Talk:Historical background of the New Testament

message: The introductory sentence does not appear to represent the scope of the article. It states "This examination treats the New Testament as one of many documents, written and perhaps later edited by people who wanted others to believe as they did, which can be used to piece together a more complete and authentic understanding of the life and times of Jesus and the founding of Early Christianity."
Why exactly is it beginning with how it treats the NT documents when the article deals broadly with the cultural and historical background of Jesus rather than Jesus and the NT.
The first footnote to this lead sentence is also a bit worrying and clearly not NPOV.--Ari (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you are right.  I watch this page but do not follow every edit, I don'tknow when or who added that first line.  If you wish to rewrite the introduction, fel free!  Just so you know: this entire section used to be part of the Jesus article.  In addition to a section on the Gospec account of Jesus, there was a section on debates among historians about how to read the Gospels, and whether Jesus existed.  Then there was a section on how historians reconstruct the historical, or interpret the Gospel, Jesus, based on what they know about the historical and cultural context.  At some point someone decided (correctly) that the Jesus article was too long, and spun different sections into new articles.  That is how this article came to be.  It is not meant to be an article on Jewish history as such (though many editors have added a lot of content on Jewish history in general), it was meant to be an explanation of the historical view of institutions - the Davidic monarchy, the Temple, the Priesthood, the Saducees and Pharisees, and so on, that are all at play in the Gospels but providing the historian's understanding of these things and how knowing these things provides a historical context for reinterpreting Jesus.  You can see how the article occupies a delicate space.  Improvements are welcome! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Sentence 

message: Why, specifically, is there a POV tag on the page? What would it take to resolve the issue? Leadwind (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  I am waiting to hear from Ari. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If the tag doesn't represent a current dispute, I ought to remove it. Ari? Leadwind (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag? 

message: This is a great article, but the wording lacks the clarity needed for an encyclopedia article. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest problem is the lack of inline citations.  Virtually everything about the Jews, especially the Rabbis and Pharisees, comes from the Neusner or Cohen or Schwarz sources.  Virtually everything on Jesus, including his relation to Jewish institutions, comes from Vermes or Fredricksen.  They are in the works cited, but this article would be stronger if someone could go back and find the appropriate citations from these four or five principle (and respected) sources. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

text: It has also historically been plaqued by people removing information about Jewish history, claiming it belonged in a Jewish history rather than jesus article,  I do not know how to word it, but the introduction should simply list the Jewish institutions that are prominent in the Gospels - the Law (and tnhus the scribes and Pharisees); the Davidic Monarchy; the Temple (and thus the Saducees and Essenes) and then explain how the first half of the article explains where these institutions or groups came from and how and why, based on Jewish sources rather than the Gospel, on order to provide an independent bais for interpreting elements of the Gospel (like, "son of God" and "Messiah" and what the Pharisees really believed."  This requires some finesse and i cannot see how to do it but it is the rationale for the whole thing. 20:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Really this article is not, nor is it intended to be about Jesus. From the beginning, it has been an article about the Cultural and Historical Context within which Jesus lived -- or did not live -- without regard to whether Jesus existed as an actual historical figure. so to some extent, any information about Jesus or his teachings or early Christianity strays from the topic somewhat. User:Pedant 24.24.151.13 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

text: A good deal of the contents of this article used to be in the Jesus article (ditto most of the other articles dab mentions).  I do not remember who it was that spun them off into content forks (wasn't me).  Content forks are fine when each article can stand on its own, and they are often necessary when one article gets to be too long (which some argued was what was happening at the Jesus article - my own view is, WP is not paper).  I do not recall a discussion, when the various new articles were created and materials spun off.  That is a shame.  dab is right that there is not enough rhyme or reason regarding all the many articles regarding Jesus, but what is needed is a discussion of various possibilities and some real consensus before some are deleted, others merged or renamed, and new ones created ... Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: I suggest removal to Cultural and historical background of New Testament, because we need a background for John the Baptist and other New Testament figures also. Or maybe just Historical background of New Testament, which implies social-political-cultural and other backgrounds also.--Mladifilozof (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct English would be: "Historical background of the New Testament". 75.0.10.234 (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  page removal 

message: This article is not as bad as many other articles floating around. Generally well written, but most sections are source free. It really needs sources... History2007 (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Not bad, but really unsourced

message: James Dunn, and Bart Ehrman have taken the position that since the Oral Tradition was reliable, then the Synoptic Gospels (which were based on the oral tradition) are accurate. Then "Jesus did exist" and we have an historically "accurate picture" of this Jewish Rabbi from the line of Judah. Dunn 2013 p 360,  Casey 2010 p 12 &  Ehrman 2012 p 22, p 25, & p 21 p 117
This will result in a number of articles being updated.  Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Oral Gospel tradition]]

message: I believe this article is neutral. I do not believe there are any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. I just believe this article is trying to inform us and persuade us at the same time that this information written is true. Jessica nakkoul (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluating