It was right to the south of Judea. Andrew, if you need a reference, check the links to the two maps we found at the top of this section. One's an old PD map that's a little hard to read, the other is clear and with lots of detail, but it's under copyright. BTW I added the map and fixed the anachronistic geography. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work Andrew! --MonkeeSage 23:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I will add Idumea and update the file tomorrow. I'll see what I can do about jurisdictions as well. As for the name, I believe most of the maps I referenced used the term Palestine. If the editors here want and can agree on another title, I'd be glad to change it, but I feel 'Holy Land' isn't exactly neutral either.--Andrew c 01:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we want to be historically accurate, we can just say "Iudaea Province and the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas." This would also match the revision I made to the article. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was and is "Israel" if any map is to be used. That said, there is a distinction between the modern state of Israel and the historic Land of Israel that Jesus lived in. —Aiden 22:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say that the quote from Galilee is highly POV.  The Isaiah quote is out of context, only one of a number of possible translations into English, and does not support the claim being asserted.  Likewise, the clause about Jesus is not only POV but likely violates NOR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  SL, friends, does anyone have a source for the perceived conflict? The Galilean Jesus book, as I recall, reports archaeological evidence that the Jews of Galilee were the direct decendants of Judeans that began resettlement at the time of the Maccabees. --CTSWyneken 11:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds about right to me. Of course, I could be wrong... Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 14:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I can only suspect that the edit was made by someone who wanted to distance Jesus from Jewishness - whether motivated by anti-Semitism or a naive anti-Judaism I cannot say.  But the quoted passage is just garbage.  First, it is wrong to oppose the Hellenistic from the Jewish.  Evidence does show that the galilee was Hellenized.  But so was Judea.  As Cohen makes very clear, based on excrutiatingly careful attention to documentary and archeological evidence, late Second Temple Judaism was permeated by Hellenism.  Cohen distinguishes between Hellenist and Hellenic, because Hellenistic refers to culture which is by definition independent of race or ethnicity.  Thus, one can draw a clear distinction between Greeks and Jews (as ethnic groups), but not between Hellenism and Judaism (not because they are the same, but because they intersect in a wide variety of ways).  Second, although there were many gentile settlements in the Galilee, according to the gospels Jesus preached and healed in Jewish settlements, not in gentile ones.  Third, there were significant differences between Judea and the Galilee, but not in any way that made Jews in the Galilee less Jewish.  To suggest that because Jesus was identified as being from Nazareth or the Galilee signifies that he or his disciples were ethnic foreigners is just wrong, wrong, wrong.  You know, just because we call it the Babylonian Talmud does not mean that we think it was written by "ethnic foreigners!" Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus Taught Here

message: Anyone know of a public domain map of the places Jesus is said to have preached to add to article - the ones I found were quite interesting, but not in public domain --JimWae 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would any of them qualify under fair use? :/ Homestarmy 21:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's © 2002 by the website. I suppose we could always email the webmaster to ask permission. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 01:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this along the lines of, "George Washinton Slept Here"? Jim62sch 17:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: JimWae had a valid point earlier. We need a map. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Good work. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Are there any major cities and places that are not included? Are there too many historic cities included that should be removed because Jesus didn't go there? Should I add in lines for historic roads between major cities? Also, one of my sources made a distinction between towns and Hellenized cities, should I do the same? Finally, should there be a line tracing Jesus' movement (Ehrman had a map of Asia Minor/Medeteranian that traced Paul's ministry according to acts/epistles)? (If the answer is yes to the last question, I'd need help in compiling the list of places and order).--Andrew c 23:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It shouldn't be too hard to add Idumea, the historic land of the Edomites. It was right to the south of Judea. Andrew, if you need a reference, check the links to the two maps we found at the top of this section. One's an old PD map that's a little hard to read, the other is clear and with lots of detail, but it's under copyright. BTW I added the map and fixed the anachronistic geography. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work Andrew! --MonkeeSage 23:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I will add Idumea and update the file tomorrow. I'll see what I can do about jurisdictions as well. As for the name, I believe most of the maps I referenced used the term Palestine. If the editors here want and can agree on another title, I'd be glad to change it, but I feel 'Holy Land' isn't exactly neutral either.--Andrew c 01:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we want to be historically accurate, we can just say "Iudaea Province and the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas." This would also match the revision I made to the article. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was and is "Israel" if any map is to be used. That said, there is a distinction between the modern state of Israel and the historic Land of Israel that Jesus lived in. —Aiden 22:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map to Jesus' favorite preaching spots

message: I've been saying for a while now that we should incorporate some historical details into the Life and Teachings/Biography section. Here's an example, from the Galilee article:
The ... Judeans considered the region to be lower than [the residents of] Samaria and therefore, morally, spiritually and physically "unclean". Isaiah 9:1 mentions it as "Galilee of the Gentiles," and in the New Testament, Jesus and his disciples were repeatedly known as from "Galilee of the Gentiles" or as "Galileans" or "Nazarenes" to emphasize that they were ethnic foreigners preaching to native Judeans.
Actually, the Galilee article may be POV, but still I think we should include something about the relationship between Judeans and Gailileans. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 05:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that the quote from Galilee is highly POV.  The Isaiah quote is out of context, only one of a number of possible translations into English, and does not support the claim being asserted.  Likewise, the clause about Jesus is not only POV but likely violates NOR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  SL, friends, does anyone have a source for the perceived conflict? The Galilean Jesus book, as I recall, reports archaeological evidence that the Jews of Galilee were the direct decendants of Judeans that began resettlement at the time of the Maccabees. --CTSWyneken 11:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds about right to me. Of course, I could be wrong... Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 14:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I can only suspect that the edit was made by someone who wanted to distance Jesus from Jewishness - whether motivated by anti-Semitism or a naive anti-Judaism I cannot say.  But the quoted passage is just garbage.  First, it is wrong to oppose the Hellenistic from the Jewish.  Evidence does show that the galilee was Hellenized.  But so was Judea.  As Cohen makes very clear, based on excrutiatingly careful attention to documentary and archeological evidence, late Second Temple Judaism was permeated by Hellenism.  Cohen distinguishes between Hellenist and Hellenic, because Hellenistic refers to culture which is by definition independent of race or ethnicity.  Thus, one can draw a clear distinction between Greeks and Jews (as ethnic groups), but not between Hellenism and Judaism (not because they are the same, but because they intersect in a wide variety of ways).  Second, although there were many gentile settlements in the Galilee, according to the gospels Jesus preached and healed in Jewish settlements, not in gentile ones.  Third, there were significant differences between Judea and the Galilee, but not in any way that made Jews in the Galilee less Jewish.  To suggest that because Jesus was identified as being from Nazareth or the Galilee signifies that he or his disciples were ethnic foreigners is just wrong, wrong, wrong.  You know, just because we call it the Babylonian Talmud does not mean that we think it was written by "ethnic foreigners!" Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Galilee

message: Congratulations, everyone, on a job well done.  Now we can all relax, and spend more time playing golf. Rick Norwood 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, in my case, sclicing it all to heck whilst trying to play golf. ;) --MonkeeSage 22:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im waiting for a Pizza :D. Homestarmy 23:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done, all. 

message: This is off-topic, but I thought I should let people know about it.
Wikipedia:Wikiethics
Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 00:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: People for the ethical treatment of Wikipedia

message: For some reason, there seems to be some feeling in favor of having Jesus Christ redirect to Christian views of Jesus, rather than to this article.  This seems deeply unhelpful to me.  The purpose of redirects is not to make sure people's sensibilities aren't offended, but to get people to the article they want to go to.  In the case of people typing in either Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth, by far the most likely article they're looking for is the main article on Jesus.  There is absolutely no reason to make it more difficult for them, and having the redirect can only be interpreted by the most absurdly sensitive person as some kind of statement by wikipedia that we believe that Jesus was the Messiah. john k 05:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I would object to *this* article being named "Jesus Christ" rather than "Jesus", I think that most people who enter "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus of Nazareth" in the search field are trying to reach this article, so the redirect to this article (Jesus) seems reasonable. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I was just following the lead of the German wikipedia, where "Jesus von Nazaret" is about historical takes on Jesus, and "Jesus Christus" is about theological takes on Jesus. Also, "Christ" is a title that only makes sense in the context of Christianity. Of course, this article is about both, ie, all relevant takes on Jesus. My redirects have been reverted, and I'm not going to press the matter. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 06:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it helps to know this, most of the encyclopedias I've consulted name the article "Jesus Christ." So the redirect, IMHO should point here. --CTSWyneken 11:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Christian views of Jesus article isn't even that great because alot of our energy is right here :/. Homestarmy 13:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, that article needs some work. I just get frustrated when people think that "Christ" is Jesus' last name or something. Nor does "Christ" exactly mean "Messiah"; I mean, it is the Greek translation of "Messiah," but it means everything Christians believe about Jesus: see Christology. For many of us, Jesus is the Messiah and more. I see no reason to fight over the "Jesus Christ" redirect; after all, no one seems to be fighting over the "Jesus of Nazareth" redirect. If the consensus is to leave it here, than leave it here.Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 15:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jesus Christ]] redirect