Talk:Persecution of Christians in the New Testament/Archive 1

message: Humus sapiens, you wrote "if the article is to stay, we need to emphasize who were the real victims of crusades, expulsions, burnings, forced conversions, ghettos, etc. - all in the name of the alleged "Jewish persecutions of Christians" and other antisemitic canards".  I think this summarizes your agenda.
Perhaps you believe the NT accounts of Jewish persecution of Christians are ahistorical.  However, I think you should be less concerned about their historicity and more concerned about the fact that those accounts were used to justify Christian antisemitism.  In this, you and I are in agreement.  I don't think  you have to assert the ahistoricity of the NT accounts in order to make the point about "the real victims".  Using the "expulsions of Germans" as an analogy, there were Nazi collaborators of German descent in Poland who did some pretty evil things.  Some argue that this collaboration justified the expulsion of the vast majority of Germans from Poland.  Others argue that it did not.  At the end of the day, it is not so important whether there were collaborators (there were) or how many there were.  What is important is that the fact of the collaboration was used as a justification for collective punishment.
I agree with the conclusion "we need to emphasize who were the real victims of crusades, expulsions, burnings, forced conversions, ghettos, etc. - all in the name of the alleged "Jewish persecutions of Christians" and other antisemitic canards" but not the syllogism "if A then B".  That is, I am all in favor of focusing on Christian antisemitism but I don't think this article is the place to focus on it nor do I think that a full treatment of Christian antisemitism is a necessary condition for this article "to stay".  
I am happy to make references in this article to Christian antisemitism and to make the linkage for the reader establishing the important role that the NT accounts play in the history of antisemitism.
However, the treatment that you wish belongs in Christianity and antisemitism, not here.  (Note: I have contributed somewhat to Christianity and antisemitism and I think that is an important article so this argument is not an effort to shunt your views aside.)
I will comment that my Googling shows that most discussions of Christianity and antisemitism focus more on either the charge of deicide (the Jews killed Jesus) or the Gospel narratives in which Jesus castigates the Pharisees.  AFAICT, the alleged persecution of Christians are not the primary focus of scholars who are analyzing the scriptural foundations of antisemitism.  I conclude this because most of the articles that I read focus on the Gospel narratives rather than the narrative of Acts.
I will also note that, while deicide is mentioned in the Antisemitic canards article, Jewish persecution of Christians is not.  Perhaps you will think this is a deficiency of that article and will attempt to repair it.  Before you do, consider that your perspective may be a minority view.  In that article, an antisemitic canard is defined as "a deliberately false story inciting antisemitism".  We are agreed that Jewish persecution of early Christians was used to incite antisemitism and that it should not have been so used.  Where we disagree is whether the story is false.
--Richard 16:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make many good points, Richard. As I said above, our article should reflect mainstream scholarship basing on reliable sources, not our personal POVs. Seeing that I am in a minority here and that the discussion got a bit too hot for my taste, I'll try to stay away from it for awhile, in hope it would cool down the discussion and improve the article. Speaking of the charge of deicide, it seems to be the ultimate accusation of "Persecution of early Christians by the Jews". ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being raised in the Christian faith and researching various Protestant faiths along the years, at no time did the concept of deicide ever come up. I was never taught to hate Jews or the Jewish faith or find any faith that advocated hating Jews or suggesting that Jews engaged in deicide. On the contrary, I was taught to love the Jews because salvation comes through them. How can you hate a group of people who are a conduit for your own salvation? I've read the NT countless times and at no time did I ever think, "Man, those damn Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus or God". The very notion is not only alien but utterly absurd. That's not to say that there aren't Christians who dislike Jews and Jews who dislike Christians, but neither I or anyone that I knew or know personally was ever part of that mind-set. I grew up in NYC where Jewish holidays closed down businesses and schools. As a kid, what better thing is there when your school gets closed for the day?!! Thank God for Jewish holidays!! I remember when I was 9 years old and gave all my allowance money to help Israeli's after the 1973 war and in 1982, when I wanted to join the IDF (yeah, I know some of you have heard me say this before, but I like repeating myself). When I look at a subject like this, my interest is not blame or hate, it's simple history. As someone who believes that both the OT and the NT are historical, this event happened just as is related in the NT and just as the Exodus is related in the OT. So let's get on with the task of recording this info in this article and relegate criticism of this event in history to very specific and limited listings. The criticisms must come from WP:RS and give reasons for the criticism. We don't want to see a source that says, "Christians were never persecuted by the Jews and what I say is fact". We should want to see, "Christians were never persecuted by the Jews because [this source] and [this source] suggest [this]. We should see WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR adhered to by the author(s). As a side note, let me thank Richard, 75.0.9.251, and the various other anon people (why are you guys anon anyway?) who have contributed substantially to this article. Jtpaladin 18:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historicity of the NT account as distinct from its role in Christian antisemitism

message: I created this article along with its sister article Persecution of early Christians by the Romans by extracting text from Persecution of early Christians which I had created earlier by extracting text from Persecution of Christians.
The major reason for this series of article creations is that I wanted a target for a  link in the History of Christianity article.  It was too unwieldy to point from the "Persecution of early Christians" section of History of Christianity to Persecution of Christians.  Eventually, I found that even Persecution of early Christians was putting two dissimilar topics (i.e. by the Jews and by the Romans) together so I split it up.
I understand the reasoning behind Chabuk's proposal to eliminate the word "the".  In general, it is true that "the XYZ people" never do anything.  Only specific individuals who happen to be from the XYZ people do things.
However, in this case, I would suggest that there is a good reason to leave the word "the" in the title and it is quite simply this: the phrase "the Jews" is precisely the wording that has been used historically to describe this series of alleged persecutions and it was used intentionally to attack the entire Jewish nation/culture as not having followed God's will.  Christianity has defined itself in contrast to the Jewish religion from which it originated and has in both the past and the present tagged "the Jews" with responsibility for rejecting the message of the Messiah.
For us now to sanitize the charge by dropping the word "the" is to begin the process of defusing the charge.  IMO, it is not Wikipedia's place to do this.  Although it is the right thing to do "in the real world", it is also POV and thus inappropriate.  We are saying that the vast majority of Christianity is wrong and that the minority viewpoint which is emerging is right.  This means we are taking sides in a dispute.  It is my intent that this article should describe the charge exactly as it has been formulated historically along with any evidence that the charge was inaccurate.
The charge has never been that "some Jews" persecuted some Christians. It has always been that there was a deliberate effort by Jewish synagogues to persecute Christ-following Jews and evict them from the synagogues.  Thus, Persecution of early Christians by the Jewish hierarchy or Persecution of early Christians by Jewish religious leaders would be more accurate titles.  However, I prefer Persecution of early Christians by the Jews because it more closely matches the phrasing that has been used historically in Christian sermons and apologetics.
--Richard 07:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard, I'm just starting to look over this article and talk page, and am sort of starting from the bottom up.  I understand, but disagree with, your rationale for the article title.  I would actually go with Jewish persecution of early Christians for a couple of reasons.  (a) It is slightly less unwieldy and clunky, which gets points in my book.  (b) While the charge weighed by early Christians was about institutional persecution by "the Jews", this quite likely reflected more localized situations - i.e., in a given area there may have been that sort of persecution, but in another it may not have existed at all; and the negative situation is the notable case that is preserved in the historical record.  (c) I remain unconvinced by the argument that we have to use the exact phrasing as they did in order to preserve the historical accuracy of our account - indeed (forgive me as me Greek is getting rusty), but wouldn't our title then have be "Persecution of the Christians by the Jews", based on the koine Greek use of the definite pronoun?  Anyway, that's my two cents on this little tidbit of the conversation.  Back for more later, as I'm catching up after not really being online regularly for almost 2 weeks.  Pastordavid 03:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's try to come up with a neutral title like Christianity and antisemitism. Lest we forget the results of 2000 years of painting "the Jews" as Christ-killers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jewish persecution of early Christians is an appropriately neutral title, in my opinion.--C.Logan 21:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That (as the current title) would imply that Jews indeed persecuted early Christians. I find it ironic that this is offered while we don't have an article titled Christian antisemitism (it is a redir to neutral title Christianity and antisemitism). Please consider something along the lines of Allegations of Jewish persecution of early Christians. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be NPOV to mince and mix the title to cater to any group, Jews included. Why not, in the same vein, re-name everything as an 'alleged' occurrence? "Allegations of Christian antisemitism", or even "The alleged Holocaust". The title only needs to say so much; the article does the rest. If an individual is going to be thoroughly offended by an article which deals with "persecution of early Christians" from "Jewish sources" without taking the text within into consideration, the problem is their own, not Wikipedia's. Even concerning that title, how much more must we vanillafy things? The Jews of today are as far removed from the Jews of that time as the Italians are from the Romans who similarly persecuted Christians. --C.Logan 22:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You won't find a serious historian denying the Holocaust. Let's keep in mind that whether the NT allegations against "the Jews" were real or not, the real victims of those accusations were countless Jews in the last 2 millennia. Unfortunately, even today there are plenty of those actively seeking to promote antisemitism, and this article is in real danger to become just another tool for that. Please don't make it difficult to assume good faith. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Descriptive names: "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." We can have a neutral title Allegations of Jewish persecution of early Christians and Jewish persecution of early Christians as a redir if you prefer. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (a) Godwin's law.  Let's leave the Holocaust/Shoah out of our considerations here, its not a helpful line of conversation.  (b) There are reliable sources that take the primary material that we have discussed, and come to the conclusion that, in approximately the years 50-150, there was considerable persecution of the Christian community by the Jewish community.  (c) No one, as far as can tell, is attempting to whitewash, defend, or provide a rationale for the history of Christian persecution of Jews.  The editors that I have seen commenting here are merely trying to provide an accurate historical description of events in the early years of Christianity.  Please try to not assume the worst about the motivations of others.  Pastordavid 14:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think Humus sapiens is "assuming the worst about the motivations of others".  My sense of it is that he just sees things differently and is perhaps more passionate (and yes, a bit self-righteous) about it than some of us. --Richard 15:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Richard, why don't you wait on title changes until we can get concerns about the article's existence settled? That's like fighting over who gets to be captain of the Titanic after it hits the iceberg. Humus appears to be objecting to the entire article, so a title change at this point does absolutely nothing. I think perhaps a call for a preliminary consensus is in order at this point. It's absurd that we are spending this much energy without getting consensus on the existence of the article. Jtpaladin 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My rationale for using "the Jews" in the title of this article

message: There seems to be an emerging consensus that "Jewish persecution of early Christians" is a better title for this article than "Persecution of early Christians by the Jews".  I propose to change the title of this article and its sister article Persecution of early Christians by the Romans.
I acknowledge that Humus sapiens does not believe that this title change will address the NPOV issues that he sees with the title.  Nonetheless, I am assuming that he will see the new title to be no worse and perhaps even an improvement on the current title.
Thus, I propose that we change the titles immediately and continue to discuss possible alternatives to address Humus sapiens concerns.
If no one objects, I will rename both articles in the next day or two.
--Richard 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard, why don't you wait on title changes until we can get concerns about the article's existence settled? That's like fighting over who gets to be captain of the Titanic after it hits the iceberg. Humus appears to be objecting to the entire article, so a title change at this point does absolutely nothing. I think perhaps a call for a preliminary consensus is in order at this point. It's absurd that we are spending this much energy without getting consensus on the existence of the article. Jtpaladin 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose title change to [[Jewish persecution of early Christians]]

message: There are at least three ways to view these events.  Let "a=Persecution of Christians by some Jews; A=Institutional persecution of Christians by Jews; let B=Christian persecution of Jews
First, the perspective that we all reject: The Jews persecuted the Christians and this justifies 2000 years of Christian anti-semitism.  This is "A happened AND A justifies B".
Second, the perspective that is, I believe, the mainstream position: Some Jews persecuted the Christians.  Enough so that the Christians viewed this or, at least, cast this as an institutional rejection of Christianity (culminating the hypothesized Council of Jamnia).  The polemic and conflict arising out of this sectarian conflict colored Christian attitudes, policies and behavior towards Jews for the next 2000 years.  This anti-Semitism is rooted in the original conflict between Jews and Christians during the formative years of early Christianity.  However, most people today reject the notion of the events providing any legitimate justification for anti-Semitism.  This is "A happened; A was used to justify B BUT many people argue A does not justify B".
Third, the perspective that some liberal theologians are pushing: The NT account is ahistorical because there is no corroborating evidence outside the New Testament or the writings of the church fathers.  (Note:  Forgive me if I am overstating the position.)  According to this perspective, the persecutions either never happened or were exaggerated by either the NT authors or later interpreters of the NT authors.  For example, it is possible that the incidents in the NT represent isolated incidents and do not represent an institutional policy.  Later events (post Bar Kokhba) may have led to a re-interpretation of the isolated events into a perception of institutional policy.  This is "A never happened; a happened; A was used to justify B BUT many people argue A does not justify B".
I believe that all of these perspectives (yes, even the first one) should be presented in the article.  We should give "due weight" to each perspective citing sources who support each view. 
Finally, I think that we are agreed that we should not say "Jews persecuted the Christians" but rather "According to the NT, Jews persecuted the Christians".  If this formulation were used uniformly throughout the article, would there still be a dispute over factual accuracy? --Richard 15:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy

message: Please leave the totally disputed tag on the article.  Whether or not you agree with the rationale of those involved in the discussion here, the fact is that this conversation is evidence that the article is disputed.  Removing it does nothing to help us move toward consensus on the talk page.  Pastordavid 14:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed tag 

message: Is there consensus that this article (under whatever name), ought to be kept.  That is, is there sufficient material from reliable sources to support an article on this topic? Pastordavid 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the voting is over and done with... although I'm not aware if there is an intention to leave this 'open to the addition' of further votes and comments.--C.Logan 10:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. I did not expect this to be a full AfD, but if that is what is desired it could be helpful.  Pastordavid 22:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Step 1 

message: * Disagree - Only major source is the Christian Bible and Gospels. Sources which, by definition, are biased. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 22:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the voting is over and done with... although I'm not aware if there is an intention to leave this 'open to the addition' of further votes and comments.--C.Logan 10:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''No'''

message: * Agreed. --Jtpaladin 18:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Yes'''

message: Just to be clear, a 4-2 consensus is a very "thin" consensus.  I think we can presume that Pastordavid would !vote in favor of keeping the article but even then, it is only a 5-2 consensus.  A truer consensus would be developed by a more widely advertised AFD debate.  If either Chabuk or Humus sapiens feel passionately that this article should not exist, then they may wish to submit this article to AFD and advertise it on Talk:Christianity and Talk:Antisemitism among others.
:Indeed. I did not expect this to be a full AfD, but if that is what is desired it could be helpful.  Pastordavid 22:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment about the "consensus" to keep"

message: The next logical step seems to me to be deciding on the scope of the article.  I hope that those of you who did not want to keep the article will continue to particpate in the discussion, as this article needs your input.  I am going to list my suggested scope below -- please add another suggestion if you have improvements.  Pastordavid 21:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Step 2:Scope

message: * That the article deal with persecution of Christians in two periods: 30-70c.e., and 70-150c.e.
* That the article be heavier on secondary and tertiary sources than primary sources.
* That there be a section (as there is now) dealing with modern scepticism about these accounts.
* That there be a section on how these accounts were retold as if they were contemporary events during the middle ages (and beyond) to justify antisemitism.
#Support --Richard 22:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion 1

message: The article on Pauline Christianity asserts that the term is "is an expression which has been used, by those critical of Catholic, Orthodox and traditional Protestant Christianity, to describe what is regarded as a distortion of the original teachings of Jesus due to the influence of St. Paul."
It should be clear that the Pauline Christianity article is not a natural follow-on to the section in this article about persecution of Christians as recorded in the "Acts of the Apostles".  For this reason, I have removed the "see also" link to Pauline Christianity.
Perhaps Paul the Apostle or Pauline epistles would be a more appropriate link.  Anybody have an opinion as to what would be the best choice?
--Richard 02:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that not only was Paul persecuted by "the Jews", but by Jewish Christians as well. I've updated the article a bit, see what you think. 68.123.64.142 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of link to [[Pauline Christianity]] 

message: I restored the sequence. Please stop moving them around, at least without discussion. I don't think it is fair to start by quoting NT stories without giving historical context and describing their historicity by academic sources. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Humus, why is the criticism of this article the first to be analyzed? I don't know of any other article that starts off with heaps of criticism before discussing the premise of the article first. I disagree with your arrangement. Ordinarily I would do a revert but I have great respect for your opinion. Can you please explain? Jtpaladin 12:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I think that relevant and notable scholarly sources describing historical context should go first. Instead of setting the historical scene first, we drown the reader with minute details. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Humus, thank you for the response. I would find myself agreeing with you if perhaps you can provide a similar article that places criticism before the relevant details of the subject. This goes back to WP:MOS. As always, thank you for taking the time to address this with me. Best Regards. Jtpaladin 21:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving sections around 

message: Guys, you are making valuable additions to this article and yet you remain anon. Please create user accounts so we can address you properly. Thank you. Jtpaladin 13:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention "Anon" editors 

message: *Support Present the topic first and then criticize it --Richard 18:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't you think 2,000 years of "Christian love" towards Jews warrant some caution? ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Humus, we're talking about a very small part of history. We're not discussing violence between Jewish and Christian communities of later years. You sound like you're mocking the article because Christians should not complain about this period of time since other people who called themselves Christians engaged in hostilities against members of the Jewish community in later years. Regardless of your feelings of these historical issues, we both know that WP:MOS states that criticism goes later into the article and not at the beginning. Jtpaladin 13:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism concerning the historicity of the account should be presented, but after the presentation of the account itself. It is a seemingly neutral order of 'statement-->response'; the text is not telling individuals to react in a negative manner towards Jews, and it merely presents a (supposedly) historical account, so I'm uncertain what the concern is for such caution. If a reader is really going to tend to view things through anti-semitic lenses, then the order of the article is not going to sway their interpretation, unfortunately enough.--C.Logan 12:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Page after page of retelling the NT stories is hardly "presenting the topic", it is rather intentional drowning the reader with minutiae. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll buy that.  I do think the section is too long and that we don't need to retell the NT stories but rather summarize them.  Two to three paragraphs max ought to do it.  Anyone want to take a whack at doing this? --Richard 02:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Richard, the only thing I want to see are all the appropriate references that are made in the NT and other historical sources, including observations by non-Christians and Church Fathers. I don't care how long the article gets, that until this is all documented, we should not cease providing every verifiable source. Jtpaladin 13:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: * Oppose - I tend to think that relevant and notable scholarly sources describing historical context should go first. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: This article really was a mess.  And, despite my efforts to re-organize it, it still needs a lot of work.
Please give the entire article another read with "fresh eyes".  Hopefully, my recent re-organization has improved it.  Let me know if the story is now told better with this flow and give me feedback on what we need to do next.
I have introduced relatively long quotes from Paul H. Jones FROM INTRA-JEWISH POLEMICS TO PERSECUTION: THE CHRISTIAN FORMATION OF THE JEW AS RELIGIOUS OTHER.  These points should probably be summarized and integrated with the other text rather than quoted but I don't have time to do that so I just quoted him for the time being.
--Richard 15:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a mess!