Talk:Historical background of the New Testament/Archive 2

message: Archive created for Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus - Amgine 00:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: To keep this easy to read, don't use this section to discuss anything except your objections to anything in the above "I intend to add " section please.  Stay civil.  Stay on topic. (only discuss Cultural and historical background of Jesus article here.
:I suggest rewriting this sentence, "If so (the article Historicity of Jesus covers these debates), then it is agreed by most Christians and by academics who hold this view that it is necessary to understand the 'cultural and historical background in which Jesus is thought to have lived." thus:
::Although many skeptics question whether Jesus ever existed (see Historicity of Jesus, those Christians and academics who accept his existence often seek to understand his life and teachings in terms of the cultural and historical background in which he lived.  Some scholars have argued that such an understanding suggests an account of Jesus' life that is different from that provided in the Gospels.
I believe the first sentence of my version keeps the substance of Grutter's, but is just a little smoother in style.  The second sentence is new -- but factually accurate and important. Slrubenstein
[moved according to section guidelines above Amgine 19:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There are at least 3 modern religions from the region, Mandaeanism being the third. I think the number should be removed and replaced with "sprang some modern religions such as ..." CheeseDreams 19:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  objections to content in the previous section 

message: Above, FT2 suggests:
:Originally the intent was to preach to the Jews. Some but not all requirements were removed, as it was felt that the new emphasis was on faith and not detailed laws. Thus there were 'Jewish Christians', Jews who believed in Christ Messiah. When the Jews as a community rejected this, the Christian message was taken to the gentiles instead. To make it palatable, and draw a line separating them from the Jews (who were by now becoming politically dangerous associates) many more of the restrictive laws were removed and the emphasis was shifted. The mesage that reached the gentiles was therefore a more universal one, in the sense that it was easier to digest, its appeal was more emotional than legalistic, and it did not contain many of the practices beliefs and rituals by which the Jews kept themselves separate from others.
I have a few problems with this paragraph.  First, I'd remove the word "intent" -- certainly Christian Jews preached in synagogues and elsewhere.  However, it is absolutely crucial to note that gentiles often attended synagogues -- some, perhaps, were considering conversion to Judaism; others may have liked Jewish services without wanting to become Jewish; others may have been merely curious.  The point is, in preaching to Jews Christians inevitably also preached to centiles at the same time. Slrubenstein
:Important points well expressed. FT2 19:23, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Second, it is not clear what Jews were rejecting.  It is not certain that, in the decades immediately following Jesus' death, his followers were preaching that he was divine, had been resurrected, and would return.  It is certainly very likely that those Christians who preached these ideas would have been rejected by Jews.  But there were probably other Christians who preached other ideas who might not have been rejected.  Also, some Christians may have preached Jesus' divinity and resurrection, but also reaffirmed the need to obey Jewish law.  It is possible that many Jews had no problem with that.  In any event, simply to say "Jews rejected Christianity" is too simplistic, and vague.Slrubenstein
:Likewise, thats actually subtle but very relevant!! How did I miss it! FT2 19:23, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Third, many historians -- Paula Fredrickson is the best example -- have argued that Jews would have rejected Christians preaching in synagobues for political and not theological reasons.  If Christians were preaching that Jesus was about to return and establish his kingdon, they were in effect preaching the end of Roman rule.  This was politically dangerous at this period, and intolerable after 70 CE.  Given that gentiles attended synagogues, Jews may have been scared that word would get back to Roman authorities.  These Jews would ban (or even, as Paul said, persecute) Christians not for theological reasons but for the political reason of desperately establishing themselves as loyal Romans.Slrubenstein
:Would need more different views or substantiation as it stands? No replies needed but worth checking - did they do this to other cults or groups? And granted the main point, wouldnt most Jews have just ignored or said "no thanks", rather than more extreme measures? Try this instead: 
:"The period AD 30 - AD 70 was a historically tense period in Roman Palestine. Jews were being torn between the demands of their religious loyalty and identity as Jews, and the political risks they as a group faced in being Roman citizens whose countrymen were formenting rebellion against the Empire. Some Jews may have been scared of the consequences of even a slight appearance of disloyalty, which hypothetically could have lead to groups that appeared to preach provocatively (such as Christians) being negatively perceived or even persecuted by some - less for theological reasons than for the sheer potential devastation and slaughter in human terms that renewed provocation could bring down upon them and their community." FT2 19:23, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
::I like this suggestion! Slrubenstein
Fourth, the claim that the new Christian message was made more "palatable" for gentiles by removing restrictive laws to make it easier to digest, is POV and has been questioned by historians.  It is POV because it represents a view that Christians (especially Protestants) have held about what makes them different from Jews -- not an objective analysis of the difference.  Berkeley professor Daniel Boyarin (who is Jewish) argues that in the Hellenic and Roman world many gentiles tearned to physically demanding, difficult, even painful rituals of new religions and that Jewish law -- even circumcision -- is not likely to have turned away people attracted to the new religion.  He argues that Pauline Christianity was a creative response to complex cultural and political dynamics in the Hellenic world.  What characterizes Pauline Christianity is its acceptance of One Universal Abstract God (taken from Jewish mythology), and claiming that access to this God would not be through flesh (Greek philosophers from Parmenides to Plato had argued that material forms are not "real" but deceptive) but rather through faith (something abstract and ideal). What made Pauline Christianity so appealing to gentiles was not that it was "easier" but rather that it made "more sense" in the Hellenic world.  Not obeying Jewish law was a byproduct of this philosophical argument. Slrubenstein
:I'd like to think about that. The last part makes sense. One main Hellenistic reason for disapproval of the jews was for sure that they did not admire the human form as Greeks did - athletics were naked, more traditional Jews saw this as verging between scandalous and immoral, more hellenised ones were quite interested, there was a bit of a mini-split with Jews taking both sides. But to the Greeks the circumcision was a wanton disfigurement of a divine form (see Circumcision) so much so that Jews competing in the Olympics would have likely had to have primitive surgery to reinstate a fake foreskin I believe, which of course would cut them off from their people. But yes, circumcision was a definite aesthetic issue to the Greeks, so the main line of reasoning looks plausible to me. 
:A lot more than circumcision was removed - huge parts of the entire old law were selectively ignored too (broadly if it was an Old testament item that predicted jesus or was easy to convey, it was valid, if it was a law that was troublesome it was set aside by the new covenant! Christianity is very ambivalent as regards the OT, on the one hand its gods word, on the other huge parts are selectively used and at other times not. Sorry!!!). Also mythology and a whole new theology was introduced which had been absent from Judaism, leading credence to the likelihood that it was reworked to suit a more hellenistic or pagan audience.
:So I'm pretty sure this change happened for some combination of these 4 motives: to make it easier to accept (or match gentile values), religious belief that these were not needed, to mark a divide from jews who had rejected the new beliefs, or anger at being rejected (to reject back). FT2 19:23, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
::You may be right.  However, I was not merely presenting my own views.  My understanding is that encyclopedia articles should represent the views of others, espcially scholars doing primary research in various fields.  I was summing up (very crudely) the argument of one major scholar.  I do not claim that he is right or that all scholars agree with him.  But he is a well-recognized and frequently published and cited scholar and who has researched these issues, and I think his view should be presented at least as one among many.  Paul called a lot of attention to circumcision.  Boyarin is not interested in why Greeks may not have wanted to be circumcised, but rather what metaphorical work Paul was doing in how he talked (or wrote) about circumcision.  Paul emphasize spirit over flesh, and Boyarin argues that for Jews circumcision is important because it marks a covenant of the flesh -- people who belong not because of their beliefs but because of something about their bodies (being descended from Abraham). Slrubenstein
:::Good point. I hope then that the above adds some other points of view on why that might have been, which can be worked in if appropriate. For sure, a key differentiator between Christianity and Judaism is that as you say, one emphasises the spirit over the flesh, salvation by faith over this world. The other focusses on how a person should live a holy life (life of sanctity, live properly) in this world alone. 
:::Tongue in cheek, so to speak (do not take this as too serious a point!!), Christians worried about heaven and hell, Jews worried about whether asking a strong and weak animal to plough together was a sin (of disrespect or abuse to animals). Christians worried whether Jesus was Son of Man or Son of God, Jews worried about how often a court might convict in a capital crime before it was doing wrong (one rabbi said a court that convicted once in 7 years should be described as "murderous", another disagreed saying once in 70 years was more than enough). FT2 00:04, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Jews (specifically, the Rabbis) rejected not only this turn away from Jewish law, but this turn away from cultural difference and multiculturalism -- Paul preached that in Christ there is no Jew and there is no Greek, but Jews wanted to hold onto their identity as unique.  That is, what Jews rejected was not merely a rejection of the law, but a rejection of Jewish identity Slrubenstein
:It would have been the Jewish law denial that was rejected more though, Jews have always been protective of their law as well as national identity. However in those times Jewish identity was a big issue because jews were drawing together and polarising into hellenised and jewish sides, so to speak, a sort of "for us or against us" from those who felt under threat from Rome. Christian jews who preached all sides were equal and you didnt need to believe in the laws and jesus (or paul) says you're saved if you believe in jesus and etc etc, would not have been kindly received most likely in that climate. Judaism's always been more focussed on this world than the next, and never more so than when its religion or identity is under perceived threat. Christians just weren't that big back then, in laymans terms my informal impression is it wouldnt be "you're changing us!", more "you're believing this new guy and you wanna go hug a roman, well, Im sorry, that sucks."
::This is certainly the views that Rabbis take.  Since the Rabbis are our main source of knowledge about the Pharisees, it seems that this is a view the Pharisees would have taken.  But is it a view most Jews would have taken during the first century?  It is difficult to say.  Boyarin points out that as the Mishnah was edited in 200, and the Talmud in 4-500, it is worth considering how Rabbis may have developed their attention to the law (and to bodies regulated by law) as a reaction to Christianity; that after the destruction of the Temple in 70 Pharisees and Christians -- both Jews -- were the two groups left competing for legitimacy.  Just as Christians may have argued against the Pharisees and many Christians may have strengthened those elements of Christian belief that served arguments against the Rabiis, so Rabis may have argued against Christians (though there is no record in the Mishnah, it seems reasonable that it happened) and many Rabbis may have strangthened those elements of Phariseic belief that served their arguments against Christians.  Whether I believe this or not, it is an argument made by a respected professor published by a university press. Slrubenstein
:::Seems unlikely (personal POV) for 2 main reasons. 1) christians went from a small band to how many in the period 30 - 100 AD? It cant have been enough to be a serious issue to the Jews. "Irritating that this new cult is trying to seduce our community away but not a huge deal", is my guess. Do we have numbers for the roman palestinian christian and jewish communities for 30 - 150 AD? 2) The other reason is, 50 - 80 AD the Jews went from "run up to rebellion" to war to decimation. I doubt they were doing any angling against christians in the period 30 - 100 AD. Before 50 AD or so there were too few christians to be more than a small cult, 50 - 80 AD they were being crucified and killed by warfare, 80 AD onwards they had been decimated and were probably in no shape to complain about anyone. besides Jews have rarely listened to rabbis (tongue in cheek). Given what we know of hellenistic and traditional Jews, and of writings by other sources, i think we can (POV) suspect that it was how most Jews would have seen it. Other views would be interesting.  FT2 00:04, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
::As you say, this is your personal POV.  ALthough I am sure it is shared by many, we are supposed to keep our own POVs and even our own original researchout of Wikipedia.  I am just summarizing an important scholar's view.  However, I think I didn't explain it clearly.  After 70 NO specific religious community or movement was very large -- neither the Christians nor the Pharisees.  But these were the only two groups within Judaism that presented a compelling vision of what to do next.  It would not surprise me that at the time they were competing (not competing for gentile converts but rather competing among the majority of Jews, who really weren't sure what to do after the Temple was destroyed) against one another.  By the way, most historians would say that all Jews at this time were "hellenistic;" there is no meaningful opposition between "hellenistic" and "traditional" as if there were two discreet groups.  For example, many of the Rabbis had Greek names. Slrubenstein
::By the way, let's be clear about one thing: no Jewish authority ever suggested that Gentiles should observe Jewish law (circumcision, kashrut, shabbat, etc.)  When Jesus was considered a universal savior (which probably didn't take too much time -- after all, Jews believed at the time that their God was a universal God, the God of all), and Christians began preaching to Gentiles, there is no reason to believe they would have even thought to suggest that Gentiles be circumcised or obey Jewish law.  I don't see how any Jewish Christian would have had a problem with circumcised Jews endeavoring to follow Jesus' teachings while uncircumcised Gentiles also endeavored to follow Jesus' teachings.  The debate was never whether Gentiles had to follow the law; the debate was whether Jews had to continue following the law.  Paul was arguing that since Jesus could save even the uncircumcized, Jews no longer had to be circumcized.  He further argued against Jewish circumcision because it suggested that the body was more important than the spirit. Slrubenstein
I find Boyarin's arguments compelling -- they are based on a close reading of historical texts from the Talmud ant the NT, as well as much comparative data from the Hellenic world.  I admit it is just one interpretation of events.  FT2 certainly has a right to keep his interpretation -- which, as best I can tell, comes from Luther.  All I ask is that if FT2 is committed to his interpretation, he attribute it correctly (if not to Luther than to whichever scholars are most closely identified with it), and allow room for other interpretations. Slrubenstein
:Its no specific christian or scholastic influence, its just a period that's always interests me. "Informed layman" mostly. For sure Ive never read Luther though, that I know. FT2 19:23, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me, I refused to comment on this section previously becuase it did not follow the consensus building guidelines outlined above, and presented only a single contributor's opinion which has been repeatedly unwilling to reach compromise. However, if this is being considered as a potential framework I would like to add my critiques:
:The period AD 30 - AD 70 was a historically tense period in Roman Palestine. Jews were being torn between the demands of their religious loyalty and identity as Jews, and the political risks they as a group faced in being Roman citizens whose countrymen were formenting rebellion against the Empire. Some Jews may have been scared of the consequences of even a slight appearance of disloyalty, which hypothetically could have lead to groups that appeared to preach provocatively (such as Christians) being negatively perceived or even persecuted by some - less for theological reasons than for the sheer potential devastation and slaughter in human terms that renewed provocation could bring down upon them and their community.
In what way does this paragraph directly relate to the "Culture and historical background of Jesus"? The primary topic of this paragraph is christian jews, necessarily post- the period of this article. - Amgine 20:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Changes to Protected Version: early relations between Jews and Christianity

message: Now, here is what I suggest for this part of the article:
:== Prophet, Healer, and Messiah ==
:The Gospel accounts of Jesus suggest that he combined many roles that were otherwise distinct and separate during the Second Temple period.  One was that of “prophet” – a person who, in the tradition of Isaiah and Jeremiah, claimed to speak with and for God.  Another was that of faith-healer and miracle worker, in the tradition of Elisha.  Another was “messiah.”
:The Hebrew word “messiah” means “anointed one” and was used to refer to High Priests and Kings, who were elevated to office by being anointed with oil.  The Mishnah, edited in 200 CE, uses the term mainly to refer to the High Priest.  Many Jews also used the term to refer to a descendent of King David who would restore God’s kingdom.  Thus, not all kings were considered messianic – the Hasmonean kings (162 BCE - 56 BCE) were not descended from David, and did not claim to have established God’s Kingdom.  After the Roman occupation and the fall of the Hasmoneans, many Jews hoped that the Romans would be replaced by a Jewish king.  However, Jews were divided over how this might occur.  Some, especially the Sicarii and the Zealots, believed that the kingdom should be restored immediately, through violent human action. Most Jews however believed that their history was governed by God, meaning that even the conquest of Judea by the Romans was a divine act. Therefore the Romans would be replaced by a Jewish king only through divine intervention; thus, the majority of Jews accepted Roman rule.  
:There is no record of an organized violent uprising against the Romans during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate.  Nevertheless, there is considerable evidence that many yearned for a messiah.  John the Baptist is one example (in the second century, a Gnostic group called Mandeans suggested that he was the messiah).  The hint in Matthew and Luke that Jesus was descended from David, that he was the “son of God” (a phrase which was used to signify a righteous person, and which had been applied to King David), and his preaching about the kingdom of God, suggests that Jesus or his followers believed him to be the Messiah.
If you have any objections to this, please tell me what they are.  I am happy to provide evidence/sources for any claim here. Slrubenstein
: My primary objection to this text is it discards the work of all previous contributors in favor of a text created exclusively by you which does not address the topics raised by other contributors. It does not include the elements of consensus which we have been working on, and includes elements which have been excluded by vote. See above summaries of votes.
: The text, repeated below, includes elements from your previous submissions as well as that of other contributors, and exists as a compromise covering topics which are in dispute. It has been regarded as reasonably NPOV, is readily understandable by non-academics, and is not complexly justified or overly precise as is appropriate for a non-scholarly work, which, in fact, is what articles in Wikipedia are supposed to be. - Amgine 22:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Amgine, I think your version is the best, and actually has the decency and lack of arrogance to consider the discussion here. CheeseDreams 12:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: (part 4)