Talk:Historical background of the New Testament/Archive 1

message: Archived from Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus - Amgine 20:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: The page has been referred to arbitration and RFC, is RFC still needed?  If so can someone summarise in a very few lines, what the key issue(s) are on which comments are sought. FT2 21:57, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
:(a) Should specific asides about things that happened to Jesus be included in a background article?
:*For - It is the background to Jesus (Slrubenstein's POV)
:*Against - The article also covers the background (by virtue of geographic location/ timeframe) for many other events and people such as John the Baptist, Hillel, and the Jewish Revolt (CheeseDreams' POV)
:(b) Should a section/paragraph/sentence about other groups who believed in (other) Messiahs at that time + place be included
:*For - These are one of the significant religious groups in the location at that time, and Jesus' actions/followers are comparable to them, thus they put Jesus' behaviour, and that of his followers, in context. (CheeseDream's POV)
:*Against - It is about Jesus' background not any other Messianic figure. (Slrubenstein's POV) 
::Note: I have no objection to a well-written well-researched paragraph on other messiaha -- my objection to the paragraph in question was not on principle, but on its specific lack of clarity and substance. Slrubenstein
:(c) Should we say that "Rabbinic Judaism" followed on from Phariseeism, or that "Later forms of Judaism" did?
:*Rabbinic - The Pharisees developed into Rabbinic Judaism (Slrubenstein's POV)
:*Later forms - The Pharisees were the only surviving religious group after the Jewish Rebellions, so all later forms must in some way derive from them, even if they later rejected it. (CheeseDream's POV)
::We have no absolute evidence for this.  Some claim that non-Phariseic elements that would later form Karaism survived.  Also, after the Jewish Rebellions, Jewish Christians -- who were definitely Jews, and definitely not Pharisees -- survived. Slrubenstein
:(d)Should the area be called "Palestine"?
:*For - it (being a Roman Province) is the only all-encompassing term referring to the area. The alternatives are a collection of names for different areas, which is unwieldy. (CheeseDream's POV). 
:*Against - Palestine refers to the modern day state of West Bank and Gaza. (Slrubenstein's POV)
::Not quite.  It was called Palestine a century after the rebellions too.  But at the time of Jesus, it was not called Palestine. Slrubenstein
:(e)Is the quote below NPOV
::According to most Christians, Jesus lived in the first century in Judea, and was, at least in part, shaped by the cultural and political forces active at that time
:*For - This sentance points out both what the timeframe is, and that there is use in the content of the article for understanding Jesus. Given the title of the article, this is appropriate. (CheeseDream's POV).
:*Against - The article should not open with a Christian POV. This article reflects the views of critical historians (Slrubenstein's POV)
:(f)Did the Jewish people in general consider pharisees living saints?
:*For - (do not know justification) (Slrubenstein's POV)
::No, I never made this claim and do not know where it comes from.  Why is this even here? Slrubenstein
:*Against - This seems like supposition, and there is no obvious evidence to suggest this is the case. (CheeseDream's POV)
:(g)Is the phrase Son of man necessarily apocalyptic?
:*For - (do not know justification) (Slrubenstein's POV)
::No, I never said it was necessarily apocalptic.  ChesseDream is right that it had other uses.  However, one of those uses was indeed apocalyptic. Slrubenstein
:*Against - see Son of man for other uses (CheeseDream's POV)
:(h)Should the introductory sentence qualify Jesus may not have been real?
:*For - this renders the sentence NPOV (CheeseDream's POV)
:*Against - (do not know justification) (Slrubenstein's POV)
::My position is that this article is meant to represent what most critical historians believe about Jesus.  Most of them believe he was real, although of course we can add that some do not. Slrubenstein
:(i)"at the time of Christ" or "this time"?
:*This time - NPOV because historicity is contested (CheeseDream's POV)
:*Time of Christ - (do not know justification) (Slrubenstein's POV)
::This article was the section on what historians believe about Jesus, in the Jesus article.  It was removed and made a separate "daughter" article only because the Jesus article was too long.  If this article is turned into something else (not specifically Jesus) then we simply have to create a new article, on historians' account of Jesus'life. Checke the history of hte Jesus article. Slrubenstein
:(j)Which of the following (A or B) is NPOV and accurate?
::*A Moreover, the followers of Jesus offered Gentiles a form of Judaism that emphasized the universal over the particular. When it became apparent that most of the Jews preferred Rabbinic Judaism (represented by the Pharisees), followers of Jesus turned primarily to Gentiles and emphasized universality even more. 
::*B Unlike the Pharisees, followers of Jesus were willing to seek to convert people, and it is thought by some scholars that, during this period of mixing, Christianity adopted more universal interpretations, distancing itself from Jewish thoughts. 
:*A : do not know justification) (Slrubenstein's POV)
::In part, Boyarin's A Radical Jew.  In part, books by other historians such as Fredriksen.  It is not based on any Church doctrine -- I wrote this after reading books by critical scholars (some of whome were Jewish, some of whom may be Christian, but all of whom identified their work as secular history).Slrubenstein
:*B : A is based entirely on a Church based interpretation of the birth of Christianity. History shows a more syncretistic and vague development. Therefore B is better. (CheeseDream's POV)
::The Pharisees sought converts, see Shaye Cohen's book on this period of Jewish history. Slrubenstein
CheeseDreams 23:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of Key Issues 

message: Yes (yes, but as relates to the cultural background of Jesus, this does relate to Jesus and fits with the intent that the article provide background about 'the world Jesus lived in' -- bearing in mind that this article, while not necessarily presupposing the actual existence of Jesus as a historical figure, and may very well be about a mythical Jesus, is about the world in which he lived, OR at least about the time in which he is traditionally said to exist.)and not necessarily a section, could be a mention in great detail or just a small phrase, as far as it relates to "Jesus' context" the article is not about jesus, or messiahs, or christianity though, it is about the context in which Jesus lived or is traditionally held to have lived.  
 
But for this article to work as NPOV there needs to be a special kind of disambiguation, along these lines:
this text:
"Jesus lived in the first century in Judea, and was, at least in part, shaped by the cultural and political forces active at that time." 
Should actually say something along the lines of: 
"Jesus is traditionally held to have lived in the first century in Judea. Without addressing Jesus existence as an actual historic figure, this article discusses the cultural and political forces active at that time.  see: Historicity of Jesus for information relating to the existence of Jesus as a historical figure.
after that, the writer and editor may presuppose the existence of Jesus, for the purposes of this article only without violating either NPOV policy or religious sensibilities.Pedant 01:23, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)
*Yes. This is as relevant as it gets. Put a section. Gadykozma 02:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For the discussion of whether a historicity disclaimer should be included, please see one of the other sections below - I had included mention of historicity, but Slrubenstein removed it CheeseDreams 08:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why did you delete it wholesale? CheeseDreams 21:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Although this isnt the place to discuss it, I think Pedant's disclaimer is a good solution to a few of the issues. However, I do consider that it needs tidying up a bit. CheeseDreams 13:34, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether we can state "Christians" as a disclaimer on "believed" is a subject discussed below. I would like to see it there. Others would not. CheeseDreams 08:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  (b) Should a section about other groups who believed in Messiah figures exist 

message: * Against. I don't see a justification for using Christian.  Historians with various religious backgrounds does support this also.  I propose Most historians as well as Christian here. Revth 01:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Pedant's statement is an acceptable alternative CheeseDreams 08:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  (e)Is the quote below NPOV 

message: Son of man is the main article for this question.  In Cultural and historical background of Jesus it need not be fully explained, as this is a complex issue that is worth its own article.  However, No, it is not necessarily so and this question and a mention of the fact that it's considered by some to be apocalyptic, and what is meant by apocalyptic in this sense, does have a place in the article.  
Just not the whole debate, that issue goes in Son of man, since the phrase is important enough to warrant its own article, being of cultural significance even to the present day.  Just enough to enhance the article, and tempt the reader to follow a link for more.  The best encyclopedias encourage the reader to explore related topics.  This is all the more true of the wikipedia, where following links is how we acquire new authors and editors.  Isn't that what brought you to this article in the first place?Pedant 02:33, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)
* At one point the text indicated that there was a difference of opinion on the matter, stating that the term had been used apocalyptically in Daniel. The term Son of man is used both apocalyptically (Daniel) and non-apocalyptically (Ezechiel). In the Gospels (Matthew and Mark, trial before the Sanhedrin) it is used once in connection with an apocalyptic quote from Daniel, indicating that at least two of the Gospel writers saw it that way. Mpolo 08:23, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
::Indeed, Mpolo and I came to a solution on this question. However, Slrubenstein unilaterally reverted it back, and it is currently missing from the article. CheeseDreams 08:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I never said it was necessarily apocalptic.  ChesseDream is right that it had other uses.  However, one of those uses was indeed apocalyptic. Slrubenstein
Well it wasn't there when you did some of your reverts. Anyway, I take it there is concensus to put back in Mpolo's replacement for the apocalyptic bit? CheeseDreams 21:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  (g)Is the phrase ''Son of man'' necessarily apocalyptic?