Talk:Historical background of the New Testament/Archive 15

message: An expansive topic such as this should stick to the subject (Jesus) and breeze over Jesus' ancient history. That context is best left to specialized articles which should be references by a main article tag under each section header. 
After a scan, it seems the most important omission in article is the neglect of any Zoroastrian influence from the Persian period. (Note, even the monotheism article buries Zoroastrianism, instead featuring the Abrahamic family). -Ste|vertigo 22:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right.  I will look for some references.  That said, the amount of space currently dedicated to the influence of Babylonian culture is so short, that the tag is excessive.  A link to Zoroastrianism of course is needed and i put it in. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: As I take a quick look at the article as a whole, all but the last section(s) apply to the views of almost all of the scholarly community. We cite Sanders a lot, but others, like Paul L. Maier, N. T. Wright, D. A. Carson from the traditional side, Elaine Pagels, Paula Fredriksen, John Dominic Crossan, from the critical side and other specialists would help.
We also should avoid terms like "most" scholars, which is hard to determine. (has anyone take a census of Ph. D.s in Biblical Studies?) If there is any slant it is in that direction. I still do not sense a slant in favor of or against Christianity. --CTSWyneken 17:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CTSW, I know Maier is well respected, as is Pagels - although i thought Pagles' specialization was post-Jesus early Christianity and not historiography of Jesus himself.  I don't know Wright and Carson.  But that isn't my piont, rather, I'd like to invite you to incorporate their views into the article.  In other words, the point is not that some scholars say the Gospels are reliable, others say it isn't, as if it is two distinct groups.  My sense is there are a number of scholars who represent a diverse number of views and they exist along a continuum of positions concerning what sources are relevant and how reliable they are.  If you are willing to contribute to this article, my advice - really, my request - is that you do two things (1) build on the historical context i.e. what the article says about what "temple," "king," "priest," "prophet," "messiah," "Pharisees," "Sadducees," Zealots," and "Essenes" and show to what extent and in what ways the scholars you name (who are currently not represented in the article) draws on these words and their meanings to Jews in their attempts to reconstruct Jesus' life and (2) help develop the scholarly context, that is, help develop the account of a conversation between Sanders, Vermes, and others - Fredricksen, Maier, I assume Wright, Carson, Crossan - in which they are responding to one another - sometimes suggesting alternative answers to the same question, other times raising other questions.  I mean to say, instead of just saying there are two camps of scholars divided on one question, let's instead focus on the actual arguments, reasoning, evidence people are using.  One caveat - I still believe that this article should reflect historical scholarship, not the work of clergy or theologians (I am not suggesting a member of the clergy or a theologican cannot be an historian - only that there are people who are clergy and theologians but who bracket those vocations in their work as historians.  I am sure someone can be an ordained and pious priest and still write history using the same methods and assumptions as other - non Christian, even atheist - historians, and that work belongs in this article as much as say Fredricksen's).  I hope this makes sense, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! I'll likely contribute, when time permits. You are correct that a range of opinions are involved. My observations is in that most of the article says, there is wider consensus than the critical schools of thought. I think we do our readers better service if we focus simply on the cultures of first century Palestine. On Pagels, I mentioned her more in terms of the school of thought she represents than what her work specifically contributes here. Where she might come in would be on side of hellenistic culture, esp. Gnostic movements. More later. It's busy in real life. --CTSWyneken 11:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Critical Scholars"? 

message: Current wording:
:"However, there are people who question whether Jesus even existed (see Historicity of Jesus for an account of this debate), and others (including critical Bible scholars and historians) who agree that Jesus lived, but reject the Gospels as a literal account of his life. The latter accept the Gospels as historical sources, but critique them as they would any other historical source."
Possible alternative wording:
:"However,  there are people who question whether Jesus even existed (see Historicity of Jesus for an account of this debate), and others who agree that Jesus lived, but reject the Gospels as a literal account of his life.  The latter includes critical Bible scholars and historians, who accept the Gospels as historical sources, but critique them as they would any other historical source."
The latter avoids repeated brackets in one sentence and also seems to make more sense and flow a bit smoother. Comments? FT2 (Talk) 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Finally, still other scholars** find the Gospels to be reliable historical sources." --CTSWyneken 18:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * REF: Paul L. Maier, N. T. Wright, D. A. Carson, for example
Edited (and above cleaned up to remove confusing section line now it's done). FT2 (Talk) 13:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor wording tweak, views?