Talk:Historical background of the New Testament/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Suggestions for next set of revisions

Sooner or later the article will be unblocked. Here are some suggestions for the next round of revisions. SOme are my own, others come out of others' comments on the talk-page.. Slrubenstein

Didn't you think CheeseDreams summarised the above satisfactorially? (copied below) Tigermoon 12:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it should be summarized, which is why I wrote "summarized prematurely." These comments are not about what has happened, but what should happen. Slrubenstein

Format:

• 2.4.1 is misnamed. I suggest renaming it to "Kings, Procurators, and the Sanhedron" OR "Local Governance under Roman Occupation"
• 2.5, on the Sicarii etc, should be made 2.4.4
• 2.5.1, on Jesus in this context, should be simply 2.5

Content: People have raised issues about the introductory paragraph. I still think FT2's is poorly written, but he was right to raise other issues in that section. I suggest that we revise this to introduce people to the historiography of the period. First, be clear that the Gospels are the major textual source for information about Jesus. This should help clear up NPOV issues because there is no endorsement of the theological status or claims of the Gospels, only recognition that they are an historical source of central importance to historians researching Jesus and the first century. Second, a clearer explanation of how historians (as opposed to theologians or clergy or religious people) read historical texts critically. Third, an explanation of how historians go outside of a text to look at its context, which means looking at other historical sources and archeological evidence.Slrubenstein

If you are going to distinguish between historians and religious people and discuss their methods, you should specify what sort of historians you mean. On the one hand, a number of religious people employ the same historical methods to which you seem to be referring; on the other hand, some historians don't, including just about all historians before the Enlightenment and probably some other historians today. Wesley 20:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I mean historians using critical methods. By the way, such historians may be religious -- they just exclude religious claims from their historical research. Crossan may be such an example. Slrubenstein

People have raised questions about the amount of historical content, and continuity. I too share concerns about excess, although sometimes this is in the service of accuracy. That said, I think that there could be a better transition between the first temple and second temple periods. This transition should stress one important continuity: in both, the Temple and the Law were important institutions. This continuity is an important issue because the status of the law and of the Temple were central issues for Rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity; Jesus was read as having taken certain stands on these institutions; we need a general context for understanding what kinds of stands Jesus was likely to have taken and what their significance would have been. It should also stress a discontinuity in "legitimation" -- in the Second Temple period there were questions about the legitimacy of the Temple, and, the Torah having been redacted, the Law emerged as an increasingly important institution (which again had consequences during Jesus' time)Slrubenstein

There can be more discussion of Herod's reign (including how it got started, with a reference to Antipater). But I think we need to connect this to bigger issues at the time, especially how Herod was an Idumean but also Jewish, in other words, there was a reworking of "Jewish" Identity during the Hellenistic period.Slrubenstein

Some people still seem confused about the different movements at the time. We can be clearer that the Pharisees developed during the Hasmonean period. I think we need to add more information about the so-called "Fourth movement," the Sicarii.Slrubenstein

Adding more information about the Sicarii (and Zealots) will address another misconception, that the major conflict was between Jews seeking political independence and religious freedom, and Romans. This was indeed one issue, but the Great Revolt (and thus, tensions throughout the first century) were between poor Jewish peasants and rich Jewish elites. The primary target of the Sicarii were Jewish elites, not Romans. They had an anarchic philosophy that rejected Roman rule but that also rejected Jewish government as well.Slrubenstein

The above sections call attention to various religio-political movements at the time of Jesus. I think another section providing more basic information on the economy of Judea and the Galilee, the degree of class inequalities, and maybe something on taxationl, would also help. This should come before or after sections 2.4.1-4

The account of Jesus in this context is currently synthetic and I believe a very reasonable summary of what most historians would agree to. Nevertheless, I think we can now incorporate more specific material on debates/different views among historians, specifically: Brandon's view of Jesus as a political revolutionary; Smith's view of Jesus as a magician; Vermes' view of Jesus as a Galilean charismatic; Sanders' view of Jesus as an eschatological prophet. Slrubenstein

Meta-issues: What is the article about?

Issues seem to be - yes the gospels are the main source about Jesus. Thats needed to be stated in the intro. But Jesus is not the main source of this article, and thats important. Neither the history, nor the culture, is predicated upon Jesus, and that is a central issue for this article. Even matters impinging upon jesus and the Jews or Christians are not predicated upon the Gospels, but are generally available from non-religious historic sources. If we have to rely on the Gospels for evidence of something, and lack other credible sources, the odds are good it was not a relevant part of the culture and history. What does matter is where the Jews as a group were coming from, and the Romans, the politics, backgrounds and histories, so that readers can understand the isues and tensions which would have arisen for themselves. FT2 07:57, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I just do not understand your point. This aricle is about Jesus in his cultural and historical context. If we remove Jesus as a basic component of the article, let's just delete the article. I mean, you can't have a background without a foreground, a context without a text. What would be the purpose of this article? We have articles on the Pharisees, Saducees, on Ancient Israel, and Jewish history, and the Great Revolt. In any event, perhaps you misunderstand me or I misunderstand you. The Gospels are the primary sources on Jesus, but nothing in the article clais that the Gospels are the primary sources on Jewish and Roman history. Almost every section of the article relies on sources other than the Gospels. Indeed, this is the rationale for the article: given that the Gosepels give an incomplete account of Jesus' context, we need to look to other sources. Are you suggesting the article relies too much on the Gospels? Can you give an example (or am I misunderstanding you)? Slrubenstein

I think actually, simply put, the above 2 comments almost define whats up. Because the title isnt "Jesus IN his context". It's "The context of the period when Jesus lived".

Its not "look up Jesus' story, and relate it back to his period", its "look at the period and the forces which were playing at that period, and within which a person who preached a new message claimed to be a leader or messiah would have lived and by whose impact they would have been affected."

I think you or someone suggested above that we might actually in reality have two separate articles here, namely "Jesus in his historical and cultural context". The two arent the same and I think what we are gradually seeing is a recognition of that. (They are very similar but its the difference between, say, "what does knowledge of Jewish culture teach us about America" and "What does knowledge of American culture teach us about Judaism". You get a basically different result) FT2 17:42, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

The title of this article is "Cultural and historical background of Jesus" CheeseDreams 21:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I believe the purpose of this article initially (and what I personally would advocate as a meaningful purpose for it today) was to help reduce the excessive size of the Jesus article. That article had devoted a great deal of time to attempting to explain the forces at work in the society in which Jesus (allegedly) lived, in order to better understand what the actions and positions attributed to him in the Gospels may have signified to a first-century audience. I think this kind of coverage is likely to be useful to anyone, religious or non-religious, even including those who doubt Jesus' existence. Anyone familiar with modern historiography knows that it's important to understand facts within their cultural context. The Jesus of the Gospels, whether fictionally, semi-fictionally, or factually represented therein, is a character whose actions need to be understood culturally -- much that we may find strange or significant would have been less so to a first-century audience, and much that we may find normal or reasonable would have been most unusual to them. In order for this encyclopedia to offer good coverage of the meaning of Jesus in context, this article (or else an article much like it) needs to exist -- the Gospels are necessary in order to provide the material that needs to be placed into context. It will be difficult to write this article in a manner that pleases everyone, but not impossible, I think. As I note above, I think it's in everyone's best interests to have such an article. I don't know if this resolves much of the impasse here, but I thought it needed to be said if it hadn't been said yet (or hadn't been said since the last archiving). Jwrosenzweig 21:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this seems exactly right to me. In fact, I have a difficult time understanding how this is even controversial. john k 21:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Until the 2nd edit war and 2nd protection, the consensus on this talk page was that it was irrelevant what this article had previously been. The generally agreed position was This is not that article. This is an article about background. CheeseDreams 22:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was never the consensus on this talk page that the article's prior history was irrelevant, except possibly for some short span of time between when the claim was made and one of several who disagreed had time to log in and say so. That has been one of the major points of contention as long as this dispute has been going on for the past month or so. The question has repeatedly been raised in different ways, "If it's an article about background, what's in the foreground?" Wesley 02:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which is why The historical Jesus was mooted by Amgine above (and many others earlier) as a possible solution to this controversy. CheeseDreams 22:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All right, then. I'll just work on the article I mentioned at another title. :-) Good luck with this one -- it sounds interesting. Jwrosenzweig 22:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

JW Rosenzweig - don't humor CheeseDreams - as you said before, an article about context that ignores the text is simply gibberish. CheeseDreams - I would tentatively somewhat agree with you that the origins of this article should not determine its contents. But this article is an article about the background, or the context, for something specific - the figure of Jesus as presented in the Gospels. It is absolutely impossible to have a useful article on the background or context of something without referring to the subject to which it is supposed to be background or context - in this case, Jesus as depicted in the Gospels - and without making some effort to show how the background and context relates to the material which it is contextualizing. Once again, if any new article is to be created, you should create Cultural and historical background of 1st century Roman Palestine. Or, perhaps Roman Palestine in the 1st century AD. Or whatever. Yes, this article is supposed to be background. But background is not background unless it is presented in relationship to the material to which it is supposed to be the background. The article you want to write is a cultural and historical description of Jewish society in the 1st century AD. This article would provide useful information and background for someone interested in the context of Jesus and the Gospels. But it would not be an article about the context and background of Jesus and the Gospels. In the same way, History of Athens is an article which might provide useful information and background for someone interested in the context of, say, Plato, or the great Tragedians. But that does not mean the article is an article about the context of Plato or the Tragedians. Can you understand the distinction? john k 22:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, so much respect for people actually attempting to reach compromise. CheeseDreams 23:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All right, then, John -- makes no odds to me. I'm just tired of fighting with someone who's so convinced I'm biased that he won't even have a conversation with me to find out how reasonable I can be. I've fought too many of them in the last 18 months and I didn't care to fight CD, but as it's important, I agree that backing down so quickly probably isn't the right thing to do. I agree that, if this article removes Jesus and the Gospel assertions about him, it will inevitably lose its purpose...after all, we don't have a general article on the culture in any other century for that area. The only reason to have this one is that a remarkably important figure (fictional or no) reportedly existed in it, and we can't understand him as well without it. A correction, though -- the remark about "context" and "text" was made by Slrubenstein, I believe. Jwrosenzweig 23:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, my bad on that last. One thing that this article has convinced me of is that the doing away with of sub-articles isn't necessarily a good thing. john k 05:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Jesus must be mentioned in this article, but the focus of the article is the cultural and historic context in which he lived (if he lived etc. see other article for that discussison). These cultural, societal and historic forces acted upon all members of the society, and the forces as they acted upon any member of this society are the primary focus of the article, not Christianity, which essentially did not exist in Jesus' lifetime, and not Jesus, as during this period, Jesus was not a major figure, per se. The recognition of his importance came after his death, and the religion that grew from his teachings began, as the story goes, quite near his death. (you, Peter are the living rock upon which I will build my church) So my opinion is that Jesus is mostly not relevant to the article. Same with Christianity. The article is about the environment in which "a Jesus" and "a new religion" could have appeared. This is a daughter article to Jesus, yes, but it isn't a religious article or biography. Pedant 23:54, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

Jesus is absolutely relevant to the article, as his name appears in the article's title. However, I agree that this is not a biography of Jesus or the first part of the History of Christianity. I understand that the Church is traditionally held to have begun on Pentecost, shortly after Jesus' Ascension; however, one could argue that Jesus was (according to the gospels) already trying to spread his teachings and practices by sending out the seventy disciples to preach about the kingdom of God and to heal the sick, etc. But what I see this article doing is perhaps very briefly mention that in the Gospels Jesus is often addressed as Rabbi, and then discuss what a first century rabbi was. Briefly mention his interactions with the Pharisees, Sadducees and other groups and describe in more detail who they were. For that matter, tax collectors and zealots alike could be mentioned. So, Jesus himself would receive small mention and Christianity the same or less, but the stories about Jesus and about Palestine would at least in part determine what it is about first century "Roman Palestine" that makes it worth writing an article about, and more than that, arguing about so vehemently. Wesley 02:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this seems essentially right to me. I feel like the current article mostly does a good job with this. That is to say, the article is not about Jesus, or about early Christianity. But to do its job it needs to explain how the context under discussion relates to Jesus and early Christianity. Otherwise it's not an article about the context of something. john k 05:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig, please do not weary. I too am tired of CheeseDreams obstructionism. But the fact is you, John K, and Wesley are all pretty much on the same page and have a clear, reasonable understanding of what is going on (and I am sure I have left out some names, but not because I don't recognize their contributions.) To summarize:

1. The origins of the article are important. That doesn't mean the article is frozen in time and cannot change -- all Wikipedia articles are works in process. But of course the origins are important!
2. When Mpolo originally separated this as a daughter article of the Jesus article and gave it the title "Culturan and Historical Background of Jesus," he could just as well have entitled it "Jesus in his Cultural and Historical Background" Or he could have come up with another title. Daughter articles are strange in this way -- the article exists before the title. Usually it is the other way around -- and the contents of the article must strive to conform to the title. But with daughter articles, the trick is to come up with an appropriate title for an article that already exists. Now, I don't care whether we change the title or not, but certainly, we cannot fetishize it.
3. Pedant is right to raise the question of focus, but in this case misunderstands what the focus is. Many articles focus on a "thing" (e.g. "physics" or "World War II"). This article, however, focuses on the relationship between two things: Jesus, and the cultural and historical context in which he lived. It is the articulation or conjunction between these two things that is the topic of this article. Perhaps I disagree with John K. and Wesley over how much historical background is necessary -- but that argument (if indeed we disagree) is secondary; all three of us agree that whatever background is presented, it is to provide a historical context for understanding Jesus. In this narrow sense FT2 and I may agree (he provides the analogy, "what does knowledge of Jewish culture teach us about America" versus "What does knowledge of American culture teach us about Judaism". I believe he prefers the second one. If we had to choose between these two, I too would chose the second one. But I think in fact historians work in a more nuanced way. American culture is the totality of American social groups, institutions, and their relationships. You cannot understand American culture without including Jews (and Blacks, Irish, Italians, and so on). Similarly, a historical understanding of Jesus informs our understanding of first century Jewish culture. Nevertheless, this article begins with the point that, historians who do not believe in miracles must start with an understanding of Jewish and Hellenic culture and history, in order to understand Jesus' life. But in this sentence, "Jewish" and "Jesus" are still equally important in determining the focus of the article.
4. The point that Christianity did not even exist at that time is a red-herring. No one claims that this article is about Christianity. Indeed, in the original Jesus article this section explicitly provided the "historical Jesus" as a contrast to the Christian account of Jesus' life. The purpose for providing cultural and historical background is to show how a non-Christian interpretation of Jesus's life is possible. That said, the article needs to say something about Christianity, because the earliest primary source material on Jesus was written from a Christian point of view. Nevertheless, this article is not about Christianity and no one ever claimed it was.

I am pretty sure John K., JRosenzweig, and Wesley will agree with these four basic points -- if I am mistaken please let me know here or on my own talk page. I know FT2, Amgine, and Pedant may disagree with these points, although I hope that we are closer to some sort of consensus. At the very least, I hope that they think these points are understandable and reasonable. If any of you strongly object to any of them, however, I really do want to understand why and hope that you will take the time to explain it to me. Thanks. Slrubenstein

This argument is raised again.

1. The source of the article is irrelevant to its current status, in much the same way that certain letters which may have been written by member of the Swedish Royalty became irrelevant to World War I. The source is to be remembered, consulted, and considered; nothing more.

Why should it be remembered, consulted, and considered if it is irrelevant? You seem to be saying it is relevant, but that it is not definitive -- which is what I said. So you seem to agree with me. Yet the first sentence disagrees with me. I am confused Slrubenstein

The fact of its creation, why it was created, forces which were involved in its creation, etc. are relevant. But where it came from has very little relevance to the specific contents. - Amgine 19:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2. The title is the tool by which this article will be refered to by Wikipedia users. As such it should be neutrally descriptive of the article contents. In short, the article should address the cultural and historical background of Jesus, nothing more or less.

Your second and third sentences seem to be making slightly different points. Sentence two says the title should describe the article contents (I agree); sentence three implies that the contents of the article is dictated by the title (in the case of daughter articles, I disagree). These two sentences seem to contradict -- which is the cart and which is the horse? I am confusedSlrubenstein

The title determines who will see the article. Thus the content of the article should be specific to the title. - Amgine 19:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3. Cultural and historical background is a "thing". A highly nuanced view would (and does) make an excellent book; it would of course not be a useful encyclopedia article. A brief and compact overview of the currently prevalent views of the cultural and historical background in which Jesus would have lived seems most appropriate for an encyclopedia article. (After all, when we consider the source of this article, it was created due to too much information.)

I understand this point and I understand that we disagree. But I still wonder why, if people question Jesus' existence, we need this article at all? You write "A brief and compact overview of the currently prevalent views of the cultural and historical background in which Jesus would have lived" You use the third conditional (would have+past participle) which indicates something that did not happen. It seems silly to write an article in reference to someone that did not exist, when we could instead write articles about times when people really did exist. Surely we all agree Pontius Pilate lived. We all agree that Hillel lived. We all agree that Akiba lived, and that Herod Antipas lived. Why not write an article "Cultural and historical Background of Pilate" or "Cultural and Historical Background of Hillel?" Why do you advocate writing an article about the conditions under which someone could have lived, when there really were people who lived back then. Shouldn't the article be about the background of people who really did live? I am just trying to understand your position. Slrubenstein

You are mistaken about my usage. As an example, an engineering model of the Titanic crash would be used to examine the forces the ship would have experienced. The crash demonstrably existed; the engineers are studying it, just as a Wikipedia user looking at this article might be studying the cultural and historical background of Jesus.

I don't believe the question regarding the title of other articles is particularly relevant here; this article is being discussed as it is currently titled. As to the "silliness" of writing this article about someone who may or may not have existed - Wikipedia reports on the beliefs of people, and clearly this article is both extremely notable and relevant in this regard. This is an encyclopedic topic regardless of my personal credo (which I do not think I have expressed nor expect to.)

4. Strongly agree the point about the Christian church's nonexistence is a red herring.

- Amgine 18:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And I quote When Mpolo originally separated this as a daughter article of the Jesus article and gave it the title "Culturan and Historical Background of Jesus," he could just as well have entitled it "Jesus in his Cultural and Historical Background"

Therefore I have no objection to the article Jesus in a cultural and historical background existing AS WELL as this article CheeseDreams 19:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's completely ridiculous. The two titles mean the same thing. At any rate, I sincerely fail to understand how the current title precludes all discussion of Jesus? That seems completely absurd to me. Amgine, I don't necessarily disagree with the points you're making, but I don't really understand the conclusions you're drawing from these premises. Again I will ask - how can the article meaningfully be the background to something which is never mentioned in the article? The article you and CheeseDreams and FT2 propose seems to me to no more fit the title Cultural and historical background of Jesus than the article Yale University fits the title Educational background of George W. Bush. john k 20:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, John Kenney, I *don't* feel the article should preclude mention of Jesus and have consistently voted that way. This appears to have been a running misunderstanding. I feel Pedant's description of the article's focus is probably best, although I feel some mention of religion is necessary due to its importance in the culture at the time.

As to the secondary question, there's little doubt that a very accurate and useful description of my life and times, the cultural and historical elements which would mould me and my worldview, could be written without a single reference to me personally. This is undoubtedly why direct archaeological evidence of Jesus is extremely limited; he was not widely recognized in his own time. The primary difference is that after I am gone there will be very little reason to remember me, while the importance of Jesus grew after his departure. - Amgine 20:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amgine, I'm going to have to politely disagree with your final point. If I set out to write Cultural and historical background of Amgine, I think I could do a tolerable job describing the cultural and political influences affecting someone spending their adult years in the suburbs of, say, San Antonio, Texas. Of course, I have no idea if you come from there. In order for my article to be of any use to an amateur student of Amgine's life, I would have to at least identify the salient features of Amgine's existence in order to provide the proper context. Your religion, your social class, your nationality, your cultural heritage, your profession....all of these things would be important. The only difference with this article is that I think the assumption on the part of some editors is that we don't need to explain the details of Jesus' life because everyone knows them. We can't make that assumption. If someone who knows Jesus vaguely as "that guy who started Christianity, made some miracles, and died on a cross" comes to this article, they need to be given enough information about Jesus to make the background comprehensible. We all may think it obvious that Jesus is claimed by the Gospels to have been a rabbi who had issues with the Pharisees and Sadducees, who opposed the Zealots yet had at least one as an associate, etc. But our readers may not. We have to give enough information about Jesus in order to be sure that a reader will understand how the background connects. Yes, this article is primarily about the society and culture in which Jesus lived. But without enough detail about his life, it won't be clear to our readers how they are to make sense of this "background". Do you agree with me that this is a reasonable goal? I'm not clear as to how much you are opposed to such an idea. Jwrosenzweig 20:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to giving enough detail about Jesus' life. I believe specific asides are necessary and important for clarity, and should be qualified and verifiable (e.g. Blah blah as found in X, with Y also saying Blahdeblah.) However, (and this is just an example I do not actually recall anyone using) a discussion of how Jesus may fit a selection of prophetic criteria is not relevant to the cultural and historical background. Conversely, a discussion of prophetic criteria as perceived by the culture would be relevant. Do you see the difference? - Amgine 20:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do indeed see the difference -- more to the point, I agree with you. I think simply noting that the Gospels attribute Messianic claims to Jesus is sufficient on his end (perhaps citing a claim in specific, although I don't know if that's necesary for a general discussion). A more detailed description of what that claim might mean to a first century audience (both Jewish and Roman) would also be a good idea in this article. But trying to match Jesus to prophecy point for point wouldn't make sense -- sounds too much like proselytizing to me. If this is the level of detail we're arguing over, I think we'll come to an agreement quite soon. :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey - we actually seem to be getting somewhere! I generally agree with both of you, then. I agree that the article shouldn't be about Jesus. But I also think the article needs to provide the necessary background so the reader will know how the stuff being talked about relates to Jesus. To go a bit further, I'd note that articles that deal with subject matters related to this time period, without even having Jesus in the title, such as Pharisee, mention prominently the connection between their topic and the way it is portrayed in the New Testament. Surely an article which is specifically about the context of Jesus ought to emphasize this kind of thing at least as much. john k 21:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with all of the above, when I say Jesus and Christianity aren't the subject of the article, I'm not disagreeing with you. In one sense Jesus is the focus, but the important parts of this article aren't 'what jesus said' 'what jesus did' 'what christians think' etc. as such, ... in other words I think an article can be focused on Jesus without being about Jesus. Does that make sense? I think most of us are pretty much on the same page, from reading the article. I'm not trying to hold anyone back, or keep the page protected in any way. "But trying to match Jesus to prophecy point for point wouldn't make sense" is exactly the kind of thing I mean, that would be too much Jesus and not enough background. I do think the time period this article covers is a bit wide, but if that's what it takes to cover the background, I can live with it. I think stuff from more than a couple hundred years in either way might do with a bit of trimming down, though, where possible. Pedant 00:05, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Amgine writes,

a discussion of how Jesus may fit a selection of prophetic criteria is not relevant to the cultural and historical background. Conversely, a discussion of prophetic criteria as perceived by the culture would be relevant.

I too see the difference, and I too agree with Amgine, but with two ammendments. First, in addition to the relevance of prophetic criteria, I do think it is important to include a discussion of how historians re-evaluate Jesus in terms of what we know about prophetic criteria. Do you see the difference? Most people assume that the Gospels' claims about prophetic criteria (and a host of other things, such as the nature of the Pharisees) are true. But those claims may reflect Christian beliefs that developed after Jesus was executed. A discussion of prophetic criteria as perceived by the Jewish culture of the time might lead to a diffeent understanding of Jesus. I think that would belong in the article (if scholars have indeed discussed this). Second, I may disagree with Jwrosenzweig, at least as far as I understand his statement, (or maybe I agree and am trying to spell it out more specifically?)

I think simply noting that the Gospels attribute Messianic claims to Jesus is sufficient on his end

This gets to the crux of the problem, I think: what is the status of the Gospels as historical documents? Writing this article would be easy if we believed that they are entirely authoritative historically, or if we believed that they are entirely spurious. The problem is, most historians I have read take a different view: some elements of the Gospels provide partial evidence of historical events, while other elements express theological and doctrinal claims. For those historians, the trick is separating the two. And in this article, I think we should be concerned with the historical elements, but not the theological ones. "The Gospels attribute Messianic claims to Jesus." Well, if the verses in the Gospels to which John K. refers were written after Jesus' death, then they actually may not be relevant to this article -- not only may they not be evidence of historical and cultural background of Jesus, they may actually disguise or distort that background. Other verses, on the other hand, may very well reflect things people said, did, believed, while Jesus was alive. The basic method historians use is this: if a claim in the Gospel supports later claims by Orthodox Christianity, but have no parallel in Jewish texts from the period (100 BCE-100 CE, let's say), then this claim is not reliable historical evidence. On the other hand, if a claim in the Gospel is consistent with things found in Jewish texts from this period, then it may be reliable historical evidence. Example: there were many "healers" in the Galilee during this period. Now, that doesn't mean Jesus could actually cure a lame person. But it does mean that it is very likely that many Jews at the time believed that Jesus could do this. I am trying to get at a basic point about how "historical and cultural background" might actually be relevant to (informative of) "Jesus." To me, this approach puts historians ahead of the Gospel -- but allows for the fact that many historians selectively rely on the Gospels. I do agree with Jwrosenzweig that this should not be going over Gospel claims point by point. But I think I disagree with John K. -- in a certain way, I think this article is "about" Jesus (what I really think is what I stated above: the article is not about Jesus, nor is it about the Cultural and historical context; it is about the relationship between the two). It is NOT about the "Christian" Jesus or even the Gospels' Jesus. It is about a Jesus that historians have constructed out of historical evidence, which includes a critical reading of the Gospels in terms of all other historical evidence from the period. Slrubenstein

Slr, I don't know that you and I will ever be in perfect agreement about the status of the Gospels as historical documents. :-) I may be wrong, though. Personally I would apply a slightly less stringent test than the comparison with Jewish texts that you propose. However I am willing to allow this may be idiosyncratic on my part, and certainly arguing over that minute level of detail is not a hill I'm willing to die on. If we proceed as you suggest above, I wouldn't object, but I personally would contend that I think the scholarship in New Testament Studies supports dating the Gospels (in the form we now have them) essentially to the latter half of the 1st century AD (and where within those 50 years is anyone's guess). I'm not interested in tussling over such contentious ground, though -- readers can inform themselves if they like. Jwrosenzweig 22:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"in this article, I think we should be concerned with the historical elements, but not the theological ones" well said. Pedant 00:05, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

But we do have other, more reliably dated, sources about the culture and history of the period, and those might better serve the purpose of reference texts than the Gospels, when possible. I think that the Gospels, in their present state, are not that suitable historical references. They are paraphrases of translations of translations. or something similarly altered from what the originals were Pedant 00:05, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Are you missing my point? It can't be that you disagree with me -- this is not a matter of whether you or I think there are or are not more reliable sources, because Wikipedia forbids original research. I was trying to explain how the historians who write about the cultural and historical background of Jesus do use the Gospels as historical sources, but critically. Slrubenstein

I do not remember this article being Historiography of the bible, or Jesus according to historians or The historical Jesus, so I don't really see the relevance of whether the gospels are an accurate account of history or not. CheeseDreams 23:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uh-duh, if you are going to provide "historical background" you need historical sources. Jwrosenzweig, I don't really think there is any argument between us -- I certainly don't want one. I was summarizing, perhaps not too well, a view taken by some scholars, e.g. Fredricksen and maybe Sanders. Surely you are informed by other scholars, and their views should be represented in the article as well. Please consider my discussion concerning the Gospels to be an example of one way the material has been handled by historians. This should be represented int the article, but of course not exclusively. The Gospels "in general" are indeed dated to a relatively short time after Jesus was executed. Still, even in the course of a generation, a culture can change (anyone live through the sixties? Or even the seventies?). But the real issue is that we don't have the original Mark. We have many early manuscripts and some of them have textual variations and critics debate whether the book you read when you open up your King James or NRV or whatever is exactly what Mark wrote -- indeed, it may not be (see Bart Ehrman's books e.g. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture or something like that). I honestly do not think we are that far apart. Or have I misunderstood you? Slrubenstein

Just wanted to note that, aside from CheeseDreams, all of us involved in the discussion in this section seem to essentially be on the same page in terms of how much Jesus should be in the article. There seems to be some significant disagreement about how this actually works out in the details. Pedant - I don't think Slr is saying to use the gospels as the principal historical source to explain the context of Jesus. It seems to me that putting Jesus into context and putting the gospels into context is essentially the same thing, since, aside from a few references here and there, our independent knowledge of Jesus comes pretty much entirely from the Gospels. At any rate, I think the best way to hammer all this out would be to actually work on the article. The bigger question, and perhaps the one about which there is more genuine disagreement, is about organization. FT2's version, which separated out history, politics, and culture into different sections, seemed to me ultimately incoherent and difficult to follow. Such an approach will either result in a great deal of unnecessary repetition, or else a huge amount of incoherence (as here) by splitting up subjects that ought to be discussed together into different sections. At the very least, any article which attempted to separate it out in this manner could not consist largely of Slr's text cut up and separated into incomprehensibility, as it seems to do now. But let's start discussing this. john k 00:41, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I think SIrubenstein understands where I'm coming from a bit better, and maybe others do too. Perhaps this will help add something to the debate on perspective:

If there was an article on "Jesus in his historical and cultural context", I would expect to read about (as SIrub' says) the relationship between two things - a culture and place, and a person and his reported life. I think SIrub' is pretty spot on there, and we see similarly.

My perspective differs for this article. When you look at "the historical and cultural background" itself, you are also asking a far broader question. Many things that do not relate to the Gospel story, but are nonetheless background to understand it, come into play. The article's content is the kind of information which would be relevant to answer questions like these, for those who do as well as do not believe in his divinity:

• What human factors predisposed the rising of "Messiahs" in that time and place?
• What was the current state of play in religion? In politics? which affected development of new beliefs and may have influenced this one?
• What were the main social issues and themes of the times, as seen by the Jews? The Romans?
• What aspects of Jewish history are relevant to understand the actions motivations and positions of the mainstream Jewish community? Romans? Jesus?
• What can we reasonably say about how everyday Jews saw the establishment? The temple? Rabbis and priests? Cult groups?
• What kind of people were the Roman leaders? Were they kind people who hated to spill blood? Tyrants? Bureaucrats? Frustrated at internicene squabbles? Scared?
• How did Jews feel about being Jewish? How did they see Judaism? Were they polarised or open minded? Does it make sense to talk about "the Jews" or the "Jewish mainstream" even?
• What kind of new ideas were they open to, and what kind weren't they, and what factors influenced that?
• What factors might be relevant to understand certain incidents in the Gospels?
• Why did the beliefs started by Jesus form as they did?
• What factors in the history and culture would have encouraged a Jew of the time to perceive things as Jesus appears to have perceived them, and develop ideas the way Jesus appeared to develop them?
• What factors influenced the schism betwen the Jews and the Jewish Christians? Were these inevitable? If so, why?

You get the idea. The article is not just about "understanding Jesus". To understand Jesus you must understand the context in which a "Jesus" came about, what historical or cultural factors influenced it, and what factors influenced it to go one way or not to go a different way.

I'm not saying we know answers to these, but for a satisfactory "background", there has to be a focus on material capable of being applied to issues such as the above. It can't be just "This is how the gospels and the culture fit together". It has to contain appropriate analysis of what is known of those times to be able to answer in essence, for the historian, "what factors predisposed it to go this way and not that way?" If that is not what this article was, then this article was given a poor choice of title, and needs splitting into "Jesus in his context" with a new article about the cultural background to be written as well.

Otherwise it teaches us little except a faded echo of "the gospels say this and thats how it was". FT2 03:03, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I do get the idea, and this is very clearly stated -- thank you! Aside from one quibble (it is debated, whether many claimants to "messiah" arose during this period, or just a few) I think all these are great questions. I have one observation and one comment. Observation: with the exception of the last four questions, all of these questions focus on Jewish history. Comment: if your list ended with "what kind of new ideas were they open too, etc.?" I would say this should not be a separate article at all, but just incorporated into the article on Jewish history -- or made an article that is not "Cultural and historical background" but simply "Jewish history in the late Second Temple Period." It is because of your last four questions that this is not an article on specifically Jewish history. So even though only 1/3 of your questions have to do with Jesus, I think these questions fundamentally change the nature of the article. I do not object to this, I am only pointing out that though the number of questions are few, their impact in how we view the article is great. Slrubenstein

---

Edit conflict

So, not to put too fine a point on it, where are we as regards to what this article is about? It seems we are mostly on the same page about the basics. Here are the points as I see them at the moment (this *does* seem to be a moving target):

• Length and depth

  I see this as a compact supporting article for Jesus. I believe Slrubenstein sees this as a more nuanced history essay. I am unsure of others' opinions on this matter.

I hope that between us, this is a difference of degree more than kind. Slrubenstein

• Sources and bias

  Slrubenstein views the article as primarily a historian's state of the science, and therefore privileging (probably correctly) academic texts and sources. While a reasonable heuristic, there is certainly a bias in this approach, not least of which is the preponderence of western and christian POV in the available literature. I am not opposed to this approach per se, but the common knowledge base is not to be utterly disregarded either; there is much in the world which does not appear between the pages of books (horrible paraphrase, sorry.) - Amgine 01:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Um, when it comes to a foreign culture two thousand years ago (a culture foreign in many ways even to Jews, today), I just don't see what kind of "common knowledge base" is possible. Indeed, I'd be very suspicious of any "common knowledge" about the cultural background of Jesus (I mean, if "Pontius Pilate was Prefect" is your idea of common knowledge, I won't argue! But if you are talking about what millenial prophets were and the difference between Sicarii and Zealots and how people used "messiah" and what books were sacred -- I don't see any common knowledge base, just myths people have about the past that they use to justify their present beliefs). Besides -- if something is common knowledge, we wouldn't need to write an encyclopedia article about it, right? Aren't articles meant to educate people wabout what they don't know? Slrubenstein

"Common" can also refer to specialized knowledge which is not "professional", such as culinary skills or <ahem> sailing. For example, I know of and have used a technique of celestial navigation which predates Pythogoras and yet in my moderately extensive maritime library (which runs to a couple hundred volumes) I have not found a single mention of it. I discovered it in an anthropological text, where it had been observed in practice, and was later able to track it down in several archeological texts.

Different people have different sources of knowledge, and may have very valid contributions even if they are neither intuitive nor immediately verifiable. Traditional sources of information are to be valued, but not to the exclusion of other valid resources. My personal approach to contradictory or unexpected information has run the gamut from challenging to following up as new avenue for research; I find I have egg on my face less often with the latter, which is encouraging me to be less hasty. - Amgine 04:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Collaboration

  There are strong feelings on all sides regarding the current article and how to proceed from this point. Does anyone have suggestions as to how to proceed, working together rather than singularly?

I honestly feel the above discussion is the most civil and productive one we have had in a long time. Slrubenstein

As do I, and I am cautiously optimistic. Perhaps we should open a new section to discuss specific points of disagreement? - Amgine 04:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- Amgine 01:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Summaries

What on earth is the point of all this summarizing? Why can't we just archive the old material and be done with it? The summarizing just seems to be just one more place where everyone can get into fights. john k 21:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The purpose of a summary is to retain important details to the discussion, whilst removing unnecessary asides, and repetition, obfuscation, and junk. As I have pointed out the summary is declared as written by 1 user, and is declared as being contested.

I haven't finished editing the summary, and in fact am doing so over here --- >

in another copy of this page, every time I click save, it will update to the latest stage, so I advise editors not to try to change the summary until I have finished writing it, since it will overwrite their changes and comments without my notice. CheeseDreams 22:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further, removing the summary is a way of supressing the discussion previously held. I will restore it.CheeseDreams 22:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also advise readers to note archive 6, which contains the summaries. I advise you not to duplicate it, since this would be pointless. CheeseDreams 22:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I agree with John. Do any other talk pages have such summarizing? There is NO NEED for summaries; people should just look over the archives. Slrubenstein

Following John's point I am taking most of the "summaries" and just archiving them. Summarizing archived material just defeats the point of archiving. This page keeps getting too long and the solution is to archive. To summarize archived material just makes it even longer. So, let's stop summarizing, and keep archiving. Slrubenstein

I have not "supressed" any summary I have archived it. If anyone wants to see it, go to the archive. Slrubenstein

Injunctions

1) I would like to ask for an injunction to stop people removing the summary from this talk page, or reverting this talk page. Whilst it may be disputed, I have no objection to people filling in the dispute-of-the-summary section of it. Further, it is important to summarise the points that we do not agree on, what the arguments are, and where we think we should be going. Otherwise we will end up going over the same ground repeatedly.

1. CheeseDreams 01:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NO. Do not summarize, archive. Slrubenstein

Do NOT summarize the discussion. Archive it. The summaries run too great a risk of being biased or misunderstood, and the rest of us shouldn't have to waste time policing them to see how badly our comments were twisted. Wesley 03:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archive text, summarise archive. Removing the summary AND the text results in distortion, and completely wipes away the prior discussion. In addition, it attempts to supress whatever discussion was had. CheeseDreams 19:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't completely wipe away the prior to discussion. The prior discussion is available in the archives for everybody to read. john k 19:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes it does. The prior discussion would not be on the talk page. CheeseDreams 00:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It puts it in an archive easily reached from the talk page. john k 02:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2) I would like to ask for an injunction to suspend the discussion of "is this article a history essay or a set of topics" and "is this this Jesus in background or background of Jesus" for the next 4 days, as this seems to result simply in holding the discussion up with ridiculously verbose comments, and just continuously going round in circles. Could we actually try to make some progress please? There is no point in repeatedly attempting to change the structure or nature of this article when we all know where we stand and that we have made our arguments and have come to the conclusion that the other side isn't listening to reason.

1. CheeseDreams 01:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NO! You do not dictate to others what to talk about. You are refering to one of the most civil, productive discussions we have had in days and you want to put a stop to it? Just go away. Slrubenstein

So long as the discussion in some way relates to improving the article, it should not be barred. Wesley 03:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4 days, not 4 ever. CheeseDreams 19:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, so? Why should you get to decide what other people can discuss on the talk page? Especially since, as Slr has noted, this is probably the most productive discussion we've yet had on the talk page. john k 19:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

- Are we back to one of Cheezedoodle's silly revert wars? Note, her version -- a soi-dissant summary -- is 85 kilobytes. This version (in which a lot of stuff has been archived) is closer to 58 kilobytes. All C is doing by "summarizing" is imposing her point of view (since she chooses what to include and exclude, and how to phrase things) while adding more and more material to the page. Sorry, but that is not Wikipedia protocal. First, do not rewrite someone else's words. Second, as an article gets too long, archive (don't summarize). Slrubenstein

-Are we back to malicious allegations, and arrogant assumptions of rightfullness? -I honestly believe nothing is missing from the summary. Also, in the first pass of the summary (viewable via edit history), you will see that it originates from text that was actually expressed by the protagonists. If you look at Slrubenstein's alternative summaries, you will see that the text I claimed he disputed with regard to the summary is in fact the text he did dispute. If you look at the extracts from the original summary, you will see that my version of the disputed text matches the original. CheeseDreams 19:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look, whoever's job of summarizing was better, there's no precedent for this ridiculousness. Anyone interested can read through the archives and discover what was said. No matter what the intentions of anyone, the act of summarizing a contentious dispute is bound to be slanted towards the summarizers' POV. john k 19:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is massive precedent for summarising.

Also note that there is a (currently blank) section for putting in disputes and refutals of the summary.CheeseDreams 00:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that you haven't actually read it. CheeseDreams 00:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And I am of the opinion that you have never been involved in archiving a talk page before. I've never seen a talk page where old discussions were summarized rather than archived, and I see no particular reason why they should be. All it does is lead to more conflict with no actual benefit. john k 02:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams, if there were "massive precedent for summarising," how would you even be aware of such massive precedent if you only started using Wikipedia less than two months ago? I'd be interested in seeing a couple examples where you think it's been done well. I can't recall seeing any, but I'll be the first to admit that doesn't mean there aren't any precedents. Could be I'm just not familiar with them. Wesley 05:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Meta-Issue: How should the article be organized?

I do want to pick up on John K's question (and Amgine). Most people agree we have had a very productive discussion and the question is, what to do next. John Kenney recommends starting with my version of FT2s. I think that instead of just voting for my version or FT2s, we need to talk about the underlying issues. We have already had a congenial discussion about one issue, the place of Jesus in the article. I think the next step is to talk about the organization. Crudely, I tried for a chronological organization; FT2 for a thematic one. But perhaps we can come up with three, or four, or five different ways to organize the article. In any event, I think we need to lay out the issues concerning organization -- I hope in the same spirit as our discussion of what the article is about.

Look, if people agree with John that my version is the one we should start with, I think the next step is to take my "suggestions for next set of revisions," and combine them with FT2's bullet points concerning content, and from these put them into some sort of order (easiest/least contentous to hardest; most important to least important, whatever), and start working on them one at a time.

But I think it makes sense to make sure we have some basic consensus about organization before moving forward on content. Slrubenstein

An extensive comment from the Mediator

The mediator's comment

What follows is a lengthy, & hopefully not too long-winded, comment that does not fit well into what has been said recently; I have been working on it offline, rather than following the discussion here. I submit it here (& not in email to a few) because I beleive it may be of interest to everyone, & perhaps offer some help in this discussion.

From the beginning of this mediation, I have been struggling with one specific issue in the attempt to be fair & objective to all parties: that I know something about the material being discussed. I have been fighting the urge to post my opinion to the talk page because in part there have already been too many cooks in this kitchen, but also becaue I said I would was only participating in to help in the process, not in the writing of this article.

However, Tuesday I realised that my reluctance was, in part, hobbling my ability to mediate in this dispute. Content & process are mixed together here, & I can't address process without discussing content. So I'm taking a risk here by going back on my word & discussing the content of this article, & hopefully I can make clear exactly what I think is going on here, where the process is breaking down, & how preconceptions concerning the content is responsible for this. There are any number of points I could address, but I am limiting myself to only 4, because each one reflects one of the positions that each of the 4 people in this mediation has taken.

1. CheeseDreams at one point asserted that there were a number of messianic movements in Palestine at this time. The minute I read this, I knew exactly what she was talking about, because there is evidence to support her assertion:

A. Suetonius, in the Twelve Caesars ("Vespasian", ch. 4), mentions that immediately before the Jewish War, "An ancient superstition was current in the East, that out of Judea at this time would come the rulers of the world. ... the rebellious Jews, who read it as referring to themselves, murdered their governor, routed the governor of Syria when he came down to restore order, and captured an Eagle." (Robert Graves' translation)

It is hard not to see this "ancient superstition" as a rumor of either Jesus Christ or perhaps a charismatic rival, eager to build on the chilliastic hopes of the locals. And having read a few collections of the non-Biblical notices of Jesus, I am puzzled that this has not attracted any scholarly attention.

B. To this period, as well as to the previous 2 centuries, are dated a number of apocalyptic writings composed by Jewish, & later Christian, writers. (e.g., The Book of Enoch, Testament of the Patriarch, numerous examples in the Dead Sea Scrolls)

This points to a wide interest in mystical & visionary interpretations of the Bible at the time. It is possible that these works were influenced by the existence of the first native ruling family in centuries, in which case these works would be a way to indirectly address the policies & issues of this dynasty. At the least, the presence of kings in lands of ancient Israel & Judea would lead to the rise of religious who modelled themselves after the ancient prophets.

C. Acts (18:24-19:7) mentions a contemporary of Paul named Apollos, who is described as a follower of John the Baptist. (My translation simply states that Apollos was a follower of "John", but the Anchor Bible translation clearly indicates that John the Baptist is meant.)

This is an intreguing passage, for it demonstrates that there was a sect that followed the teachings of John the Baptist long after not only John's death, but even Jesus. The account in the gospels lead us to believe that after John's death, his followers all flocked to follow Jesus, but this passage indicates that at least some remained faithful to their founder's memory, & it is possible these later became the Mandeans CheeseDreams talks about.

Now I can't say how CheeseDreams came to her conclusion, so I am going to put myself in her place, & explain how I would come to this conclusion. When I read, I often only remember the conclusions that I draw from my reading, & not the actual facts from my reading. To explain, had I read these primary sources 5 years ago, I doubt I could rely on them to defend my belief that there were a number of messianic movements; but I would not be any less convinced that this conclusion was valid. (Fortunately in this case, I had encountered these facts in my reading recently, & had taken useful notes that helped me relocate them.)

Do these facts prove that there were a number of messianic movcements? I don't know. But I would argue that from them that one could conclude that there were, & that if this is not the case, then further research is required. (Here I'll admit that I'm not very well read in the secondary literature, & there may be one or more authorities who have stated their conclusions on this question. The movement led by John the Baptist is a mysterious presence that clearly is important to the creation of Christianity, but IIRC the only works that I could find that discussed this issue were items like an exhaustive monograph written in German or were otherwise inaccessible to me at the time.)

So what I feel we have here is a case where someone is making a valid objection, yet at the moment of the discussion cannot defend her or his position. Should this objection be dismissed? I touch upon this problem more below.

2. Amigne believes that his opinions in this article are being ignored by other contributors, in particular Slrubenstein. Slrubenstein in response has made the point that the participants in this article should have a good working knowledge of the details of the period & the material. I agree with him about this, & can comisserate with him over the anguish at finding myself in a dispute where I have relied on solid scholarly works, while the other parties' sources are far less impressive. However, I am troubled with his insistence that the writings of the New Testament should be approached only as historical documents, & any religious views be ignored. This would mean that any consideration of Form Criticism (developed by Martin Dibelius & Rudolf Bultmann in the later 19th & early 20th centuries) would need be excluded. Form Criticism was an attempt by Protestant scholars to purge the New Testament of myth (what they called the Catholic rituals & mystery) in order to get to what they believed was the truth. While this approach did not achieve the goals they had intended, it is important in showing that the Gospels, rather than being naive accounts of fact, are actually very sophisticated documents that were written with intention & (in some cases) considerable literary style.

Obviously, this concern with NT material is outside the scope of this article; however, it is a case where not understanding the material can trip people up. And yet, this is a case very similar to that of CD above: I think I know what Slrubenstein intends -- avoiding the question, which is rooted in belief & not fact, that God appeared on earth during this period -- yet when his words are objectively & inflexibly examined, he's wrong here. Just as FT2 was wrong about the original form of John, & Amgine was about the terminology of "king messiah" & priest messiah". Thoughtful people are using words inadvertantly in an imprecise manner to express important ideas; St Augustine's dictum "Hold to the idea & the words will follow" is being proven false here.

This period is a difficult topic not only to get every detail correct -- which I think requires you to be a divinity student who has written your thesis on this period -- but also to be NPOV -- it is very controversial. I'm not a divinity student, just a guy who has read some books on the topic, but I am aware just how controversial it is. Look at James the Just, & the POVs described there concerning the reliquary that was recently discovered: experts from two different parts of the Israeli government disagree whether the artefact is authentic or not. (Personally, I believe that there is some conscious intent to discredit a possible proof in the existence of Jesus, but the abundance of forgeries & inauthentic materials floating around that deal with this period argues that one cannot be too cautious in accepting any artefact as authentic.)

So if we all accept the fact that we are not experts on this topic, then we must then admit that each of us will be wrong here some of the time. And when that happens, I feel we should then accept each other's admission of error graciously so that we can move on; if that is not part of Wikilove, then it ought to be.

3. FT2 has pointed out that the editing process is going too fast, & that attention is needed to the general shape of the article. This is a point that I am of two minds about this.

Personally, if I think I have a point that is not being listened to but I know is right, I will take time offline to research the matter, & verify that what I believe is right actually is. Remember, articles on Wikipedia have no date when they must be -- or are considered -- finished & immutable. There is plenty of time to do things right, & even if you take a break of a few weeks from an article, at the least the time gives you some distance from the issue, & perhaps the editor who is opposing you has moved on to other articles to edit.

On the other hand, this article does not seem to address what I, as a somewhat informed reader, would like to find. Let's take the issue of sexuality at this period, for example. (What follows is only an illustration, & not for discussion here; if you want to debate my views, please contact me either in email or on my Talk page.) Personally, I think Paul of Tarsus was a prude, which is why he wrote a number of things condemning most forms of sexuality (IIRC, he begrudgingly condoned sex within marriage, but only in order to produce offspring). Yet because of his stature within Christianity, & the later respect given to his writings, these views were considered the opinion of Jesus, & therefore God, & enforced by the representatives of organized Christianity.

So if someone wanted to debate my opinion, what would this article explain about the views of sexuality people had at that time? It would be nice if it explained how Paul's views either reflected or contradicted those of his fellow Jews, Greek-speaking neighbors, or later Christians. (There is evidence that celebacy or abstinence was praised if not widely practiced in the early church, & some evidence that this practice was independent of what Paul wrote.) This is a matter no one here has mentioned.

Again, I am not advocating that this topic be included in the article, I am offering an example of what a reader might reasonably expect to find discussed in this article. However, reading it, all I find is a rather detailed although praiseworthy history of Judaism in the last century BC & the first century AD. I feel that this article is covering the expected ground, but without showing an understanding for what information needs to be provided or why.

4. Slrubenstein has argued that this article ought to mention Jesus. I here agree with him, but for reasons I haven't seen him set forth. The most important one is that the material that discusses Jesus -- the Gospels, the Epistles, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and other early Christian literature -- all make use of a vocabulary that is baffling to the modern reader -- who is the person that will be reading this article. Terms like "the Son of Man", "Jesus of Nazareth" (also translated "Jesus the Nazarene"), the claims made that Jesus was descended from David (which would appear to contradict the later belief that Jesus was either the son of God or God the Son).

But mentioning Jesus doesn't mean arguing that he existed: for the writers of the NT, he did, & that should be the end of the matter; Jesus was a personage that they described, & with care & intent, with language & ideas that I hope this article would explain. His existence is as much of an issue as the existence of Helen, Achilles or Paris in a hypothetical article Cultural and historical background of the Iliad. Unfortunately, the issues of religion (or the freedom from it) have intruded & distracted everyone from the goal of writing a useful article.

I don't know if these comments help the mediation move forward, especially because it is clear that some movement in this discussion has occured without me. But I felt that I needed to express them, if for no other reason to reveal my biases & remove them as distractions from the task at hand. If these comments have not been at all useful, I would be happy to step down; if they make sense, maybe then my advice at this point would too: let's start with a clean slate concerning this article, archive this Talk page -- my comments included -- without making a summary, & ask yourselves what should this article discuss in order for it to be useful. -- llywrch 06:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reply to mediator from CheeseDreams

Some people allege that Paul of Tarsus was a gnostic

This would explain why

He hardly mentioned Jesus as a physical real person

He had disdain for sexuality (as gnostics viewed the body as evil, and where highly ascestic)

There is evidence of gnosticism in Mark, especially Secret Mark (whose very existance implies gnosticism), constant reference is made to "secrets" and "secret teachings"

As such, Mark did not necessarily believe Jesus existed. Likewise matthew and Luke. If they were gnostic, they would have had no objection to incorporating material from other religions, thus explaining their non-matching additions (such as genealogies, for example), to a gnostic, history doesn't matter, its the teachings that can be made from the story that is important, not the truth of the story.

In addition, the Gospel of John is thought by some to be a forgery by Iranaeaus for anti-heresy propaganda purposes. He uses it extensively to address the issues of his time, and the first paragraph is a direct attack on his arch-enemy Arius. "In the beginning, there was god. And with god was the word" which discounts Arius - so why did Arius hold his opinion, if it was blatantly denied by the gospels, unless it wasn't.

So, I don't see why we should think that the Gospel writers believed Jesus was real.

Nethertheless, since the title of this article can be paraphrased as The background that Jesus knew (which unfortunately assumes historicity), I don't see what the importance of Jesus is to the article. CheeseDreams 08:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and my claim about the existance of the Mandaeans is due to the fact that "Mandaean" is a modern synonym for Nazorean (they still call themselves "Nazorean). This is pointed out in the summary. CheeseDreams 08:34, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reply to mediator from Slrubenstein

My reply to the mediator.

The mediator's comments have more to do with content than process. I still think we need to discuss organization before content. Still, I welcome the mediator's comments and have some responses. Slrubenstein

First, the question of whether or not there were many messianic movements in the first century. I do not categorically rule this out, my position is not that there were none, only that the number has been inflated. I make my argument based on looking at the historical sources critically. Josephus, for example, considered Vespasian to be the messiah -- at least early in his career, when he was more concerned with sucking up to the Romans. Is Suetonius drawing on Josephus? These accounts were written some time after Jesus died, and reflected political conditions that were very different than when Jesus was alive, and perhaps reflected the biases of the authors. They may or may not be evidence that there were messianic movements. The Qumran community certainly anticipated a messiah -- I believe many Jews anticipated a messiah -- but this is not the same thing as a messianic movement. Is this just a mattter of semantics? To me a messianic movement is a group of people led by a candidate for or proclaimed messiah. My sense of the Qumran community and Essenes is that like most Jews, they awaited a messaiah but did not do anything the Roman's would have considered setitious. Look at it this way: there is a saying, perhaps in the Talmud, that if all Jews observe the Sabbath twice in a row the messiah will come. Most Jews pray --whether three times a day or twice a year -- for the messiah to come. But does that mean that Jews today -- that Reform, Orthodox, or Conservative Jews -- constitute a messianic movement? I wouldn't say so. There is no doubt, as Llywrch points out, that in the centuries before Jesus there were many Jews writing apocalyptically. It was in the air, and yes, the article should discuss this. But this stuff is not the same thing as a "messianicmovement." Finally, Josephus mentions several people that others have called messiahs. I pointed out, earlier in discussion, that Josephus himself did not consider these people messiahs. How should they be classified, then? I find John Crossan's classification pretty useful -- he sees some of these people as milinerian prophets (John the Baptist would be an example) but others he describes as bandits (following Hobsbawm's definition) and identifies with Zealots. There is no doubt that there were popular uprisings against Rome, but there is little or no evidence that these uprisings were messianic movements. By the way, I have no doubt that John the Baptist had many followers who kept his memory after he was killed. This fact is simply not sufficient to suggest that these followers were Mandeans, or somehow over time became Mandeans. I await evidence. In short: I recognize the evidence here, but question how it is interpreted -- in part because "messiah" meant different things, but also in part because "messiah" was only one kind of religio-political figure at the time, and many of these people represent another kind. Slrubenstein

I am afraid I do not understand Llwyrch's second point so well. If I do understand him, he is linking three arguments: that we shouldn't rely entirely on historical studies; that the Gospels are rich material; that I cannot simply deny the role of the Divine. If I understand him correctly, then I think he misunderstands me. My claims are not categorical claims that God does not exist, that Jesus was not God in the form of the son, and that Jesus did not perform miracles and was resurrected. My claim is that Wikipedia must provide space for these claims and for opposing claims. The Jesus article, as of a few months ago, tried to do just that. It had a section on Jesus from the view of Christians reading the New Testament, and it had a section on Jesus from the view of historians, and sections on Jewish and Muslim and other views of Jesus as well. That article became too long, and it was decided that we had no choice but to harvest "daughter" articles. It seems to me that no daughter article can represent all views. "All views" get represented by the totality of daughter articles. The purpose of this article was to provide the view of Jesus' life that historians have developed, even when it contradicts Christian claims. This is necessary because the Jesus article gives very short shrift to this point of view. Don't say the solution is to work on the Jesus article -- we will run into the same problem: it will get too long, and will have to be divided. If I understnad Illwrych correctly, another point he is making is that the NT (or Gospels) is a rich literary text, and one that cannot be fully appreciated as a literary text unless one takes the role of the divine into account. I tend to agree with him, but would argue, again, that this would have to be another (linked) article. This article is about Jesus the historical figure who once lived and died; it is not about the Gospels or the New Testament. I agree completely with Lwrych that there is a need to address this body of scholarship on the NT -- I just think it belongs in a different article. Have I misunderstood our mediator? In short, I do agree that I am trying to keep the assertion that God appeared in human form from this article -- because it is amply dealt with in a linked article. As for "form criticism," I have no objection at all to including a section on "form criticims" -- perhaps we can have a section on "methods of historical research" in which we can discuss the methods the historians involved rely on.Slrubenstein

Third, I am satisfied with the pace of editing, especially since most of us now seem to be able to communicate effectively and congenially. As I mentioned above, I think the next step is to discuss how to organize the article. Certainly, though, we also need to discuss its content. FT2 provided a list of topics. Llwyrch adds the use of some discussion of sexuality at the time. I have no problem with this (although I think the sources are few -- Boyarin wrote a great study but based on later Talmudic texts). Slrubenstein

Fourth, I think Jesus should be mentioned for one reason alone: this is a daughter article of the Jesus article. The question is, what should be said about Jesus in this spin-off article? I think it should say what critical scholars -- Bible scholars, classicists, historians (people who do not accept supernatural claims) have to offer an understanding of Jesus. Llywrch points out that the NT has terms (like son of man) that are obscure to people today, and which such scholars could explain. I agree -- but with one caveat. We need to distinguish between Jesus and Christianity. Historians have much to tell us about the early Church, and how the NT was written and edited. I just think this stuff belongs in a different article. But there are historians who actually accept Jesus' existence -- not as a matter of religious faith, but as historians who know that their is little proof Alexander the Great lived, but if he did we can study his life as historians. This Jesus may have done things that did not fit into later Christian beliefs. I am not saying he did. I am saying, let's research this article by reading historians and other critical scholars, and write an article that distills their research into a form a large number of people can read (which is what I thought an encyclopedia is about). In short, I think what Llywrch suggests as reasons for mentioning Jesus are in fact reasons for an article on "Christian view of Jesus" or an article on "History of Christianity." I think this is a different article -- on Jesus in his historical and cultural context. Slrubenstein

By the way, who claims Paul was a Gnostic? Pagel's book suggests a strong opposition between Paul and the Gnostics. Boyarin's book explains Paul's focus on the spiritual Jesus, and Paul's discomfort with sex and the physical, without relying on a Gnostic reading. Many neo=Platonic philosophies influenced Jews and Christians in the Hellenic world, not just Gnosticism. Slrubenstein

Reply from FT2

Another reply.

I like your points and agree structure/organisation/focus first.

That said, I don't think my real concern has been addressed, which remains as it was before. To take the example of Paul and sexuality, you have said you would like to see it explained how Paul's views either reflected or contradicted others, or how widespread abstenance was. But that just seems wrong to me. Its not about "how do Pauls views fit in with others". Its about what were cultural views on it, independent of Paul. Afterwards you can touch on how the two link up, but the primary focus (in this example) has got to be "What were the cultural views on sexuality" and its approach would be: "Some felt ABC, others felt PQR" [and only optionally, then, might one choose to add: "and Paul is described as X and Jesus refers to Y which would tend to suggest Z" but even that's not really necessary]  That, to my mind, is a background.

A background to something is not the same as "compare and contrast" or "Place Jesus in the context". One is absolute (what is X) the other relative ("how is X similar to and different from Y) in viewpoint, and thats fundamental and huge. The latter two give a privileged position which is inappropriate.

That isnt because Jesus shouldn't be in the article, its for far more fundamental reasons:

1. One cannot see Jesus clearly in his context if you show the context in the light of its relationship to Jesus rather than neutrally. How can you tell what's normal and whats unusual, what links are suggested and which refuted, if all you show is how the reported Jesus seems to have fitted or differed from his culture?
2. People who want to evaluate Jesus without assumption of Gospel material, who want to know what the culture was first, then see how Jesus fitted it, was informed by it, and differed from it, and why, can't do that if you start by selecting article content to highlight where he agreed and differed. In simple terms, "where he agreed and differed" is not the same as a statement of "what the status quo background was", pure and simple.
3. By "compare and contrast" you skip an absolute description of the culture as it informed Jesus and his followers, favouring a relative approach - with the object of relativity built into the article and being the Gospels. Any person who wants to know how Jesus fitted into his culture or historical context who is NOT coming from a gospel interpretation (a historian, a non christian, a biblical critic, an atheist) is denied the whole point of the article, since they are not told what the culture was per se, but only how it agreed or differed from what a source they are not favouring says of Jesus. This is the basis of my list of questions above. None of those questions can be answered by showing how jesus agreed and disagreed with his times. They all demand an absolute approach not a relative one.

FT2 20:26, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with FT2's view of the "comparison/contrast" approach. I support FT2's approach with one caveat: for all the historians I have read, the NT is a historical source. That does not mean that it is a uniformly reliable source, it means it is one of the written documents from that period that tell us something about the people who wrote the NT, something about the events described in the NT, and something about the milieu in which the NT was written. Much historical research has been dedicated precisely to figuring out what the NT can tell us about these things. In this, historians treat the NT just as they treat Josephus or Tacitus. NONE of these documents are free of bias, none are objective; all must be studied critically. This is important to note because some historians will draw on something Pual said, not for the purposes of "compare/contrast" but to establish or illustrate mainstream views at the time. Does this sound strange, that Paul's views were mainstream? That isn't what I said or meant. What we read as Paul's views were not mainstream. But within Pauline texts there may be fragments, sentences and phrases, that do reflect mainstream views. For example, take a major policy speech by Bush. As a whole it is partisan and reflects his political agenda -- one that is not universally shared. Still, within his speech may be phrases that illustrate very commonly held beliefs. And his speech may actually be a useful source for historians who want to know what people thought back then. the thing is, they read his speech critically. The end result of all of this is that the way historians work is NOT that (step 1) they read everything that was not ascribed to Jesus, and (step 2) they interpret what Jesus said in terms of what they discoverd in step 1 -- it is a much more complicated process that involves going back and forth not only between different sources, but between different readings of different sources -- not just a two step process. Slrubenstein

Thats fair enough. But in that case its subtle but very important to remember, the Gospels must then play two completely different roles.

1. In role #1, the Gospels are authentic writings by "some bunch of people" of the time, who like many people had their own clique view perhaps, and agenda in writing, and who wrote selectively and in their old age about matters they probably had a highly vested interest in and non-typical view of. So they are historical documents and informative about the time and places, but (no offence) they may equally be as impartial as mein Kamf was about Blacks and Communists. Combined with other sources and reviewed through critical and competent eyes, they are quite valid historical sources and shed legitimate light on many aspects of the times. But they cannot necessarily be taken at face value nor as complete, and no historian would do so, and they distort as much as they show.
2. In role #2 they are religious scriptures written about the subject of comparison within the culture that role #1 sheds light on. They are theology and not documentary, but they are also specifically centred on the subject we wish to show in his culture. In modern terms one might say there is a "conflict of interest", a "use/reference" conflict, or perhaps what Douglas Hofstadter would call a "tangled hierachy".

I am sure SIr' is aware of the above. I am wary of using the Gospels as a primary source here, because we would be using it to inform us of the cultural background as it impacted a man - but it's the exact same man who the Gospels deliberately theologised and set their entire axis upon. Because of this split role and conflict of use, it needs to be made very VERY known when the Gospel is used as a religious reference about Jesus, and when it is used as one of many sources about real life - and if the latter, ideally one should try to use non Gospel sources where possible. This is since the Gospels will be more dubious source than a third party document in relation to this question, as they have deliberately the sole aim of showing the culture and context only in relation to the story/myth/theology of Jesus, and because they have certainly distorted the culture and history in some very specific ways (some known, some probably unknown) in order to achieve this exact goal. FT2 18:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks FT2, this is a good way of framing the distinction. I still take slight issue with your last sentence -- I believe what you say about the Gospels is true of all historical sources. Josephus's The Jewish War is an apology for the Romans; Antiquities is an apology for the Jews; both are biased and there are even some contradictions between the two works that reflect their different bias. Similarly, some Jewish historians (e.g. Shaye Cohen and Daniel Boyarin, both of whom are religious Jews) have used passages from the Gospels -- very carefully, and critically, of course -- as sources on Jewish life at the time. Slrubenstein

All I can say for now is two things: first, I have strived to keep this distinction in all of my contributions (e.g. the currently protected version of this article) and if you or anyone thinks that I have not been clear in making the distinction I would be very grateful to know. Second, however we proceed I think that since Wikipedia is not a place for original research, we should strive to represent how historians and critical scholars (for the oment, let's say anyone -- no matter what their religion or how religious they are -- who makes the distinction you just made) make this distinction. I am sure scholars have debated precisely over this issue and we should provide accounts of those debates. In any event, the question is not how you or I personally would make this distinction, but how other published researchers have made this distinction. Slrubenstein

In response to an early comment -- I forget whether it was by you or Amgine or someone else -- I wondered whether the article should include a brief section on methodology (that is, how historians treat historical texts in order to determine such things as context); perhaps what you wrote could be edited into such a paragraph. Slrubenstein

Response by CheeseDreams to Responses

(A)

0. Content dictates form. Not vice versa.

1. There is either evidence for many Messianic groups, or there is evidence for a few very large groups equal to or greater than the size of the christian group. Such as for example "the egyptian" (about whom very little else is known).

This claim by CheeseDreams is evidence of her incompetence in this matter. Josephus (the orgiginal historical source) does not describe the Egyptian as a "Messiah" but rather as a false prophet. Geza Vermes (a major historian on the period) identifies the Egyptian as a prophet in the charismatic tradition of Elisha and Elijah. John Crossan, another important historian, classifies the Egyptian as a millenial prophet. So CheeseDreams is ignorant of both primary and secondary sources. By the way, I will not accept as a compromise some sentence like "Although most historians consier the Egyptian a prophet or false prophet, some see him as a messianic figure." A compromiose sentence is one that takes a variety of scholarly opinions into account. It is not one that compromises between verifiable scholarly views and one ignorant editor's unfounded insistance on calling the Egyptian a messiah, when he wasn't -- when NO ONE of the Egyptian's time called him a messiah, and when historians and Bible scholars do not consider him a messiah. CheeseDream's imagination is not a valid source for an encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein

Just to point out to other readers. I will not accept a compromise sentence of this form either. Most historians consider the egyptian an "other messiah" figure. P.s. John Crossan + Josephus is not equal to Most Historians. Further, remember historiography - Josephus is biased - as a non-messianic Jew he does not consider anyone to have been the messiah. This does not detract from his statements that others did. Further, Slrubenstein's spurious and specious (his own term) reasoning is not a valid source for an encyclopedia article. CheeseDreams 19:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is the historical evidence that the Egyptian was a messiah? What document do you have from that time in which the Egyptian proclaimed himself messiah, or in which others claimed he was messiah? Slrubenstein

1) What is the historical evidence that the Egyptian was NOT a messiah?

2) What is the historical evidence that Jesus was a messiah?

CheeseDreams

If you are going to assert a factual claim, provide evidence. That is what we call "research" which is what wikipedia is about. As for J, no one here claims he was Messiah. We only claim that Christians claim he was Messiah. Slrubenstein

If Slrubenstein is going to assert a factual claim, he ought to provide evidence. I have seen none stating that the Egyptian was NOT a messiah. CheeseDreams 21:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2a. The purpose of this article is to describe background. Another article with a title like "Historical reconstructionism of the sort of person Jesus would be" covers the view of Jesus' life that historians have developed.

Background of what? Background is a relative term. It is relative to ... what? This article must be about the background AND what it is relative to. Slrubenstein

"The background to the dictionary" is not going to be a list of words or about what happened to them over time, dear reader. Background is meta. CheeseDreams 19:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When you miss a point, you really miss big. Slrubenstein

When someone presents an appropriate argument that prooves too difficult to refute, Slrubenstein resorts to Ad Hominem. CheeseDreams 21:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2b. The gnostics did not view the messiah as real, but as an allegorical entity, this is because gnostics are a mystery religion.

True. But what gnostic traditions do you have for the time period of this article (first century CE)? What evidence do you have that Paul was a Gnostic? Slrubenstein

Dear reader, gnosticism is near-universally acknowledged as beginning somewhere in the 1st and 2nd centuries BC. Further, dear reader, Paul is irrelevant to the statement 2b. given above.

Further still, the non-dubious epistles of Paul do not refer to Jesus as a flesh and blood real human figure. Further yet, Paul hated the sins of the flesh "the flesh is evil, yet I give in to it" (or something similar), just like the gnostic view of the body. Further, gnostics preferred Paul's writings as their canon than any other new testament text, some such as Marcion only had a canon consisting of Pauls writings (except the dubious ones - including the pastorals), acts (as it refers to paul), and luke (as it is the most pro-paul of the gospels), one must wonder what they saw in these texts above the remainder, if they didn't lend them support. CheeseDreams 19:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is not an article about Gnostics. There is no evidence that Gnosticism was part of the historical and cultural background relevant to Jesus. Slrubenstein

Dear reader, Gnosticism existed in a pre-christian form since BC, therefore they are very much a part of the background. Furthermore, the Essenes had similarity to them (though not quite so extreme), particularly in their methodology, less so in their beliefs. CheeseDreams 21:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2c. The Qumran communtity are pre 1st century, and irrelevant to post 0 development, though they are generally considered Essenes. The Nag Hammadi communtity (which is probably what was meant to be referred to) according to most scholars were gnostics.

Most historians see the Qumran community as having existed into the first century. Virtually all Jesus scholars draw on Qumran material in ther analysis of Jesus. The Nag Hammadi library (we do not know if there was a community) is centuries later. Slrubenstein

Dear reader, the texts recovered from Qumran are all Old Testament texts. The people who collected together the Nag HAmmadi library existed, therefore there was a community of people at Nag Hammadi who used these texts. CheeseDreams 19:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. Nag Hammadi is a village in Egypt where the documents were found. No one claims that the people of Nag Hamadi wrote the documents. It is likely that monks from a nearby Christian monestary (St. Pachomius) buried the documents to preserve them. Now, the monestary was a community. And someone there wanted to preserve these texts. But that does not mean that they were a community of Gnostics. Slrubenstein

Now, dear reader, why would orthodox Christians protect heretical documents from orthodox Christians? CheeseDreams 21:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps back then the the line between heretical and orthodox Christians was not so clearly drawn? Slrubenstein

Darling reader, if the line at the time had not been drawn, why would the Christians in Nag Hammadi

• allow the Christians coming to get near enough to be a threat to the text
• be worried about the other Christians so much as to hide the text

CheeseDreams 21:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2d. Josephus describes prophets as well as messiahs not as replacements for.

Correct. Prophets are not replacements for messiahs. They are different. Do not mix the two up. Slrubenstein

Darling reader, one must not mix up one's own prejudices, and those of Josephus, with the truth. CheeseDreams 19:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2e. Not only does the New Testament describe the followers of John the Baptist as NOT becoming followers of Christianity (and indeed the opposite), the Mandaeans were followers of John the Baptist. Further term "Mandaean" is just a modern synonym for "Nazoreans" (who, mysteriously, have not previously been discussed in reference to this article), furthere, Mandaeans of today still refer to themselves as Nazoreans, outsiders call them Mandaeans (and Sabians, amongst other terms).

What first century evidence do you have that John or his followers were Mandeans? Slrubenstein

Darling reader, there is no first century evidence that they were not.

With respect to Jesus et.al. There is no first century evidence at all. CheeseDreams 19:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And this is an argument for including Mandeans in the article? Amgine? FT2? Mediator? Any comment on this "argument?" I ask the mediator, does this fit our policy of verifiability? Slrubenstein

Darling reader, this is an argument for the inclusion of the Mandaeans. There is no LESS 1st century evidence for them than for anything else 1st century. CheeseDreams 21:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4.a The origin of an article has no authority over what the article is now.

Your parents, for example, could be fond of reggae and you not.

Bad analogy. In any event, only the editors have authority over what the article is now. But many of the editors care about the origins of the article. Slrubenstein

Obviously either

• Slrubenstein likes reggae
• Slrubenstein's parents do not like reggae
• Both

THE WIKI HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE ARTICLE, NOT JUST THE CABAL OF THOSE EDITORS HEREIN. CheeseDreams 19:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4b. There are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Saint Thomas Christians (bet you forgot they still exist - its a rather odd syncretism of christianity and hindusim), Coptic Christians, Talmud scholars, as well as many others, not just "Bible scholars, classicists, historians" who study the 1st century Roman Palestine and the background of Jesus.

And most of these are represented in other daughter articles of Jesus, as they should be.

To discount those who study 1st century Roman Palestine's ability to contribute to sources for information on cultural and historical background based only on their creed or race is an ABOMINATION of racism. (and definitely not NPOV) CheeseDreams 19:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To suggest, as you just did, that Jews, Muslims, and Hindus cannot be modern historians or critical Bible scholars is racism. Slrubenstein

Dear reader, Slrubenstein is attempting Spin Doctoring. To suggest that all Jews, Muslims, and Hindus are automatically modern historians and critical Biblical scholars is racist prejudice. CheeseDreams 21:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I never said all. I just said they can be. Slrubenstein

Dear reader, trying to twist what one states or implies by ever more specifying the exact text used is in the definition of Spin Doctoring. CheeseDreams 21:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4c. Very few historians doubt the existance of Alexander the Great. Based on the fact that someone did found a massive empire very quickly. The someone otherwise has no name, he may as well be called Alexander. There is no similar argument for Jesus.

Clearly you didn't catch my reference to Sanders. I assume that is because you never read Sanders. I assume that is because you do no research when writing articles. Slrubenstein

I could assume Slrubenstein either

• does no research
• "researches" a select group of texts that only support his POV
• does research so poor, a 5 year old child could do better

however this would be bad faith. CheeseDreams 19:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not bad faith, just illogical and inaccurate. Slrubenstein

I would state it was a logical and accurate deduction from the arguments presented, but that would be uncivil. CheeseDreams 21:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You could continue arguing this point, but that would be "in character." Slrubenstein

Darling reader, being "in character" isn't a violation of policy, wheras incivility and failing to assume good faith are. CheeseDreams 21:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4d. "Jesus in his historical and cultural context" is not the same as "The cultural and historical context that Jesus was in", in fact these are so different as to be seperate articles. In the same way "CheeseDreams whilst in the background of Wilmslow" and "The Wilmslow that CheeseDreams would have known" are completely and totally different.

By the way, the only evidence that Paul was not a Gnostic is from those epistles that are considered dubious or fraudulent by most academics. The majority of Paul's epistles

• do not mention Jesus as an historical character
• are esoteric
• support the gnostic view that the flesh is evil

I didn't ask for evidence supporting the claim that Paul was not a Gnostic, I was asking for evidence that Paul was a Gnostic. Yes, there are some similarities between Pauline rhetoric and Gnostic rhetoric. This is unsurprising as they both have roots in Hellenic culture. That does not mean Paul was a Gnostic. Both Demoncrats and Republicans quote the Consititution; that does not make Bush a Democrat. Again: what is the evidence that Paul is a Gnostic? Is this your own opinion, or can you cite historians who have made this argument based on historical evidence? Slrubenstein

Darling reader, see above. Further, Slrubenstein's discussion is no evidence that Paul was NOT a gnostic. Doubting the scholarship of the argument for X is 1000 miles away from evidencing the scholarship and providing an argument against X. CheeseDreams 19:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't be defensive. If you have no evidence, just say "I have no evidence." Slrubenstein

Darling reader, remember, Slrubenstein is not addressing the point here, but presenting a subtle Ad Hominem. CheeseDreams 21:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is not ad hominem to ask for evidence. Slrubenstein

Darling reader, anything failing to address the point that "Slrubenstein's discussion is no evidence that Paul was NOT a gnostic" and "the scholarship of the argument for X is 1000 miles away from evidencing the scholarship and providing an argument against X" and instead insinuating "You have no evidence" is an ad hominem - see Ad Hominem for proof of this.

Further, when later Christianity went to find the church set up by the original apostles, all they could find were the Ebionites. Who were gnostic.

However, this is irrelevant, as this is after the time of the article.

(B)

Paul is after Jesus. Paul is irrelevant to background. Some people don't give a damn about what the gospels find important. The gospels should not be allowed to dictate the nature or narrative of this article.

CheeseDreams 22:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ex-Mediator's Responses

I've been waiting for Amgine to offer his response to what I wrote, but it looks as if he has been busy with other things. So I'd like to respond to a few points.

1. CheeseDreams, I must state that your arguments are marked by some leaps in reasoning , for which you offer no logical connection, which weaken their persuasiveness. First, you state that because Mark was a gnostic, then he did not care about the historicity of Jesus, & therefore neither did Matthew or Luke. I don't see how the first part of your assertion results with the truth of the second.

Markan priority and Two source hypothesis CheeseDreams 21:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure I accept without further evidence that a gnostic writer would be indifferent to the veracity of the story he was retelling. How one leads to the other is not obvious to me.

Gnostics told stories as allegory, for the purpose of encoding deeper truths. See mystery religion for a description of this methodology. The tale isn't about historic record, its about theology and philosophy. See also other gnostic texts. Thats why the gnostics were considered so dangerous. CheeseDreams 21:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can you name the authorities who make the claims you attribute to "some people"? If so, then there is good grounds for mentioning these views in Wikipedia.

Which some people? CheeseDreams 21:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lastly, you made a glaring factual error in your response. It is impossible for Arius to be the "arch-enemy" of Irenaeus; Arius (256-336) was born almost 100 years after Irenaeus (fl.165-185) had died. And for what it's worth, the earliest known copy of the Gospel of John has been reliably dated to AD 125; any claim that Irenaeus forged that document would clearly be suspect.

Yes, I keep getting that one wrong and confusing Iranaeus with Eusebius (who recorded Iranaeus' dialog etc., and was Arius' enemy) and

Secondly, there are NO, ABSOLUTELY ZERO, 2nd century bible texts in existance known. What does exist are 3rd and 4th century copies. I really don't know where you get the idea that someone has a text from AD125. Such a copy would blow all the discussions of "John was written AD80-AD150" out of the water, they still exist, its finding would have been sensational. CheeseDreams 21:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am talking about Rylands Library Papyrus P52. And there are a number of early copies on papyrus that date to the last decade of the 2nd century; I would have to consult my notes at home to list them here, but they do exist. I don't know where you got your assertion that "John was written AD80-AD150", but it must be from an old source. -- llywrch 22:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

John was written AD80-AD150 - see [1] for information on this.

P52 is just a fragment, one or two lines, not the whole gospel by any means. It could be anything. It might be the mysterious "Epistle to the Hebrews". Just because a bit of similar text is found does not mean that the remainder is the gospel of John. It could be from the allegedly missing "signs gospel", or from Q, there is very little way to prove it is John. Its like finding a splinter and asserting its a piece of the true cross. I always thought it was numbered P45 though, maybe that's something else. CheeseDreams 23:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, P52 is dated "between 125 and 160 CE". Taking the lower limit is extremely POV (and unlikely to be accurate, statistics point to it being more likely somewhere in the middle or the later end, i.e. Iranaeus' lifetime).CheeseDreams 23:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. Slrubenstein, my point for discussing "messianic movements" was not to argue that they might have existed, it was to explain that it possible for someone to think that they had existed at the time. This is a preconception (or misconception) that many readers will come to this article with, & thus needs be addressed.

And it's an easy one to have. If I were to casually discuss this period with some friends over a beer, I probably would refer to the "messianic movements" of this period, because the correctness of the term would not be that vital, & they would understand the qualities I was referring to by the word. Now if I were discussing this period with an expert, I would use the terminology she or he used. Further, based on my faulty memory of Sunday school, taught by adult volunteers, I hav ethe impression that much of the Old Testament was interpreted as predicting the coming of a messiah -- which is supported by how the OT was quoted in the gospels, as if certain passages were understood at the time as being prophetic.

Sunday school is not an NPOV institution. Further, the people interpreting the Old Testament at the time of messianic movements WERE NOT CHRISTIANS. Any claim by christians as to what it meant has to be viewed as POV suspect. Jews are a better reference in this case, as they are more likely to have preserved an accurate understanding of the text. CheeseDreams 21:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3. FT2, I was not saying that this article should compare & contrast the views of Jesus or Paul with those of the period, but furnish the materials so the reader can do it for her/himself. What I was proposing is identical to how you state you would prefer to handle the material. -- llywrch 19:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I find myself particularly troubled by the current trend in the discussion of this article, and the mediation. I have determined it would be in my personal best interests to withdraw from involvement in the mediation, and thus (to avoid possible conflicts) the article and topic on Wikipedia. - Amgine 19:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am also appalled by this change in action by the mediator, and the lack of discussion by the mediator with me during this mediation. I hereby withdraw from the mediation, as I do not have confidence in the neutrality of the mediator. CheeseDreams 21:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

However, I will not allow an article to be abused by POV editing or POV mediation, so I will not myself "withdraw from the article and topic", but instead declare my intent to take this article to Arbitration should the issues which caused the need for mediation continue. CheeseDreams 21:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go for it, bubeleh, Slrubenstein

Dear reader note the policy at Wikipedia:Civility allows and instructs me to delete offensive comments or strike them out. CheeseDreams 21:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look, bubeleh, it is not an offensive comment and you have no right to srike out what I write. Your comments are full of terms like "darling;" if you want to strike out text, strike those terms out, okay. Slrubenstein

Dear reader, the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks gives all editors the right to remove offensive comments, neutralise them, or strike them out, as seems the most appropriate, regardless of who made the comment. They must, however, do this in such a way that it does not damage the discussion (i.e. in some cases a replacement word must be used).

Do not rewrite my work. Do not vandalize. Slrubenstein

Dear reader, the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks gives all editors the right to remove offensive comments, neutralise them, or strike them out, as seems the most appropriate, regardless of who made the comment. They must, however, do this in such a way that it does not damage the discussion (i.e. in some cases a replacement word must be used).

There is nothing offensive about bubeleh. You have no right to strike it out or delete it. Don't like it? Make a RfC, RfM, or RfA. Slrubenstein

The next move

We seem to have got to the stage that there is very little anyone is willing to concede. I think the next thing to do is take on board the summary (including whatever the disputes of it are) and re-write the competing versions of the article. CheeseDreams 00:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is absurd - we were having a discussion and coming towards consensus. john k 02:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe much progress has currently been made to understand what some of the various parties' viewpoints are. There appears to be general consensus on what the article is about, but some disagreement about the breadth/depth of the article. We have not addressed a couple of issues, which everyone is carefully not bringing up:

1. Whether to work from FT2's version, Slrubenstein's version, an even earlier version, or to develop a new version.

2. The messianic groups section.

These two elements have been particularly contentious in past discussions, so before anyone responds I would request everyone to keep in mind the goals of an encyclopedic article and avoiding contention - revert and edit wars are harmful. - Amgine 03:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This seems sensible to me. I'd just like to add that I removed CheeseDreams's attempt to convert this into some sort of "everyone signs up to work on a different version of the article" business. While a few days ago I might have said that this might be the best way to handle things, it seems fairly clear that we're making progress in discussion, which, it seems to me, obviates the need for this kind of thing. I am also doubtful that CD is working in good faith here - I think she sees that progress is being made towards a consensus which she believes she will not like, and is trying to prevent that from happening by shouting about how no progress is being made. But perhaps not. In terms of the two things you bring up, I think FT2's version cannot be the one that we work from. The method he used of cutting up Slr's text and inserting it all over the place seems to me to be pretty terrible. I (and I am rather embarrassed to admit this) have not really looked at earlier versions of the article. It is possible, I suppose, that an earlier version would be more worth working from than Slr's, but I am doubtful, since he seems to have added a considerable amount of new information, which would be lost if we were to work from another version. That is not to say, though, that we should accept Slr's version with no major changes - I, at least, am very open to discussion of how it could be improved to help with your and others' objections to it. In terms of this version versus FT2's version, the major difference seems to be in terms of organization. I would submit that while there may be arguments to be made for splitting up culture and history, I think there is nothing to be said for the way this is done in FT2's version, since what he essentially did was to cut up Slr's text and semi-randomly put it in different places. If the consensus is in favor of a different organization, it needs to be very carefully written so as to actually make sense, rather than to simply be a version organized differently split up in a difficult to understand manner. In terms of the second issue, from my limited knowledge I thought Slr had the best of the argument on most counts, although I'd have to review it again to be sure. john k 04:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how much time I will be able to devote to this article (and how well my generally low tolerance for angry discssion will handle things...that will depend on how civil we all remain, myself included), so take my comments with a grain of salt. I would generally lean towards Slr's version for the reasons John K. mentions, but I don't want to lean too hard that way, since I fear we will divide into two camps. Beginning with the version of the article that existed prior to this great dispute seems most neutral to me -- if it's where we began in the first place, it makes sense to begin again. It would also have the merit that I think none of us want it to remain as it was (while if we adopt someone else's version they may feel a need to defend it). But if we can agree that starting from Slr's version will eliminate a lot of work we'd have to do to an earlier version, that's fine as well -- like John, I am sure significant changes will be made to whatever version we use, Slr's included. A "new version" we all create will be difficult -- it's hard to grow from scratch. I think inevitably it will take on the character of a version that already exists -- might as well begin with work already under way. That's my two cents, Jwrosenzweig 22:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article prior to the great dispute is similar to, but contains less content than, and is less NPOV than, FT2s version. So I have very little objection to such a stance. CheeseDreams 22:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article that was FT2s version

(editors editing this version article should not edit the others)

/OriginallyFT2

Editors contributing to this version

1. CheeseDreams 00:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article that was Slrubensteins version

(editors editing this version article should not edit the others)

/OriginallySlrubenstein

Editors contributing to this version

An alternative version

(editors editing this version article should not edit the others)

/fromScratch1

Editors contributing to this version

Comments by parties on this talk page

(This section is for comments on the article versions by editors who are connected to the parties on this page. Please avoid going over topics already discussed (at length), and review archive 6 (5,4,3,2) to help prevent this)

I'm not sure why it would be useful for some to work on one version while at the same time others work on another version, or why someone shouldn't help with both. What's the rationale here? Wesley 04:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would guess it is because it seems that some people wont accept the views of other people about how it should be layed out, the quotes that can and cant go in it, and what content is factually accurate. The consequence if they worked on an article by another group may be simply to change that article to their view of laying out, their quotes, and their content. So i think its probably an attempt to prevent war. I would be interested to see how much they differ, as I think some things have been accepted by both sides. Or maybe they will turn into completely different things, and should both be kept. Maybe some people should be allowed to edit both articles but they probably would need to be allowed to do so by both sides. Tigermoon 14:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would make sense if we agreed to permanently split it into two articles. But if people put a lot of effort into these two different versions with no agreement to split, then there's still going to be war when it comes time to pick a version. Ultimately, I think this approach would only lead to a temporary lull in hostilities at best, without any real resolution. Wesley 18:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that it is more important to see if they are going to go in two different directions, or to see if they will converge into the same article. CheeseDreams 19:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Amgine wrote,

I believe much progress has currently been made to understand what some of the various parties' viewpoints are. There appears to be general consensus on what the article is about, but some disagreement about the breadth/depth of the article. We have not addressed a couple of issues, which everyone is carefully not bringing up:

1. Whether to work from FT2's version, Slrubenstein's version, an even earlier version, or to develop a new version.

2. The messianic groups section.

I responded that before deciding between my version and FT2s we should discuss in general the organization of the article. No one however seems to want that discussion. John K. and JWrosenzweig have expressed a preference for my version, because of its organization and scope. I ask FT2 and Amgine whether they have any strong objection to starting with my version (which would simply mean the currently protected version)?

If they agree, Amgine's next point is to deal with "messianic groups." We can certainly do that, but I think we should handle one decision at a time. I agree with Amgine that "messianic groups" has been a major source of contention -- although it seems like the only people really involved in that debate were me and CheeseDreams. Am I wrong?

In my version I tried to call attention to differences between Sicarii, Brigands, Zealots, Prophets, and Millenial Prophets -- because from what I have seen many of the people labeled by CheeseDreams as "other messiahs" actually fall into one of these other groups.

IF we go with my version, I posted a list of changes/revisions to content I would like us to consider. Also, FT2 posted a list of questions concerning content; I think that list too would make a good agenda for working forward. Slrubenstein

I have posted a list of changes/revisions I would like us to consider. It is the summary of the discussion that has gone on before. CheeseDreams 19:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediation status

I note that CheeseDreams has changed the heading "Mediator's Response" to "Ex-Mediator's Response". Does that mean that she has rejected Llywrch as a mediator? john k 02:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Both Amgine, and I, no longer consider Llywrch impartial. Therefore the position of Llywrch as mediator is untenable. CheeseDreams 11:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would it not have been more clear to state this directly, rather than to do it in such an oblique way? john k 19:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We did - here is a COPY of the text from that section.

I find myself particularly troubled by the current trend in the discussion of this article, and the mediation. I have determined it would be in my personal best interests to withdraw from involvement in the mediation, and thus (to avoid possible conflicts) the article and topic on Wikipedia. - Amgine 19:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am also appalled by this change in action by the mediator, and the lack of discussion by the mediator with me during this mediation. I hereby withdraw from the mediation, as I do not have confidence in the neutrality of the mediator. CheeseDreams 21:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

moving on

FT2's version had a section on synagogues. His section was brief and I am afraid inaccurate -- but I do think he was right to have such a section. I propose that when the article is unprotected we add a brief section after 2.4.1 (which should be retitled something like "Governance Under Roman Occupation," or "The Temple, the Sanhedren, and the Procurator") and before 2.4.2 ("Essenes and Prophets"). This section could be called "Proseuchai and Synagogues." Here is what I suggest:

Proseuchai and synagogues developed during the Hellenistic period to serve Jews who lived far from the Temple. The proseuchai (Greek for "house of prayer;" in Hebrew "bet tefillah") developed in the diaspora, and synagogues (Greek for "house of assembly;" in Hebrew, "bet knesset") developed in Palestine. Practices in these institutions were based on and paralleled practices in the Temple. For example, the "Shema" was recited twice daily in the Temple; people would assemble in proseuchai and synagogues twice daily to recite the Shema. Synagogues, moreover, served as local community centers. They did not have any standard formal organization or leadership.

As far as I know there isn't much more to say, but it is a start and of course if others knowmore they can add more. Slrubenstein

FT2 is more reliable in his research, IMO, than Slrubenstein. CheeseDreams 12:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bubelah, do you have any evidence to support your opinion? FT2 admited himself he has not done much research; what sources did he provied? My sources are Shaye Cohen, Jacob Neusner and Daniel Boyarin -- who do you think are better sources on this? More specifically: can you tell me what is wrong in the paragraph I proposed? It is more detailed and more accurate than FT2's version. Give one example from my paragraph that is inaccurate.Slrubenstein

My dearest darling cuddly fluffy readers, the phrase "all of it, including the grammer" seems to me to be aposite. CheeseDreams 19:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bubelah, I think you mean "grammar." And please tell me which sentence in the proposed paragraph is ungrammatical? That would make your criticism constructive, and I would correct the mistake.Slrubenstein

I also want to add a point about different Jewish factions. Josephus is famous for having listed three "parties" and later adding a fourth. The fact is, there were many factions and we know practically nothing about them. Under Gamaliel II (80-115 a blessing was added to the Amidah that specifically criticized "minim." For a long time people understood this to refer to Christians, but some understand it to refer to the Saducees, and today I think most scholars see it as a rejection of sectarianism itself (this matter is discussed in the current, protected, version). Now, even if this blessing was added in the late first century, that does not mean that most Jews said it or believed it. The source for this is the Talmud which was edited in the fifth century, and most scholars understand that Rabbinic Judaism (including this attitude towards "minim") did not become the extablished orthodoxy until at least the fourth century. In Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 29c, Rabbi Yohanan suggests that prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 there were 24 different sects of "minim" (again, understood to be heretical sects, but this is clearly an anachronism -- they were not considered "heretical" until the consolidation of Rabbinic Judaism in the fourth and fifth centuries). The word used for "heretical" is "minim." It is possible that he was being poetic (Israel = 12 tribes; 24=12x2; 24="Israel divided"). Many interpreters of the Talmud understand Yohanan to be referring to different sects of Christians, but remember that the name for the Pharisees derives from the word for separatist. Boyarin has suggested that by the second century (i.e. after Jesus died) There was probably a continuum of Jewish sects, with Marcionites (Christians who utterly denied Jewishness, as they rejected the truth of the Hebrew Bible) on one end and Jews who utterly denied the importance of Jesus on the other end. In between these two extreems there were likely to have been a whole range of Jewish-Christian beliefs. But we have no direct evidence as to how many "sects" they fell into, or what they believed. Slrubenstein

Josephus is regarded by scholars as a more reliable source. CheeseDreams 12:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, dear reader, note that Marcionites couldn't possibly be part of the background of Jesus as they did not exist until the New Testament had at least in part been writton, in fact they did not exist until Marcion did. CheeseDreams 12:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bubelah, bubelah, please read what I wrote; the reference to the Marcionites was to the second century. The rest of the material concerns the first century. And what is your evidence that Josephus is "more" reliable? You yourself once seemed to claim that the Talmud was at least a valid source. You wrote "Clearly you are deliberately misinterpreting my text so as to be able to commit libel. Do you comprehend the fact that a Jew is more likely to have a copy of the Talmud than a non-Jew? Do you further comprehend that a Jew is more likely to have access to a scholar or religious teacher with some knowledge on how to read the Talmud, or where to find passages in it than a non-Jew?" [2]. Those are your words! Now here is what I think is going on: when I rely on non-Talmudic sources, you tell me what I say is wrong because I didn't refer to the Talmud. But when I refer to Talmudic sources, you tell me the Talmud isn't so reliable. I think that you either know nothing about historical sources, or just don't care. I think whatever I say, you will reject it -- this is a perfect example of an ad hominem attack, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. In any event, Josephus and the Talmud are both important historical sources but ones that must be read critically, and I have provided some critical interpretations of these texts.Slrubenstein

For the time when Jesus was presumed to have lived, however, I think the protected version does justice to most factions and movements we know about: Pharisees, Saducees, Sicarii, brigands, zealots, prophets, Essenes, and millenial prophets. Slrubenstein

I think the protected version is a poor shadow of FT2s version (which itself is a poor shadow of its own potential)CheeseDreams 12:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, you are just wrong, bubelah. I provided a list of over 12 faults with that version, and other contributors have agreed with me. You have yet to detail any faults (lack of NPOV, lack of accuracy or verifiability) with my version. It comes down to this: I keep discussing substantive ways to improve the article; I keep doing research and I report the findings of my research. All you are capable of is obstructionism. You have never done anything positive or constructive. You should be banned from this article.Slrubenstein

My dearest darling little cuddly readers, calling for a ban is a serious violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility CheeseDreams 19:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing on Wikipedia:No personal attacks to suggest that calling for a ban of someone is a personal attack. john k 21:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's in Wikipedia:Civility—it's uncivil on an article talk page. Perhaps this could be a suggested remedy at RfAr, but it's not terribly helpful here. Cool Hand Luke 03:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, most likely it is not helpful. And I did not dispute that it was probably uncivil. But it is certainly not, as CheeseDreams suggested "a serious violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks." CheeseDreams makes completely incorrect comments about Wikipedia policy all the time. She ought to be called on it. john k 04:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The exact words are "More serious examples include:...calling for bans and blocks" CheeseDreams 07:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And, seriously, what's with all the cute talk? It makes everything you say that much more annoying. john k 22:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does it? Oh, that couldn't possibly be the reason then. CheeseDreams 07:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)