Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:58, 25 November 2004

Archive

• Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus/Archive
• Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus/Archive 2 - Amgine 20:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus/Archive 3 - Amgine 00:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What happened to Archive 1? As of this writing it seems to be a broken link... Wesley 23:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) It appears to be deleted. I have gone back well before my archive edits and the link is still broken. I did not find it on the deletion logs, however. So I dunno - Amgine 01:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Summary of Summary discussions/votes

Summarized by - Amgine 02:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) Re-formatted to shorten TOC - Amgine 00:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(a) Should specific asides about things that happened to Jesus be included

3 votes in favour, 2 votes opposed

Discussion centered on issues of duplication, whether it would be better to have two articles - one avoiding the existence of Jesus in 1st century Palestine, the other exclusively on the existence of Jesus in 1st century Palestine - or a single article inclusive of all points of view.

(b) Should a section about other groups who believed in Messiah figures exist

6 votes in favour, none oppposed

Discussion consensus that messianic groups were part of the milieu therefore relevant, though a detailed listing of known movements was opposed by one speaker.

Revised text agreed to pending "tidying up a bit" (reflects all suggested edits found in Summary discussions): "Jesus is held to have lived in the first century in Judea. Without addressing Jesus existence as an actual historic figure, this article discusses the cultural and political forces active at that time. see: Historicity of Jesus for information relating to the existence of Jesus as a historical figure."

(c) "Rabbinic Judaism" followed Phariseeism, or "Later forms of Judaism"

1 neutral vote

This issue is specifically in contention between two debaters. Neither seemed able to come up with the reverse geneological statement "Rabbinic Judaism is descended, in part, from Phariseeism", and the issue (in this section) remained unresolved.

(d) Should the area be called "Palestine"?

2 opposed, 4 in favour, 1 in favour of a qualified simple term (possibly Palestine)

Discussion revolved around historical precision, and as Roman Palestine did not exist in a reasonable formulation at precisely the time in question there were objections to its use.

(e)Is the quote below NPOV?

According to most Christians, Jesus lived in the first century in Judea, and was, at least in part, shaped by the cultural and political forces active at that time

3 opposed, 1 in favour

Discussion by opposed revolved primarily on including the term "Christians", while pointing out the issue is resolved by proposed text under (b) above.

(f) Did the Jewish people in general consider pharisees living saints?

No votes recorded on the subject

Discussion had a general consensus that "saint" was perhaps a poor word choice, including by the original contributor. No other term developed a consensus.

g) Is the phrase Son of man necessarily apocalyptic?

1 opposed, 3 examples of opposition (but not formally voted opposed)

Discussion points out that Son of Man is the authority article, and that it was used both apocalyptically and otherwise.

(h) Introductory sentence to qualify Jesus may not have been real?

5 in favour, 1 opposed

Discussion had general consensus, but split over the question of assumed existence of Jesus throughout the article. At least one call to include mention of source texts in the introduction.

(i) "at the time of Christ" or "this time"?

1 oppose "at the time of Christ", 1 in favour of "neutral text"

Both comments suggest a variety of phrases excluding specific reference to "Christ".

(j)Which of the following (A or B) is NPOV and accurate?

• A Moreover, the followers of Jesus offered Gentiles a form of Judaism that emphasized the universal over the particular. When it became apparent that most of the Jews preferred Rabbinic Judaism (represented by the Pharisees), followers of Jesus turned primarily to Gentiles and emphasized universality even more.
• B Unlike the Pharisees, followers of Jesus were willing to seek to convert people, and it is thought by some scholars that, during this period of mixing, Christianity adopted more universal interpretations, distancing itself from Jewish thoughts.

2 votes Neither are NPOV, 1 abstain

Discussion effectively suggests User:FT2's version of the statement should be accepted.

FT2's version: Originally the intent was to preach to the Jews. Some but not all requirements were removed, as it was felt that the new emphasis was on faith and not detailed laws. Thus there were 'Jewish Christians', Jews who believed in Christ Messiah. When the Jews as a community rejected this, the Christian message was taken to the gentiles instead. To make it palatable, and draw a line separating them from the Jews (who were by now becoming politically dangerous associates) many more of the restrictive laws were removed and the emphasis was shifted. The mesage that reached the gentiles was therefore a more universal one, in the sense that it was easier to digest, its appeal was more emotional than legalistic, and it did not contain many of the practices beliefs and rituals by which the Jews kept themselves separate from others.

Summarized Sections - 04-11-22

FT2's comments

FT2's official Request for Comments comments address the substantive issues which led to the revert war by Slrubenstein and Cheesedreams, and are themselves a summary which may be found in Archive 3. No discussion, no votes.

Summary of Title discussion

No formal voting. This section is primarily an essay by one debater to present arguments outside the initial summary above, with various additions, discussions and digressions.

Proposal to move article to Historical Jesus, 4 opposed, 1 in favour, 1 in favour of creating two additional articles (Origins of Christianity and Ancient Palestine)

Important unopposed statement (by Pedant: This article is about what its title says it is. It 1) presumes the existence of Jesus and 2)states outright that the presumption was made and refers to both the Parent article and a sister article that discusses whether Jesus existed and 3)is only about the history and culture of the region as it bears on the (real or imaginary) person: Jesus, the central figure in Christian Theology. Anything that conflicts with 1) 2), or 3) does not belong in THIS article, anything that is factual and doesn't belong here, can go in one of the other articles. Nobody here is either a "Bible-Thumping-Jesus-Freak", or "Jesus-Doesn't-Exist-Nutjob. We are all editors, we are all good at our job, we are all concerned that this article be a good one and fits the wikipedia standards.

Summary of Gerrymandering discussion

Irrelevent to the article, per se. Discussion regarding the unethical but legitimate practice of "packing the house".

Summary of Thoughts on article

In this section, addressing questions raised in previous section on title, FT2 questioned the focus of the article, most of which concerns were addressed by Cheesedreams and Slrubenstein pointing out extant articles addressing those concerns. A disagreement between Cheesedreams and Slrubenstein as to whether the initial votes should be implemented (Cheesedreams) or the article focus determined (Slrubenstein) closes this section unresolved.

Summary of Votes on outstanding NPOV queries

Jesus references

Purpose of article: Pedant's comment is that "the article, is neither about Christianity nor religion and really there is not much need to discuss who it is that does or doesn't believe Jesus actually lived, the article is about the culture and events of the 'time in which Jesus is said to have lived'" As presently titled, agree? Disagree?

5 agree, 2 disagree

Should there be asides about Jesus' life in this article or should it be pretty much a pure historic and cultural context with points only made and linked which may be needed as neutral background understanding?

3 agree, 2 asides when necessary, 1 pure context

Clarification of above question: Are direct references to Jesus' life only to be made when essential? (ie, when people might otherwise be confused why part of the background is mentioned, unless an aside is given to briefly explain its significance)

There are two different approaches: (Approach A) summarise the background to 1st Century Roman Palestine and explain in an aside if something is needed to understand Jesus' life, or (Approach B) summarise Jesus' life, and cross referencing it to historical and cultural information about 1st Century Roman Palestine?

Is the article a background introduction to a historic context, which is referenced to Jesus' life if needed, or is it more a review of Jesus' life as viewed in its historic and cultural context?

2 Approach A, 1 Approach B

Should the "Jesus" reference in fact be fully dropped and the article retitled "Cultural and Historic 1st Century Judea" instead, with no references to Jesus per se included in the article? Or is that going too far?

2 agree, 5 disagree

If the article will reference Jesus then also

Which of these would be a good basis for a NPOV introductory sentence?

(a) According to most Christians, Jesus lived in the first century in Judea, and was, at least in part, shaped by the cultural and political forces active at that time (current wording)

(b) Jesus is placed by Christian writers in 1st century Roman Palestine (an area comprising modern Israel, Palestine and Jordan), and within that region, principally in the Galilee, Jerusalem, and the wilderness and desert areas surrounding them

(c) Jesus is traditionally held by those who believe in his historicity, to have lived in the first century in Judea. Without addressing Jesus existence as an actual historic figure, this article discusses the cultural and political forces active at that time. See Historicity of Jesus for information relating to the existence of Jesus as a historical figure

2 (a), 1 (b), 5(c)

Do the suggestions above adequately make clear that the existence of Jesus is not being asserted in this article? If not, how else should this be done?

8 yes, and one digression.

Which is the better description of how people saw the Pharisees: living saints, or rabbis some of whom were considered holy or great men?

4 neither, 1 qualified rabbis

Is "at this time" acceptable? (no rationale was given for the alternate wording "At the time of Christ")

5 yes, 1 yes plus "at the time of Jesus", 1 yes plus "at the time of Jesus/Christ"

Does discussion of the development of Christianity subsequent to Jesus, and the way in which it was passed to the gentiles, belong in this article under its present title of history and culture, or should it belong in some related article on early christian history?

4 another article, 1 mention here, 1 briefly in conclusion

Is "son of man" necessarily apocalyptic as used? Is its apocalypticness or otherwise actually relevant to the article? If so, is it NPOV enough to simply say "some people felt ..." if needed?

4 both meanings (brief mention, link to Son of Man), 1 apocalyptic and relevant in article, 1 both meanings-relevent-not NPOV

General

Judea and surrounding areas, Roman Palestine, or what name for the area?

Voting as follows: all acceptable options recieved a vote, either in favour or opposed

• Roman Palestine 7 in favour, 1 opposed
• Palestine 1 in favour, 2 opposed
• Levant 3 in favour
• Judea and surrounding areas 1 in favour
• Judea, Galilee etc. (specific) 1 in favour
• Ancient Palestine 1 in favour
• Southern Levant 1 in favour

Is the existence of other Messiahs or groups believing in them relevant as part of the historic and cultural context and should it be included or mentioned?

8 relevant

Important undisputed statement by User:FT2: Many historians claim that Jesus himself did not claim to be a "messiah" in any way unlike other messiahs.

Should the article say that "Rabbinic" or "later forms" of Judaism followed on from the Pharasees? Or is this actually irrelevant to the historic and cultural context of Jesus' life itself?

4 relevant, 1 irrelevant, 1 recuse

3 "later forms" opposing "Rabbinic"

Summary 04-11-11/04-11-22

Reformatting to minimize TOC and further summaries - Amgine 01:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment to Wesley

A discussion regarding the focus of the article being on "cultural and historic background", and the separation of "historical background" and "Jesus-related to-background". General agreement is expressed for an article which is not about Jesus, but not without reference to him.

Inclusion/Exclusion of Jesus

This is a historical article about a time and place, not about a person. There is no reason to mention Jesus at all. The article could even be renamed to make it more neutral.

2 support, 2 reject

This is a historical article intended to provide background about a specific historical figure, not a general article about a time and place. As such comments about how this figure interacted with his culture are appropriate. If a general article about the time and place is needed, it can be written in another place.

4 support, 1 reject, 1 qualified support if none support first

This article should be tracing Jesus' life as it appears in historical sources, leaving aside matters of faith for another article. This description of his life will necessarily add details from the current content of the page, describing how life in Judea, Galilee and surrounding areas was at the time.

3 support, 2 reject

Discussion notes an advertisement of the vote was placed in an effort to "pack the house".

Bible and other Apocrypha

Discussion/explanation of what is meant by the term Apocrypha by participants in the discussion. Comment suggesting inclusion of Jewish apocrypha for NPOV, and pointing out apocrypha is not relevant to the cultural and historical background of Jesus.

Summary of Meaning of "Messiah" and a short note on the jewish Priesthood

Translation

Important uncontested statement: In Judaism, "Messiah" means "annointed". It was the symbol of high office. There were two officers routinely annointed this way - a priest messiah, and a king messiah. The hope of a "messiah" to save them would usually have meant simply, some king or priest who would stand up to the romans or whoever was felt oppressing them at the time. The meaning of "Messiah" in christianity, that of a godhead, a unique being who would save them in the sense of salvation, was not part of Judaism, though it may have formed part of the hopes or mystic beliefs of some cults or splinter groups.

Additional discussion about other contemporary messianic beliefs with the general consensus their inclusion, as releveant, was not contested.

Priesthood

Discussion regarding the role of priests in the context being more administrative than all-powerful. Disagreement over generalization of their antecedents.

Saducees vs. Pharisees

A discussion regarding some of the relative differences, especially as seen by the culture at large, between these two groups in the context. A question regarding the nominal control of synagogues degenerated into irrelevancy, which colored many further sections. The net discussion found no disagreement with the concepts that Saducess had more political power, while Pharisees were more popular, and there was probably more than a little overlap between the two groups.

Further comments disputing the above paragraph's summary and supporting it devolved again to a digression irrelevant to the article.

Summary of Messianic Hopes

FT2 considered questions re: Messiah, which may have already been addressed in Messiah.

Summary of consensus building section

A section looking toward future improvements/changes to the existing, locked article.

current protected version lacks

Discussion regarding an introduction, with input from 6 contributors, developed agreement on the following two sentences:

The main record of the life of Jesus are the Gospels, in the Christian New Testament. These sources place Jesus in what became Roman Palestine (modern Israel and Palestine) during the early 1st century.

With minor disagreements on a third sentence:

If so (the article Historicity of Jesus covers these debates), then it is agreed by most Christians and by academics who hold this view that it is necessary to understand the cultural and historical background in which Jesus is thought to have lived.

And a fourth sentence as a separate paragraph generally agreed upon:

This was a volatile period marked by cultural and political dilemmas. Out of the Roman occupation of Palestine sprang two of the modern world's religions: Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.

the next version

Statements of items contributors plan to include in the next version:

1. Messiah section
2. the above introduction

(some irrelevant sniping)

objections to content in the previous section

• Slrubenstein suggested changing the above agreed upon introduction, rewriting the 3rd sentence and expanding the paragraph.
• CheeseDreams objected to only two religions.

discussion of comments above

Several varied discussions, including whether or not skeptic is disparaging.

Proposed sentence recast:

The article Historicity of Jesus covers debates regarding the existence of Jesus, but if so then it is agreed by most Christians and academics who hold this view that it is necessary to understand the cultural and historical background in which Jesus is thought to have lived.

2 in favor, 1 opposed

General discussion

Consisting entirely of Slrubenstein's addition of merging tags for Jesus and textual evidence and Historicity of Jesus, and the unanimous disagreement with same.

WikiProject Jesus

An invitation to contributors to join the Jesus WikiProject.

discussion Slrubenstein and CheeseDreams

An extremely verbose section which can be summed by the following dialogue:

contributor A: "Called me a name and didn't apologize"

contributor B: "Called me a name first"

Two non-combatants and the mediator pointed out the lack of relevance to the article at hand, to little avail. After which Slrubenstein suggested further changes to the introduction, and CheeseDreams stated, in accordance with policy, CheeseDreams would no longer communicate directly with Slrubenstein.

Summarized 04-11-23

Proposed Changes to Protected Version

Relations Among Jewish parties

Slrubenstein's undisputed/uncommented suggestion for edits.

Proposed Changes to Protected Version

early relations between Jews and Christianity

in 18k of text, Slrubenstein disputes FT2's RfC, by word choice and conjecture, on the topic of Jewish Christians, which relevance to this article is questioned by others.

Summary of moving ahead

A request for FT2 to state if he believed consensus had been reached. Suggestions to hold back for a day.

New Messiah Paragraph

In 75k, an attempt to develop a compromise text without the help of the two primary feudants devolved half-way there when a competing text was proposed by one of the two primary feudants, with a disputed end result.

(part 1)

Wesley retrieves a paragraph, Amgine retrieves the revert war paragraphs and proposes compromise text. Text edited by Wesley, Pedant. Slrubenstein suggests changes.

(part 2)

Amgine restates the compromise text, incorporating edits by Wesley and some edits by Pedant, some suggestions by Slrubenstein. Extensive discussion regarding taxonomical use of "messiah", the word "many" relating to other messiah groups, and the use of citations.

(part 3)

Amgine restates the compromise text, incorporating suggestion by Slrubenstein to remove "many". Slrubenstein disputes the use of Josephus' characterization of "messiah", John the Baptist as a Mandaean figure, good faith. At length.

(part 4)

Slrubenstein proposes text. Amgine disputes the validity of the text as without collaboration or consensus.

(part 5)

Amgine restates the compromise text, incorporating suggestions by Slrubenstein to remove priest messiah and king messiah, replaced with High Priest and King of the Jews. Slrubenstein disputes the use of priest messiah and king messiah, and "tenet of faith", description of any group as messianic, Pedant's sentence regarding combined roles, the statement about the Mandaens, and considers his own text better written.

(part 6)===

Amgine restates the compromise text, incorporating suggestions from Slrubenstein re: "tenet of faith". Slrubenstein discusses kingship, citations of non-refutation, and repeats his unchanged text, and asks again about "king messiah".

(part 7)

Yet further discussion, by Amgine, Slrubenstein, and Jayjg, regarding the (no longer extant) "king messiah", as well as High Priest lineage, and citations. During this exchange of viewpoints, Slrubenstein submitted a Request for Mediation, and Amgine stated Amgine would not respond to personal challenges in this talk page at this time. Yet things did continue on a good bit beyond this.

(part 8)

Amgine restates the compromise text which has reverted to the previous version, with "priest messiah" and "king messiah". Discussion re: combined roles sentence, messiahs, Slrubenstein reiterates his dispute regarding Josephus and states this article refers to the later meaning of "messiah".

(part 9)

Slrubenstein restates his unchanged text, calling for a vote:

4 Support, 2 oppose

Amgine restates the compromise text, incorporating previous suggestions from Slrubenstein (High Priest, etc.) and Jayjg (combined roles)

2 Support, 5 oppose

It is noted that Slrubenstein has again solicited non-contributing voters, an unethical but not proscribed practice.

CheeseDream's paragraph on Messianic Movements

CORRECTION

This is the disputed paragraph that Slrubenstein kept cutting -
(ie, way way back in the original article, not recently - FT2)

Many Messianic groups arose, claiming to have within their number, the true Messiah, saviour of Israel. One of the most noticable and successful was that of John the Baptist. Contrary to accounts in the bible, suggesting that John the Baptist led people to Jesus, many other historic sources suggest that followers of John the Baptist believed John the Baptist to be the Messiah. This point of view is also held by the Mandaeanists, a group descending from followers of John the Baptist, and still surviving today.

CheeseDreams 11:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which scholars claim that followers of John the Baptist believed him to be messiah? I know of no evidence -- where is it? Also, what is the evidence that the Mandeans were followers of John the Baptist? I know of no evidence and no academic historian who makes this claim. Finally, style: what is the purpose of saying "true" messiah? I also question the phrase "savior of Israel." "Savior" means many different things to different people. I think most Christians mean something like saving from sin, saving one from hell, something like that. In the 1st century if any Jews used the term "savior" it didn't mean this. Moreover, there is very very little evidence that Jews used the term "savior" to describe the "annointed one" during this period. The sentence seems anachronistic and deceptive. Slrubenstein

Note to the avid reader: the dictionary definition of "saviour" is "one who saves". And I think I left out the link to Mandaeans, in which is discussed that John the Baptist is an early Mandaean (which is a pre-Christian religion), and that Mandaeans dispute the validity of Jesus. CheeseDreams 17:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The worst possible thing that could happen with articles like this is if someone looks up a word like "savior" in the dictionary. The article claims that in the 1st century many messianic groups arose claiming among their number a savior of Israel. Presumable they used the Hebrew or Aramaic word for Savior. As I stated above, there is very little evidence that Jews at that time used the word "savior" in association with "messiah." If anyone did, it is an obvious and major hermeneutic question, "what did they mean by savior." To think one could find the answer by looking up the word in an English dictionary is at best naive, at worst, dumb. In historical articles such as these the meaning of a word will not be found in a contemporary English dictionary, and it is very likely that any such definition would be wrong or at least seriously misleading. Slrubenstein

At this juncture, it is important that the avid reader note that both the article, the paragraph in question, and the phrase "saviour of Israel" are written in English, and not in Aramaic. CheeseDreams 18:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you joking, or truly moronic? What is your evidence that among Jews in the first century there were many who looked to a messiah as savior? It doesn't matter that this is English wikipedia and articles are all written in English; we are writing an article that is primarily about first century Jews. Slrubenstein

I do think we can be more accurate than savio(u)r. That is, say (consisely, because it should really be discussed in Messiah) what a Messiah really is, rather than "savior of Israel", which could mean almost anything. Mpolo 18:39, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Such as "one who saves Israel", which was the intended meaning?CheeseDreams 20:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Saves" in what way, and from whom, and how? In any event, you haven't answered my question: what evidence do you have that among Jews in the first century there were many who looked to a messiah as a "savior?" Is this the terminology they used? P.S. Hosea 13:4 Slrubenstein

Dear reader, I can quote bible verses too. Read the following in the given order.

Revelations 2:29

Revelations 1:15

Revelations 5:2

'Revelations 9:2

'Revelations 8:1

James 2:26

CheeseDreams 22:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are still avoiding my questions. I cited a Jewish source because we are talking about Jews in the pre-Christian period. You cite Christian sources from a later period that really do not help us understand "the cultural and historical context of Jesus." Slrubenstein

Dear reader, if the Apostle James wrote the letter of James, and the Apostle John wrote revelations, as most biblical literalists, and fundamentalists, alledge, does that not mean the texts are Jewish? For these men were born Jews. CheeseDreams 22:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is the date of the earliest versions of these texts? You have raised questions about Josephus, surely you have the same questions about these texts? What is your reasoning that they represent widespread views of Jews before Jesus died? Please try to bracket your Christian bias as we seek to achieve NPOV. Slrubenstein

Darling reader, assuming someone has a Christian POV is in itself a POV. Of course one must avoid stating that one has or has not, since his purpose in asking to bracket might be attempt to obtain a denial of it. CheeseDreams 22:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we're going to mention the Mandaean's claim to John the Baptist, I would hope it would be stated as such, along with the Christian claim that John was the forerunner of Christ. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't even any alleged writings left by John the Baptist himself that might indicate his allegiance. There is ample evidence that Christians have counted him as a Christian saint, at least as old as any Mandaean references to him. Note that I'm not asking the Mandaean reference to be deleted. Wesley \

I would also note that if we speak of hopes for a savior, we should note from what exactly (or even generally) they hoped to be saved. From the Romans? From the judgment of God? From something else? Wesley 04:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That depends on which group it is. Many considered the Romans to be the judgement of God. CheeseDreams 20:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Less wordy please.

I know we all love to read and write, but could we be more economical? I'm inclined to scroll past any comment that is more than a few paragraphs long.

I skipped the last 2 feet of text or so, to get to here, as I hate to have my comments disappear in the muddle.

Is annointed king and annointed priest acceptable rather than king messiah, and priest messiah and king and priest -- seems to me to cover both sides of the discussion on that...

No. These are meaningless titles. We should just use the word "king" or "priest," when talking about kings and priests. When we define the word "messiah," of course, we should say that kings and priests were anointed.Slrubenstein

that seems the reasonable way, to me tooPedant

also, the following other messiahs issue, if the Manaeans or whoever they are considered and still consider John the Babptist to be (one of many/a/the/the only) messiah, isn't that enough to say there was at least one other group?

The issue is, "when." This article is on the historical context of Jesus, who lived in the first half of the first century. There is little evidence from that period that anyone considered John the Baptist a messiah. The Mandeans did not come into existence until the second-third centuries. That they considered John the messiah tells us something about them and the second and third centuries, but tells us nothing about the historical context of Jesus. Slrubenstein

Dear reader, the Madaeans did not come into existance until the second or third centuries BC. CheeseDreams 19:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification. I don't disagree.Pedant

I disagree, because the earliest evidence I can find for the existence of the Mandeans is the third century CE. Some claim the Mandeans are descendants of followers of John the Baptist, which contradicts the claim that they came into existance in the third century BCE. Of course, some Mandeans claim that their religion began with Adam and Eve. Presumably this is long before the third century BCE, but I know of no historical evidence for this either. CheeseDreams and Pedant, what is your source for this claim? Slrubenstein

Note, there is a dialect of Aramaic called "Mandean" which existed prior to the Common Era. But in this case, we are speaking only of a language, not a religion. The religion called "Mandean" did not come into existence until a couple of centuries after Jesus. Slrubenstein

more importantly, can we boil this down to just what reflects on the Cultural and historical background of Jesus' and save the rest of the discussion for another page? I'm soliciting drafts of the whole article by anyone who wants to add them, separately, with no comments, just what your best version of the article would be to be posted at: User:Pedant:CaHBJ so that I could attempt to produce a NPOV synthesis from them. I think we are all using the ever-tightening microscrutinizer on this article, and I think we all are pretty close to the same version... I'd like to see this at least get to the point where we have one draft of an article that all the current editors agree does not contain any disputed statements, and then edit carefully from there, to preserve that balance. I think it can be done, but I don't think it's being done the easiest way.Pedant 18:36, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

P.S. no rush on this, I think it would be best to get the very best versionof this article from everyone, rather than a hurried attempt... maybe we can all do some writing and get back to this in a week? next weekend maybe? It also might help if we try to follow the general format of the article as it stands, so it's easier to compare versions, but really, just make a good attempt at the best version. and thanks everyone on putting so much effort into such a tough article.Pedant

I honestly thought we had that before CheeseDreams made various changes -- cutting paragraphs that were NPOV and accurate, and adding paragraphs that were not verifiable. Slrubenstein

well, however it started, it seems to be getting worse, so let's just move forward, I suggest.

Agreed. Will submit suggested edits. - Amgine 18:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good grief. This might be the best approach, but I honestly don't have the time to put into this. It's one thing to edit or even write an article knowing that others with interest and knowledge in the subject will also edit it in their efforts to improve it. But to rewrite an entire article just as an academic exercise in mediation? Sorry. I'll check back in when the page is unprotected. Wesley \

I would like to ask for two things though:

* That this remain in spirit a "daughter article" of the Jesus Christ article. (Wouldn't want to confuse him with other Jesus' of the century...)

* That the article not contain "original research" or mere opinions of Misplaced Pages editors. Attribution seems like a good way to achieve this. Wesley 05:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At least twice, we have all discussed the nature and title of this article, and came to the consensus that it is not necessary to remain in spirit of the daughter article of Jesus (note the lack of the word Christ). CheeseDreams 20:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein has admitted in the mediation that he has not cited his sources, and only has 5/6 books. I am of the opinion that this implies that Slrubenstein is committing personal research. CheeseDreams 20:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it would clarify things if I pointed out that the Nazoreans are the Mandaeans, Mandaeans just being one of the more recent terms (another is the "Sabeans"). Many Mandaeans still infact refer to themselves as Nazoreans, as the term "Mandaeans" is one used by outsiders rather than something they call themselves. CheeseDreams 20:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Trust

Should we trust Slrubenstein's claim to extensive and valid research when, on his own talk page, he writes Most historians see Hinduism as coming into existence in the 19th century as a result of English colonialism, which is utter nonsense? CheeseDreams 19:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

His knowledge of scholarship of Jesus seems entirely accurate, whereas his opponents seem entirely unaware of any scholarship on the subject at all. Jayjg 01:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a wholly POV statement to me. And a failure to assume good faith. Would you care to explain why you consider that a balanced opinion, and one which is assuming good faith? CheeseDreams 20:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I trust that he has done "some" research in good faith that is for the most part valid, at least as far as it goes. I think he's done more of this sort of research than I have, so I don't feel qualified to remark on whether his research is "extensive" or "minimal" or in between; can't comment on that when I myself don't know how much ground there is to cover. Wesley \

If he can make such an absolutely outrageously inaccurate claim about "most historians" and "hinduism", then I fail to see why I should trust his ability to research properly, and not wildly distort the opinions of the sources he reads to suit his POV. CheeseDreams 20:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mind you, there's a lot that he and I disagree about, and I'm sure we'll get to that eventually. We certainly disagree about how Christianity arose and spread in the first one or two centuries. Despite that disagreement, I don't think it's necessary let alone beneficial for me to try to delete his edits or to try to discredit him personally. I've worked with Slrubenstein off and on here on wikipedia for at least two or three years, and over that time he has repeatedly earned a certain amount of trust from me, but NOT because he and I share the same POV or even the same religion. It's because we share an approach to NPOV that allows us both to agree that "these people believe X, citing evidence A, while these other thing Y, citing evidence B and reinterpreting A", etc. Usually the wording doesn't have to be nearly that awkward, either. ;-) Wesley 05:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediation

It is a requirement of Misplaced Pages policy that you are informed of the following link's existence: Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation#Slrubenstein

It is also a requirement to inform of the following link (although Slrubenstein failed to comply with the requirement): Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation#Users CheeseDreams and Amgine

EDITS: Please read

Now the page is unprotected, I would like to propose we review the article systematically.

To this end, I have taken the suggestions above relating to the introduction, and tried to combine them into one introduction as a starting point, which hopefully may be "close".

I have also added a historical overview - I know that others will check the details I have left very quickly, and fix errors, but I'd say do not (yet) make major edits to it.

My aim here is to propose a "nearly neutral" wording, and let it be fine tuned, based on the many discussions we've seen in this page. That way we may avoid massive headaches. Let's discuss those two - if the introduction is not neutral from all angles, then how would you change it? If the history is technically inaccurate or not suitable, what would you fix? FT2 02:33, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

FT2 02:33, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Emergence of Christianity

I take strong exception to the comment in the following quote in the article:

Somewhere in the three hundred years from 0 - 400 AD, Christianity emerged. !Arianism and various other changes were only seperated during 4th century as not-orthodoxy there was no orthodoxy before!

Although there were some divergent views that laid some claim on the name "Christian", there certainly was a discernible orthodoxy before the 4th century. Arianism was not "separated" from Christianity because Arius had not proposed the ideas until the late 3rd century at the earliest. In the New Testament epistles of Paul and John, both warn their listeners to stick to the message they received from the apostles. Irenaeus wrote that the same teachings were taught and believed in everywhere around the world at the time he wrote in the 2nd century, in his Against Heresies. Other writers during this time similarly exhorted their readers not to be swayed from the message they received; they certainly thought there was an 'orthodox' Christianity. They were identifiable as a distinct group no later than the bar Kochba rebellion when many were slain by their fellow Jews for not acknowledging bar Kochba as the Messiah. Wesley 17:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Having said all that, I see I may have put the cart before the horse. Should this article even discuss any of the events that happened after Jesus' crucifixion? I can see maybe going a few years after, but even the bar Kochba revolt may be going too far afield for this article, to say nothing of going all the way to the fourth century. Wesley 17:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wesley, two comments. First, I didn't put in the line about Arians and you should feel free to correct. But I did put in the first to fourth century because my understanding is that orthodoxy wasn't established as hegemonic until the fourth century. That doesn't mean that orthodox ideas were not around earlier, even as early as 100 -- just that they were not established as orthodox. After all, who was Ireneaus arguing against -- if not people who did not hold to orthodoxy (or who considered their own beliefs "orthodox!"). Am I making sense? If so, is there a better way to put this? Second, I do think something should be said about the emergence of Christianity because the "story" critical historians have about how Christianity emerged is part and parcal with their rejecting certain (orthodox) elements of the Gospels as not historically accurate, and thus part of what motivates their account of Jesus' life. We all understand that their view (e.g. Sanders) is NOT what Christians, or most Christians, believe. This is but one point of view. We do not want to represent it as objective truth, but as a particular POV. Can this be done more effectively? Slrubenstein

First, I should apologize for commenting on a version of the article that was already out of date when I made the comment, and any confusion that may have caused. Second, my understanding is that Irenaeus was addressing Christians, wanting them to understand just how different Gnosticism was, even though some Gnostics borrowed a couple of names from Christianity and brought those into their Gnostic framework. Irenaeus talks about orthodox Christianity as something that has been established, as do Paul and John in the NT. I'll try to catch up with the current state of the article before I make any further suggestions though. Wesley 05:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

new round of revisions

Aside from deleting a few paragraphs that were excessively wordy, I have mostly added to the article, and have modified the organization to bring together historical and cultural contexts -- they are inextricably linked. I left a huge amount of earlier material at the end of this revision. I feel much of it can be deleted, but I do not want to do that unilaterally. Certainly much of it can be moved into sections above that I created -- or perhaps put into a new section, but earlier in the article. I can work on this more later, but I wanted to wait and see if others have ideas or want to try it, Slrubenstein

REVERT

I have reverted back to the version by FT2. The version we have spent the last 3 weeks discussing the vertiable merits of various changes should be the version we start with, and make minor edits to. Any changes should only be those in line with the discussion. I don't remember the discussion consensus being "we ought to completely re-write the article so that it suits Slrubenstein's POV". Do you?

FURTHERMORE. I think those of us in mediation (predominantly about this article) should NOT make edits to the page, or allow our edits to be made to the page, until the mediation is complete. CheeseDreams 18:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are way out of line. Do not delete valuable content. Do not revert all work I do. You do not have the right to ban me from Misplaced Pages. Slrubenstein

Dear reader, one ought not to ignore the debate on this page and its archives as to what ought to go into the article. To do so is simply arrogance. CheeseDreams 20:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I compared the two versions, and it is my opinion that the one contributed by Slrubenstein is, in fact, superior: in clarity, comprehensiveness, language and grammar. I do not find it to be overly-scholastic, I think it subscribes to the scholarly standards of Misplaced Pages (as opposed to that of Simple Misplaced Pages). I gather mediation is ongoing, so perhaps I should not expend much more words beyond this (i.e. not yet a comment about historical accuracy, POV, etc.). Of course, I welcome counter-arguments (from those here who disagree with Slrubenstein) as well as the possibility that I overlooked important aspects of the dispute. Let me know, everyone, if there is anything I could do to help. El_C

I second that. Just because a compromise was worked out, that doesn't mean it can't be improved. – Quadell ] 23:19, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Improvement is DIFFERENT to Blanket replacement. CheeseDreams 00:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's version is clearly massively superior. This is utterly ridiculous. john k 00:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are clearly Slrubenstein's mate - see your own talk page. CheeseDreams 00:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quick update to those waiting - I have now reviewed and sorted the exiting material, and I'm sifting it through. Its going well. Thanks for being patient. FT2 00:59, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Next update: I have it organised a form I can live with generally. I have 2 jobs left: check each section is "good enough" (neutral, not too long, focussed, relevant, fits in), and check no material submitted by SIrubenstein or others is omitted by accident that's good.

Some textual matters I havenmt yet addressed, like better wording on the messiagh stuff, if relevant, I may need a final review to catch things we had a consensus wording on recently. FT2 01:18, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, update #3... the existing material is in a decent form. I havent really cleaned up the "about jesus" stuff but its all grouped in a section marked "jesus" with a neutral intro, so it should be OK for now. Needs cleanup in a bit.

Next jobs - review talk pages for consensual text and insert that, and then post. Its late here so when I do, please dont revert it. COnsider it, and remember, we know some parts need review. make small changes and additions there,m put big ones in a "suggested text" section below. FT2 01:53, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

okaaaaaaaay... I have gone through the entire damn archive and current talk, picking out serious substantial additions and recasts. Now I'm merging them in........

Damn, you guys had better like this wehn Im done! FT2 02:18, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Version #1 of rewrite

Okay. Please do NOT edit the current version, except for small errors, for a bit. I have included the most neutral versions of everything that people have done, and tried to do an honest job. I think its good and I think its broadly neutral but yet pays tribute to both secular and christians, and allows both to find what they need. Comments (brief and summary!!) for now. Say whether you can handle this as a broad starting point, and if not what your issues are (itemise them). I dont mean small wordings I mean - is there any section where you basically want to rewrite it becayuse it isnt good. If so, which ones and what to do?

Then see where we are at. FT2 03:54, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Note: because this is a collaboration, I've tried where possible to keep others wordings. Thus you'll see odd sentences and snips here and there, as well as whole chunks. Quick summary of what I found when I looked at the existing and proposed edits:

INTRODUCTION: It is incredibly hard to write a neutral introduction. "According to the Gospels" doesnt quite cut it, because it immediately makes the article sound like it is a religiously-based one, no matter the discussion of hisoricity. Additionally the proposed introduction focusses a lot on who accepts what and whether they view it as supernatural or otherwise, and how christianity emerged. None of this is an introduction as such to this topic. The topic has to summarise WHY he is associated with this era, WHY non christians and other secular students may be interested, WHY it is useful to understand this period anyhow, and WHAT the article's approach is to it. I started with 4 paragraophs. Feel free to shorten it, but at the least i am happy that those 4 are neutral, in a deeper sense, so I have let them stand. Perhaps we can shorten them, but please for now, dont delete and over write. They are neutral and that is more than we had before.

SIrubenstein - 1st temple era - I like, its neutral enough to stand, and informative.

SIrubenstein - persian era onwards - I worry if we have too much detail here. Its really needing to be an overview of history as background, rather than a full history, intended to help understand where its coming from. We point people to "history of country" if needed for more. I've written up a summary which I'd like to merge in and see if it works, take points from both. Some like the sanhedrin is relevant, some its just too much extra info. That said the historical sections are mostly neutral. Im letting much of this stand temporarily, with the provisoit might be needed to reduce or remove parts. But if I trim it down, it will be because it may be superfluous more than because it's POV. I'm happy I have cut most of the excess already, I think.

SIrubenstein - Jesus and after jesus - Some may be relevant. for example, that talk about how restoration was "seditious". But overall this is not really key to the article, and can be made more NPOV. I'd like to edit it, but for now I will move it to its own section and only do so lightly, as I want to get the history and culture and intro sorted out 1st. The question really is, is it relevant? I suppose some is, but Im dubious if this much is right here. There are articles on both these areas, or should be, and it conveys a religion-oriented feel too which isnt quite right for the article. What Ive done is to collate the stuff thats about "how did jesus fit in" into a section, and for now it looks OK enough to let it go.

Hope that helps, i figure if I edit a lot I should explain my reasoning, so you know how it ended up and that nobody has been slighted. I have made it (I hope) more neutral, and also nmore informative by doing so. Let me know if its worked, and if there are BIG chunks to edit, like whole paragraphs to reqwrite, please list them here so we can discuss not edit war :) FT2 04:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

LATE FLASH - somehow I forgot the intro. Sorry! Now fixed! FT2 04:10, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

FT2, thanks for your hard work. I especially like the four introductory paragraphs, in that they seem to cover all or nearly all the points mentioned in our joint discussion.

I made a few minor copyedits that I hope won't upset anyone.

There is just one sentence regarding the "Messiah" that I take exception to. I think I understand why I dislike it now, so I hope I can explain better than I did before.

The meaning of "Messiah" in Christianity, that of a godhead, a unique being who would save them in the sense of salvation, was not part of Judaism, though it may have formed part of the hopes or mystic beliefs of some cults or splinter groups.

Frankly, I don't think this represents any version of Christianity very well. Christians generally think Jesus is God, and they generally think he is also the promised Messiah, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they expected the Messiah to be God himself before Jesus. Afterwards, I'm not sure that they really blended these two concepts that much, other than to say that God had fulfilled the Messianic prophecies by becoming incarnate. Also, in Christianity, "godhead" most often refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not just to Jesus; even in nontrinitarian versions like Mormonism (See Godhead). I can't think of a POV in which that really looks right; but maybe someone else here can educate me. Also, I honestly hope I don't come across as just hairsplitting. Wesley 05:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have noticed the sections cut out as being more to do with "origins of christianity". Ive sifted them to check what they had (I didnt have time yesterday for that, sorry!) and to my surpriswe they are like 50% historical and cultural. So I have extracted material as relevant on the Bar Kochba revolt, and on jewish reactions to cults and the political implications of preaching, and attempted to recast these neutrally in the relevant sections. I'm a lot happier now. FT2 17:32, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Uh...

FT2, I appreciate the work you've obviously put into this, but why should we not work from a clearly superior version simply because CheeseDreams can't play well with others? While of course, like any version, Slrubenstein's version needs work (in particular, I think, as you've noted, that there's probably too much detail that could go into other articles on Jewish history in this period), but this is, again, absurd. By any reasonable standard his version was far superior, and we should be working from it, not working from an earlier, clearly worse version. If anyone other than CheeseDreams finds the old version to be superior, that's one thing, but so far we essentially have one user preventing a clearly better version from coming in, and this is just totally unacceptable. If CheeseDreams has substantive complaints with Slrubenstein's article, let him air them, but so far his arguments have been entirely process-based. This is just miserably depressing. john k 08:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken, slightly. No material has been ignored, what has happened is basically two things:

• The article has been organised in line with its title, it has worked from both the earlier version, the talk pages, and BOTH of their hard work. The article was locked for some 5 hours yesterday, and a further 4 today, while that editing and merging took place, so this has not been a small job to do.
• The article has been recast in a mannner which allows it to focus on its subject rather than "the gospel story" per se.

I see both of them as wanting the article to look good, but also to be balanced and true to its subject. They'd better like this version, is all I can say :) Comments first not major editing, please. FT2 17:25, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

I have an objection to the way Slrubenstein ignores discussion such as on these talk pages and insist on using his version (see above RE. messiahs paragraph, where he repeatedly asserts his version despite people working on a consensus version) . This is the definition of arrogance. CheeseDreams 11:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re:messiahs. My version got a majority vote, your version a minority vote. But this is not the key issue. The key issue is that your version was wrong. Slrubenstein

Note to readers - Slrubenstein has never before cared about majority votes - reverting the text when it was changed to match the votes of the majority. In addition, note that the above mentioned vote was made AFTER Slrubenstein had gerrymandered the electorate (see his contributions list, and the voters' talk pages)CheeseDreams 21:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please, let's all avoid even the appearance of personal attacks, and focus on how the article itself may be improved. Wesley 23:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FT2's Ultimate Version

While I appreciate FT2's efforts, they are a mess. I object to his criteria -- the way to write a good article is not to accomodate all discussants; it is to have an oppen discussion in which people provide evidence and reasons for changes, and then write the best version possible.

• the intro is a mess. My version was concise, accurate, and NPOV. To mention the Gospels is not NPOV becuas ethe Gospels really do exist, and they are sources for both religious people and critical scholars. The intro made it clear that religious people and scholars interpret the Gospels very differently. But come on, if it weren't for these historical documents, would we even be sitting here writing an article on Jesus?
• FT2 deleted a great deal of important content on the historical context. He claimed that it was "too much" but all of my content introduced crucial elements of the article, like the relationship between the saducess, the pharisees, the Temple, and the Torah. Every historical paragraph I added served to explain these four variables, crucial to understanding the context of Jesus. FT2 actually starts the historical section far too early, with the original settlement of the area (which is something historians and archeologists are still trying to reconstruct, and the current summary here is woefully inadequate -- and unnecessary) which is not relevant to the article.
• the statement "law of the land was Jewish religious law, which was for the most part legislative and not harsh," is poorly written and unclear. The law of the land was law which was legislative? (and Amgine mocks my writing style?). Moreover, "religious law" has no meaning in this context. We are not quite sure what the laws were at that time but we can be fairly sure they were based on the Torah which includes civil and tort law.
• "third, it caused religious and cultural difference to escalate into conflicts with the secular authority" is either dumb or really POV. I assume the "secular authority" is the Greek or Roman authorities, but if you think they were "secular" and had not religious and cultural agenda, you are ingorant. Moreover, much of the conflicts were not caused by religious difference sbut by economic and political differences. This notion that the middle east is a "powderkeg" (a word used in the intro of FT2's version) in which religious difference has to be contained by secular leadership just mimics the view most people today take towards the middle east. I am not evern sure it is an accurate view today, but I am sure it is a bad way to interpret history. What scholars claim this?
• Why focus on the Jewish notion that nakedness is an abomination (by the way, any evidence?)? I thought the real issue was that the Greeks thought circumcision was an abomination. You present (or mirepresent) a Jewish view and ignore the Greek view -- lack of balance, no NPOV.
• The statement "Politically as time passed, the foreign powers often came to view the wish of some Jews not to become integrated as a divisive and therefore political wish, and often considered it a personal affront to the emperor" might be true, but it is not really how most historians explain the Maccabean revolt and the Seleucid oppression that preceeded it. Why not summarize Bickerman and Tcherikover's views? Why present this speculation which seems unfounded?
• The Pearlman quote is inappropriate in in encyclopedia. He was not a scholar, he was a former Israeli army officer and wrote many popular books that could at best be described as whiggish history, if not nationalist history. If you want to write an article on "how Jews in the late 1900s saw their own past, ideologically," by all means quote Pearlman. If you want to analyze the Hasmoneans, cite real critical scholars.
• The view that there was a split between hellinized and "traditional" Jews is anachronistic. Perhaps this was Therikover's view (I am not sure) but most historians today reject it as simplistic.
• "Culturally the Jews were for the most part hard-working, God-fearing, deeply religious farming villagers," do we have clear evidence for this? This sounds like Readers' Digest prose, not encyclopedia prose. There are many other sentences like this that just seem to trivialize the project (people prayed to their many gods -- tripe, how do we know what they did? This isn't a novel).
• FT2 deleted much of my text because he considered it irrelevant, but I do not see how all the detail on Menalaus and Jason is at all relevant context for Jesus
• It is a little confusing to me to call the Hasmonean kingdom the second kingdom. Is this some historical convention of which I am unaware? What historian uses this? Cirtainly, one could easily call the Hasmoneans the thrid kingdom (not that anyone does) or fourth kingdom. Why second?
• The statement "By 1 CE, the Roman Empire was somewhat more corrupt than it had been" is POV and I think unnecessary. By what criteria? How do you measure corruption? Who says the empire was more corrupt in 1 CE than in 50 CE? How is this relevant to the article? You don't think Jews were pleased by Roman occupation in 1 BCE, or 10 BCE, or 20 BCE, do you?
• In the section "Jewish Revolt and aftermath," I provided an essential account for the background of Jesus, which FT2 deleted. He has replaced it with a series of questions that were answered in the passages he deleted.
• There is no evidence that the Mandeans were a messianic group in Judea (or the Galilee or Samaria) at that time -- why are they mentioned?
• "The early Christians were often in conflict with groups they considered heretical" completely distorts the situation, and is utterly at odds with recent work by historians. This sentence implies that "heretics" were not "early Christians" and that "early Christians" were not "heretics." What is really going on is that there were several groups with competing visions of Christianity. Each one considered itself orthodox; each one considered the others to be heretical. This sentence implies that those Christians who, in the second or third centuries, were most like Christians of today (or of the fifth century) were the real Christians, and all the others were heretics (or considered to be heretics) is totally POV. There are a number of sentences in this version that are similarly POV -- POV because they read the past through the lense of the present (e.g. the Pearlman quote, which is pure editorializing)
• To suggest that because ancient Israelites had a Temple and priests, and a Torah and scribes, and a King who ruled by divine right, that they therefore had a "dual core" consisting of a political and spiritual authority is another anachronism that ignores all current scholarship on Jewish history. To say that this is a dual core is to suggest that "spiritual" and "political" are opposed. This is indeed true today, in the post-Enlightenment modern West that distinguishes between religion and politics. But how do we know that ancient Israelites made this distinction? There is no evidence that they did; indeed, all evidence suggests that they did not distinguish between the spiritual and the political, at least not in any modern sense.
• To say that the "Children of Israel" had the Mishnah is at best misleading, at worst very confused and sloppy. Usually shcolars use "Children of Israel" to refer to the twelve tribes, during the time of the two kingdoms. The Kingdom of Israel (9.5 tribes) was destroyed around 722 BCE; by Roman times the ones who were left were calle d"Jews" not Children of Israel. The Mishnah wasn't edited until 200 CE. The "Children of Israel" were long gone.
• In the section on struggles with Hellenism you cut the stuff I put in on having to deal with the implications of a universal God, and Greek interest in Judaism. Why?
• The word "apocalypse" was not borrowed from Hebrew or the Jews, it is a Greek word.
• In judiasm the priesthood is more of an administrative role than anintermediary between Jews and God? What nonesense! First of all, priesthoods are always administrative (ever visit the Vatican)? Second, the Israelite priesthood was just as much an intermediary withGod, through sacrifice, as any other priesthood. What was the basis for this claim? What scholarly reference can you give?
• The paragraph on the zealots makes it seem as if the sicarii were a subset of zealots, which is of course wrong. At least, this needs to be rewritten for clarity and accuracy.
• To claim that Christianity is "more aeasier to digest" is just the worst kind of POV editorializing.
• the sentence "It is hypothesised that to make it palatable, and draw a line separating them from the Jews (who were by now becoming politically dangerous associates due to their rebellion against Rome) many more of the restrictive laws were removed and the emphasis was shifted." is a poor one for an encyclopedia. Who hypothesized this? In any event, the "hypothesis" makes no sense. Jews never believed non-Jews should obey Jewish law. No Jew, including early (Jewish) Christians, would have demanded that gentiles obey Jewish law. Nothing had to be stripped to make things easier. By the way, many Gentiles did turn to other religions with very restrictive practices, so there is no reason to think that "restrictions" were what got in the way of appealing to gentiles.
• I have no idea what scholarship the section on Jewish reactions to cults and messianism is based on, it all seems speculative.
• Ditto the section on the Jewish rejection of Christianity. An earlier section already touches on this (citing scholars like Fredriksen and Boyarin). But this section seems to assume one form of Christianity, when in fact Christianity was heterogeneous and in flux during the first two centuries. Thus, the section also conflates a complex historical process and makes it seem as if the "rejection" were one simple decision. It reads as if it is mostly speculation.
• "Yohanan" is not Hebrew for Jonathan; the Baptist's name was "John" (or it's Hebrew equivalent, Yohanan). This is trivial but such an obvious thing I believe it shows just how sloppy FT2's version was
• The organization is an utter mess. I think one historical narrative accomodates all major points. FT2s version breaks it up topically, which means that each section jumps back and forth a lot. This has several bad consequences. One is it leads to apparent anachronisms (the paragraph that describes the Pharisees emerging during the Hasmonean period also mentions sages like Hillel who lived after the Hasmoneans. "Phariseeism itself changed form and function and there is no reason to believe that the Phariseism of the Tana'im is the same as the Phariseism of the Hasmonean period. Second, it separates phenomena that were ocurring at the same time, and connected.

With all of these problems, it just seems a lot easier to return to my version than to edit this version. I really went over it carefully and found little if anything that is not in my version, but that should be kept. I do believe that towards the end, in the sections on Christian rejection of Judaism and Jewish rejection of Christianity, there may be material that, if developed, should be in the article. Given the sloppy scholarship, I think it is important that before we add this material we go back and look at the historical sources, and develop these points.]]I think my version, which I spent a day working on, was far superior in terms of NPOV, verifiability, coherance, and style. I have no objection to people continuing to improve it -- but to trash it and leave in its place something like this is weird. Slrubenstein

SIrubenstein edits

I feel somewhat disrespected, SIrubenstein. You were asked, along with CheeseDreams, to put major comments here and not perform major editing, and that was not for trivial reasons. It was so everyone could discuss and form a consensus without antagonism. But instead, you have performed major editing without consulting others, in a situation where you know others have different views from yourself.

I am not interested in becoming dragged into a 3 way argument here. You and CheeseDreams have asked for help in coming to a consensus precisely because you both failed to find a way to do so. This implies that you have to accept the odds are good both of your approaches were to an extent right, and both to an extend inappropriate. That includes your beliefs on the article, too.

Rather than encouraging an edit/revert war, I have posted the following on RFC:

"Cultural and historical background of Jesus Following a lot of discussion of the article in the Talk pages about how much religious material belongs in it, and the scope of the article, and a long mediation, a version was produced. Requests were made on the talk page to discuss before making major edits, to allow a break from revert issues and a consensus where we had got to. One of the original parties within the mediation has significantly reverted the article. As informal mediator, rather than being pulled into a revert war as a contender, may I solicit comments comparing these two versions:

• mediated version prior to revert and
• version posted subsequently by contending party

with a view to organisation, scope and neutrality, so that we can see which approach others feel is preferable and avoid a revert war again?"

FT2 19:33, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel disrespected. I wish you wouldn't take my reversion personally, as it was not based on any personal feelings about you. I feel that a lot of hard work I did yesterday was wasted, and can understand -- with regret -- that you might feel the same way. I simply believe that the work you did set the article back a good deal. My judgement is of the work, not you. As for mediation -- I never requested that you mediate, and I do not (as I have stated elsewhere) see you as a mediator; I see you as one other wikipedian who is a contributor and editor. I do not understand most of the changes you made, and the ones I understand I disagree with, and I am happy to restate my reasons though I thought they were clear. I did request mediation on the appropriate page, but so far no mediator has been selected; moreover, that mediation is interpersonal -- I don't think mediators have a brief to comment on content or to try to edit together compromise versions. But to be clear: I never asked for help in coming to a consensus. Consensus is nice, but not the issue. I aksed for help in dealing with CheeseDreams when I feel he rejects and reverts any and all changes I make; when he adds false and unverifiable statements to the article and refuses to provide any sources. The problem isn't lack of consensus, it is a problem in the process by which the article is being worked on. I also ask for help in verifying the material in the article, and in removing unverifiable parts. This is a substantive, not procedural, issue. I am sorry if you misunderstood. The fact is, I never felt you were mediating a conflict, I felt you were often imposing your own views on the article without discussing them. I don't mind your getting involved in this page, but I prefer it if your interventions promote dialogue, involve raising questions you think are unanswered, proposing specific solutions -- but not wholesale taking control of the article. Slrubenstein

It is my personal opinion, Slrubenstein, that you do not seem to understand or accept collaborative process. Although I have much praise for elements of your version, there are elements which are in dispute amongst scholars of the issues, it is not in a format readily understood by the target audience of a general encyclopedia, and it has not been written with other contributors - thus likely to be the target of immediate reversion, edits, and conflict which will distract everyone from other work.

I am only addressing the issues regarding this particular article. I think you can fairly accept that your article, with all its carefully researched and written elements, will not stand as currently presented. Given that reality, you may wish to consider whether it would be a better investment of your time and energy to work toward a consensus which includes your hard work, or a confrontational edit war which will sap it and ultimately result in an article which will be less well developed?

I will also point out I feel you acted in very bad faith in the current edit, one which strongly prejudices your future actions and suggestions. - Amgine 20:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you are saying that my version is inaccessible, and needs to be developed to be clearer and more easily understood by the general pbulic, I have no problem with that. And if I thought that FT2 was making changes precisely to address these issues, I would have had no problem with that. But I don't thaink that was the case. Did you read his version? Do you really believe that his version is in a format "readily understood by the target audience of a general encyclopedia?" I think it is much less clear, much more complicated and harder to follow. be that as it may, why do you say that "there are elements which are in dispute amongst scholars of the issues" in my version? Can you tewll me which elements, and which scholars dispute them? If you can, I am sure I will welcome and even encourage your making apporpriate changes. But no one in this discussion has ever provided evidence that contradicts anything I wrote. I also see you are not responding to my various reasons for reverting FT2s version. Don't think I did it with a light heart. I went through his version carefully. I found it full of inaccuracies, oversimplifications, anachronisms, sloppy scholarship, and lack of NPOV. I pointed out 17 specific problems (many of which are examples of other problems), and one general one. These are serious problems. FT2 is, like any other Wikipedian, wlecome to work on an article. But when he made so many changes to my version without justifying them -- especially when he introduced POV and inaccuracies -- he should know his work will be challenged. All I can say is, I gave specific reasons for rejecting his version. He never gave any for rejecting mine. Slrubenstein

I think that SIrubenstein's version generally reads better, and is better organized, but there is a lot of information that needs to be re-inserted, and it's not clear to me the best way to do so (for instance, the Pharisees are never defined, as far as I can tell). For instance, the part about geography is useful (though I would suggest using or at least citing the Greek-derived names common in Christianity for clarity's sake -- Gennesereth, etc.), as are various cultural tidbits that don't really fit into the historical structure.

I know there is a certain amount of not wanting to "reward" a major change that came in without discussion, but to throw away that work seems a little silly. If we keep the "collaborative version", it's going to need some major editing for organization, which is going to be impossible in the current climate, because it means someone going through and doing major content-shifts. Thus, I would suggest using the SIrubenstein version as a base (maybe adding a "culture" section at the end to collect good information that doesn't fit into the current structure) and collaborate from there to add in the material that is missing and correct any errors that crept in. Mpolo 20:57, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will try to put the geography info in. But I'd appreciate more thoughts on the Pharisees-definition issue. My problem is I think any "definition" will be wrong, because who and what the Pharisees were changed a lot over time. Imagine trying to come up with a one sentence definition of "Democrat" that is equally true of the Democratic party in the 1990s, 1970s, 1950s, 1930s, 1890s -- you get the idea (I hope, if you are not an American, you know enough about US political history). Slrubenstein

"Throw away" ?? You mean like what Slrubenstein did with everyone else's contributions?? Excuse, I do not think I can reasonably discuss this at the moment. I believe I have to dispute this article's POV and process utterly. - Amgine 21:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mpolo, I added material on geography in the very beginning, and in the section specifically on Jesus. I used as much as I could from FT2's secion on geography, but added more based on additional research. I also tried to make it fit into the organization in a reasonable way. Please let me know what you think -- also your comments on Pharisees. Slrubenstein

Disputed NPOV

• In the opening paragraph, biblical and western historians exclusively are cited. Western and Christian viewpoints are certainly relevant, but this implies (as the balance of the essay bears out) a specific bias.

Um, "Christian" viewpoints are also "Western." There are three points of view: Christians, sceptics, and critical scholars. What other points of view should be represented? Remember, there are other, linked articles, that other points of view too. Slrubenstein

• Throughout the discussions developing this article the focus has been on the specific context of Jesus, the time he may have lived and the first years thereafter. The vast majority of the text in the First Temple Era and Second Temple Era sections deals with the millenia prior to Jesus, and is not specifically relevant.

I think you mean "millenium," not "millenia." Well, the fact is that FT2's version went back even further, and I wanted to be inclusive of other editors' views. (The version you so like starts thus: "The original inhabitants of Roman Palestine were non-Jewish tribes such as the Canaanites and Philistines. According to legend, The Jews entered the region around the 13th - 14th century BCE" but you criticize my version for starting early? Weird!) Since other people went far back in history, it was certainly soemthing I considered. But is it relevant or not? Well, I think everyone agrees that this article must explain who the Saducees and Pharisees are. I don't see how they can be explaine without explaining the role of the Temple and the Torah in Jewish culture. The section in question explains these institutions, which were of continuing inportance during the time of Jesus. They also mention the situation of the Jewish monarchy, also crucial to understanding Jesus' life and times. In other words, there is some material from the 1st Temple period that is highly relevant to the article. Obviously, I left out a lot of other irrelevant info about that period. What, specifically, in these sections is not relevant to the Temple, Monarchy, or Legal tradition (and thus, all crucial to understanding Jesus)? Slrubenstein

• First temple era: discusses "ancient land of Israel" exclusively as a land of the Jews for the entirety of its history. Furthermore the discussion is simplistic and generalized to support a POV, and complexities referred to a non-existent article History of Ancient Israel and Judea, followed by paragraphs of unsupported conjecture.

No, it mentions Canaan and Palestine with a link to an article that goes into much greater detail. I agree with your point that this area is not originally or exclusively Israelite, but disagree with your assessment of this paragraph which makes it clear that it is not. The linked article exists, I read it before writing this paragraphy. In any case, I will add another sentence to make this more strongly NPOV Slrubenstein

• Continuous use of Judea, etc. as regional terms which are historically inaccurate (as previously pointed out by Slrubenstein) and on which consensus votes had determined Roman Palestine as the most relevant compromise term.

I use Judea when speaking specifically of Judea. David was king of Judea before he was king of Israel; Israel and Judea later became separate kingdoms. The Galilee is not the same thing as Judea. When does the article use "Judea" when it is really referring to Palestine? Slrubenstein

• Statement "In most ancient societies sacrifice was the only form of worship" totally disputed, as well as the contention other religions/cultures lacked same. See Vedas, Homer, and Oral history

The text does not say "most ancient societies," it says "most ancient Near Eastern societies" which is accurate and certainly does not include India or Greece/Balkans. Did you make this change, or was that the original? In any case, the current version negates this criticism. Slrubenstein

• Although not stated as the case, exclusively discussing the Sadducees and Pharisees continues the misapprehension that there were only 2 primary religious groups when in fact it appears to have been a multi-party system with 4 or more larger "schools of thought".

Read the article. The other parties (Essenes, Zealots, etc) developed at a different time. The only place I discuss the Pharisees and Saducees exclusively is during the period when they were they two primary religios/political parties. Also, there was never a "multi party system," not in the sence that political scientists use the term "party system." What do you mean? Slrubenstein

• The use of sections such as The Hellenistic Period to discuss the Hasmonean Period, and the The Hasmonean Period to discuss merely a lineage, etc., is both misleading and non-encyclopedic. A section should clearly address only the period it purports to report upon, factually and verifiably.

I really do not understand what you mean. Each section heading describes what is discussed in the section; each section provides essential context for the 1st century CE situation of Jesus and others. Can you explain more clearly what you mean? The Hellenistic period starts with Alexander, not the Hasmoneans. The Hasmonean period involved struggles between kings involving Pharisees and Saducees, which is exactly what the section discusses. It explains how the Romans came to occupy the area (crucial to the article) and provides important background on the Pharisees and Saducees (crucial to the article) and provides context for understanding people's mixed feelings about restoring a monarchy (crucial to the article). What is "merely a lineage" refer to? Why is this misleading? Why is it not encyclopedic? I don't undertand; please explain.Slrubenstein

I have responded fully, and in good faith, to your criticisms. If I misunderstood any of your criticisms, and if you feel any of my responses are inadequate, please just explain how and why. But you have yet to respond to my objections to the version you so seem to like. Slrubenstein

Although I could continue on a point-by-point address of this essay, there is no reason to continue to do so. It is clear to me at this point that this article lacks a central structure which addresses the cultural and historical background of Jesus. While it has good examples of historical research, it fails to address its content focus in a meaningful manner. Therefore I contest this article is not NPOV, or is so poorly written it cannot fulfill its purpose. - Amgine 23:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you sum up in a sentence or short paragraph what you believe the essence of the cultural and historical background of Jesus is -- in other words, what you think the point of this article should be? I obviously disagree with you (I think the article does exactly what it says it does) but if you could explain yourself more, perhaps I would understand your point. What I did was I read a number of books by historians who discussed the cultural and historical background for Jesus, and summed up their points. Since this is about "historical" background I organized it historically. Slrubenstein

There is a thing such as process. Both parties were asked to read and comment. Not read and edit. In fact both sides were asked to refrain from editing for a while. There is a reason for that - major editing makes it hard to get consensus. We've seen that here before. I am not a combatant in a debate. I am also not as said above, strictly a mediator. What I do have though, and both SIrubenstein and CheeseDreams lack, is quite a lot of Wiki experience at controversial articles needing multiple views combining, clarifying and casting to NPOV without losing important material in the process. I am here to add that experience and help find a way to convey appropriately each side in the debate neutrally.

As said, the request to review and add comments here rather than major edits was not a light one, and actions that speak of an "I don't like it so to heck with you all" view are not, in my view, a viable way to build consensus. I don't know if you noticed, but a months solid listening and discussing went into that reworking. That was not accidental. Into it went neutral views and concerns from all sides, not just one or two.

As I said, I feel disrespected. That's not because I am personally insulted or any personal work is dismissed. It's because a request was made to give others a full chance to read and comment, to collect different views so we could see how it seemed to others. This was not an unreasonable thing to suggest, and was utterly ignored, and it is for that reason I feel disrespected, and I suspect others will too. FT2 23:32, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Again, I am sorry you feel disrespected. I guess after I made extensive revisions, I too expected people to comment and raise ussues before amking a wholesale re-write of the article. I am not sure what you mean by "both" parties -- there are several parties here, including yourself. Slrubenstein

Amgine added an NPOV warning. Fine. But it would be very helpful if he or anyone else could make a list of specific paragraphs lacking NPOV, and what the problem is. Then we can start fixing it. Slrubenstein

I suggest we develop an outline of elements to include in the article, and then build sections to address those specific elements. I propose the following (though I am not wedded to this list):

A. Introduction

1. to include exclusively those elements from consensus votes above

B. Political situation 40BCE-40CE

1. Regional rulers

2. High Priests

3. Notable military actions/uprisings/riots/rebels

C. Religious organizations

1. Major schools

2. Prophets, messianic groups

D. Later developments

1. Political control

2. Rabbinic Judaism/Christianity

- Amgine 20:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you explain why this section appeals to you? It doesn't make sense to me. For one thing, "consensus" and "vote" mean two different things, and I am certainly not satisfied that earlier discussions were ever resolved adequately. Second, why separate "political situation" from "religious organizations?" To do this runs counter to all major Jewish historiography. Many historians understand that the distinction between religious and political is a modern distinction (see Weber); even if it has more ancient roots, it certainly is a distinction foreign to Israelite and Jewish societies during this time period. Why would "notable uprisings" and "messiahs" be in two different sections, when they overlap? Why would "major schools" and "prophets" be in a different section from "political situation" when they were a major part of the political situation?

By the way, You still haven't responded to any of my objections to the FT2 version you prefer, and you haven't responded to my attempt to have a dialogue with you concerning NPOV. Slrubenstein

I would find it amusing that, having discarded wiki process you now complain you are not receiving collaborative support. But instead I find it a sad, cynical commentary. I'm sorry, I do not feel your essay is worth the time and effort to critique when it would take less time and effort for the community of contributors to build a new article.

As for the sections outlined above: Political Situation in this usage I meant who was actually in charge, rather than the political affiliations of those figures. The justification for separating uprisings and messiahs is fairly thin, merely that certain individuals appear to have merely been popular figures who did not in fact foment revolt, while others set out specifically to overthrow the roman rule. The use of force to put down uprisings, etc. is inherently an element of governance, while popular figures might be opposed for other reasons. The separation of political and religious is a modern one, and one which our modern audience insists upon, and therefore our article should inform their preconceptions and not ignore them.

Given the above, how would you suggest changing the section outline? - Amgine 23:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not complaining that I am not receiving collaborative support -- where do I complain about this?

Please pardon my insertion at this point, but I feel you have asked a question deserving a specific answer:

1. What do you mean?
2. Can you explain more clearly what you mean?
3. I don't undertand; please explain.
4. If I misunderstood any of your criticisms, and if you feel any of my responses are inadequate, please just explain how and why.
5. But you have yet to respond to my objections to the version you so seem to like.
6. but if you could explain yourself more, perhaps I would understand your point.
7. I guess after I made extensive revisions, I too expected people to comment and raise ussues before amking a wholesale re-write of the article.
8. But it would be very helpful if he or anyone else could make a list of specific paragraphs lacking NPOV, and what the problem is. Then we can start fixing it.
9. By the way, You still haven't responded to any of my objections to the FT2 version
10. you haven't responded to my attempt to have a dialogue with you concerning NPOV.

etc. I frankly don't feel like going back and finding every point where you defend you article and are unable to see any fault with it and ask for further expansion. And complain you don't get any responses.

Whoa, dude -- chill out. I agree that the last two points can be taken as complaints. But everything else is not complaining -- unless you are thoroughly defensive. I ask "what do you mean" "can you explain" "I don't understand" in good faith, because I really do not understand you and want to. If you think this is complaining, I admise you to leave Misplaced Pages -- I am not trying to be offensive but these discussion pages are for precisely that, discussion. That means dialogue. I do not take it for granted that everything I write is clear to everyone else and try to answer when someone asks what I mean. I am not complaining -- I am honestly baffled that you don't want to do the same thing, and that you are somehow offended by the fact that when I do not understand you I ask you for more explanation. I just don't see this as "complaining." Do you want me to just ignore you when I am not sure what you mean? Slrubenstein

I am doing what I have always done which is to explain my reasons for making a change, or for rejecting someone else's change; and asking people for the reasons why they reject my changes or why they want to make another change; and asking people to clarify what they mean when I am not sure. This has been my consistent behavior since I have worked on Misplaced Pages. I do think it is very cynical of you to say my version is not worth critiquing, when in fact you have made criticisms that I have addressed. It seems to me that you are copping out -- you know that you are wrong and cannot justify your views, so you simply say "it is not worth my time to discuss." Moreover, it is very cynical for you to refuse to discuss my criticisms of the alternate version (the one by FT2 that you approve of). Why is it not worth your time to address the problems I have with that version?Slrubenstein

Again an insertion, and again I apologize. You did not feel it was worth your time to address the problems you had with FT2's version. I have brought up some of my reasons for not accepting your essay, and rather than blanking your article and replacing it I have begun a discussion to develop a replacement article. You have been invited to collaborate on this replacement article. Will you do so? - Amgine 03:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wrote a section above called FT2's Ultimate Revision where I listed over a dozen problems, and I have called your attention to this section several times, so please do not say that I did not feel it was worth the time to address the problems I had with his version when I spent considerable time laying out my problems with that version. Yes, you listed your objections to my draft and I appreciate it. I have only asked you why you have not responded to my replies. I do not know what you mean by "this replacement article." If you mean the one with the structure you suggested, and which I find obfuscating, I must say that my collaboration will consist of my explaining why it is problematic. Slrubenstein

A modern audience does not "insist" on a separation between politics and religion, by the way, in historical articles. In fact, it is historians who are insisting that history means understanding the past in its own terms. It is our obligation, as contributors to an encyclopedia, to represent the best of current scholarship. I do not find your explanation for your outline satisfying. Right now the article is organized according to who was in charge (Jewish/Israelite kings; Persians; Greek/Macedonians; Hasmoneans; Romans). To separate the religious and the cultural from this sequence of "who was in charge" would lead to redundancies and confusion, because "who was in charge" was intimately bound up with social and cultural institutions and beliefs, including beliefs about how to worship God. I just do not understand where you are coming from. I will, in fairness, tell you where I am coming from -- from having done research, and you can just look at the books mentioned at the bottom. What scholarship have you read that suggests your organization? Slrubenstein

A history as a smatterer and published author, former paper editor, and journalist informs my opinion that your essay is not accessible to the target audience. The academic texts I have read are mostly in the form yours is: dry, irrelevant, and unread except by other scholars. Unsuitable for an encyclopedia. (As a researcher in a very separate field I expect most of the articles I've been involved in are similarly unsuitable.)

My organization is primary developed from a journalistic viewpoint; Who did What, Where, When, and if possible suggest Why. This approach is proven as the most desired article format, reduces the likelihood of bias and speculation (leaving that up to the audience,) and minimizes the time and effort required of the reader to access pertinent facts. However, it is certainly not the only viable form, and I encourage you to suggest alternatives. Which, unfortunately, you have not yet done. - Amgine 03:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you want to see the alternative I suggest, just look at the article in its current state. I do not believe your format is "proven" as desirable and it certainly does not reduce the likelihood of bias. You keep defending the earlier (FT2) version and all I can say is -- if you honestly believe that was more accessible and readable than mine, than you and I will never agree on style because I thought the style and organization was horrid. Why don't you point out some places where the current version is "dry and irrelevant?" (and let's not forget the issue of NPOV and accuracy). You did list some objections, for which I thank you. I replied to those objections, in the spirit of collaboration. I hope you don't considering my answering your objections to be another form of complaining. You may not always be right. Slrubenstein

RfC

I came here from RfC. I only read the lead section. But at least to that point, this earlier version is more professional and on topic than the current version, in my view. Maurreen 03:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, you certainly have a right to your opinion. But I would like to understand it. First question: can you just diagram for me the first sentence of the version you like? I find it convoluted and wordy, but maybe I am missing something. Slrubenstein

Um, do we have the same meaning for "diagram a sentence"? More or less, to say which part of speech each part of the sentence is? Maurreen 16:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think so -- subject, verb, predicate, dependent clause, all that stuff. The point is, I honestly think the first paragraphs of FT@s version are hard for me to diagram and confusing. In my own work I try to stick to s-v-o as much as possible (which is far from always). You said this section is mre profesional -- what did you mean? I thought you meant it was better-written ... Slrubenstein 16:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I haven't done diagramming in years, but I'll try if it's important to you.

The version that I dislike isn't bad, but to me, it's not as smooth. For example, I'm paraphrasing here, but I'm not fond of "some people this and some people that" as written. I dislike the rhythm.

I'll try to give you more detail later. Maurreen 18:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, this helps. Do you think the rhythm can be improved -- or is it just a choice between two very different styles? Slrubenstein

Process Fetishization

I feel like this page has been hijacked by people who consider their idea of a correct process to be more important than the actual quality of product involved here. That being the case, I thought I'd raise a process issue, which is that FT2 seems to me to be behaving completely inappropriately. Not only does he not seem to be an official mediator, but it's pretty clearly not the job of a mediator to create an entirely new version of the page and then insist that other users not mess with it. FT2 has no particular rights over this page, and s/he shouldn't act as though s/he can dictate what everybody else does.

As to the content of the page, I really am not sure why Slrubenstein should be on the defensive. He has issued numerous strong, and as yet unrebutted, criticisms of FT2's version. On the other hand, he has pretty convincingly (IMO) addressed the substantive arguments that Amgine raised against his version, which, to be honest, seemed to me to almost entirely consist of grasping at straws. I think future discussion should be done on the basis of addressing problems with, and adding ommissions to, Slrubenstein's version, rather than working from a version that is distinctly worse. john k 21:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh please, an advocate who doesn't understand "Wiki". Too bad John Kenney only comes here when called on by Slrubenstein; he might be a valuable contributor. - Amgine 21:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've been following this page since Slrubenstein first alerted me to it. That a) he first alerted me to it; and b) I largely agree with him are neither of them justifications for dismissing my arguments out of hand and launching ad hominem attacks against me. At any rate, I find it vaguely offensive that somebody who has really only been editing for the past month and a half should feel that they have the right to accuse Slrubenstein and me, who have both been here for a long time, of not understanding the wiki process. john k 21:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see Wiki, with special attention to wiki#Key characteristics, line 1, "A wiki enables documents to be written collectively..." - Amgine 21:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uh huh, your point? john k 21:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To expand on this, of course the purpose of wikipedia is to work together on articles. But that doesn't mean that one user can't make radical changes, assuming that they improve the article. It just means that everybody else then has the right to question those changes on the merits and to themselves make changes that they think will make the article better. What Slrubenstein did was in no way a violation of the principles of a wiki. john k 22:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

John - I don't plan to get embroiled in a debate. But as Amgine says (""Throw away" ?? You mean like what Slrubenstein did with everyone else's contributions??"), I can guarantee two things:

1. A lot more of other people's point of view, consultation and listening, and experience of writing NPOV on religion went into the version SIrubenstein overwrote, than the current version.

Huh, so what? This is always true whenever anybody writes a substantially new version of an article. Should this never be done? The fact of collaboration beforehand should never hamstring editors from substantially improving an article.

1. If writing the suggested version is "hijacked" and "completely inappropriate", what would you say of totally ignoring a request for comments, and despite knowing others did not like the version SIrubenstein was suggesting, overwriting a draft for discussion with a version not a product of such consultation?

Think about it. Wiki is a community, and more than a few different people's voices got ignored in that unilateral refusal to even wait a day or two for comments as requested. Those voices have a place and deserved respect as part of consensus too, and you are supporting the removal of any opinion they might have had in favour of a version known previously to be considered not acceptable by several people here. FT2 00:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I am supporting a version which I think is a better version of the article. In your version of this, this seems to be utterly irrelevant. The collaborative process should not be used to prevent improvements in the quality of an article. john k 02:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is also the question of what you mean by "collaboration." In the period before FT2 started contributing to this article, I asked CheeseDreams and Amgine several times what their sources were and they either could not, or would not, answer me. I, on the other hand, have always provided my reasons and sources. This to me is a crucial part of the process: accountability. After the page was unprotected, FT2 made a revision, which I appreciated. I then spent a day making further revisions. I explained my changes on this page, and on FT2s talk page. I explained that I was careful to start with FT2s version, but did some reorganization and added a good deal of material where he left blank (or questions or "x"s). There was material from the earlier version I felt should be deleted, but I left it at the bottom of the article so we could discuss it. So when FT2 then entirely rewrote the article, and then demanded -- as I never had -- that no one touch it for a while -- without giving any explanations or justifications for his changes, I certainly felt there was no sense of collaborative process! FT2 takes it on faith that because he wrote it, it is the best version. He never explaine dwhy he made the changes he did. I have listed over a dozen specific problems with his version, and he has yet to respond to a single one (see above, FT2's Ultimate Version). I do not consider this to be collaboration in any sense. A "collaborative process" is not just voting, it is having a substantive engaged discussion in which people ask each other "why" and answer. If you look at the history of this discussion, you will see that CheeseDreams has never collaborated in this sense, and that although Amgine has tried, at certain points, he also admitted that he had done no research. I agree with John that FT2 is fetishizing process. But I add that the "process" he fetishizes isn't even the wikipedia process! Slrubenstein

Perhaps Slrubenstein should have put his alternative version on a temp page for discussion, but in the present climate, we have two editors who have all but explicitly said that they will ignore any input that he might make to the article... In the mediation attempt, they have said that any mediator Slrubenstein might suggest as neutral is automatically non-neutral. On this page, they say that any editor with whom Slrubenstein has ever exchanged words on the talk page is automatically non-neutral. It has really become a vendetta... (Slrubenstein has also made negative comments about CheeseDreams and Amgine, to be fair.) We need to drop the whole ad hominem thing and start writing an encyclopedia.

So the question remains, do we add to (and edit) the Slrubenstein version, which I believe to read much better and be more logically organized, or the FT2 version, which is going to need some major restructuring? I already wasted some time copy-editing the FT2 version and don't want to waste time on the Slrubenstein version if it's just going to go *POOF* in a couple of hours. I would suggest forgetting about the question of "process" for a moment so as to just decide the answer to this question (which forces more "process", I suppose): Which of the two versions provides a clearer and more understandable basis upon which we can build an acceptable article? Mpolo 08:16, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Slrubenstein's version

1. Mpolo 08:16, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• FT2's version

I very much appreciate Mpolo's comments, and his intervention. But, to reiterate my poijnt about process, just another vote isn't going to say much. We all know FT2, Amgine, and CheeseDream will vote for FT2s version. But why? Do they really believe it is better-written, better organized, more NPOV and more verifiable? I hope these are their reasons (better than their earlier reasons which ammounted to "SL didn't write it"). But why do they think it is better written? What makes the organization superior? What are examples where it is more NPOV? I ask these questions seriously because my understanding of wikipedia as a collaborative process specifically includes discussions about just such issues. By the same token, I hope from you rvote Mpolo that you genuinely think my version is better-written, more informative, more balanced. Thank you! But can't you spend a little bit more time explaining why you think it is better written, what you like about eh organization, what you learn from it, how it responds to your educational needs? I ask you to do this not as a favor for me but as a favor for FT2, CheeseDreams, and Amgine. I think they fear that you are supporting me blindly. I think they jmay genuinely not understand why anyone would tolerate what I have written. I think you would be doing them a great service by explaining yourself more concretely. In general I have this problem with votes at Misplaced Pages -- they end discussion rather than encourage it, which seems so contrary to what Misplaced Pages is all about. I just want to promote discssion ... Slrubenstein

Mpolo - Slrubenstein has consistently failed to collaborate throughout the history of the article since my involvement. He also appears unable or unwilling to follow process, has refuted votes, etc. Given these, I find myself utterly uninterested in working on what I perceive to be a fatally flawed, nearly unreadable personal essay by him and would prefer to rewrite the article in a simpler, accessible format. I have, in fact, begun to do so and hope to have an outline available for comment soon. - Amgine 16:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and as an aside, could you please point to any ad hominem comment I have made? I would be very embarassed if I had made a statement about Slrubenstein, and not my opinion of the contributor. - Amgine 16:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...this isn't an ad hominem?

Oh please, an advocate who doesn't understand "Wiki". Too bad John Kenney only comes here when called on by Slrubenstein; he might be a valuable contributor.

At any rate, what exactly is the "process" which Slr has refused to follow? Until somebody addresses the numerous serious issues that he has raised with FT2's version of the article, I find it laughable that anyone can accuse him of refusing to work with others. And I continue to have no idea why you think that Slr's version is a "fatally flawed, nearly unreadable personal essay." This whole thing is becoming surreal. john k 17:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to be out of town for a week and a half or so, and probably won't be accessing the Internet in that time. (It could happen, but I won't promise anything.) Which is part of why I've been staying a little on the fringe in this last debate.

The main reason I like Slrubenstein's version better is for organization. It follows a historical arc, introducing the major cultural elements as they are appropriate. It probably needs another section on cultural trends in the first century that don't fit into the historical plan (most of these ideas already exist in FT2's version).

FT2's version has the merit of trying to incorporate everyone's input (and as the original "author" of the article, I might mention that that includes my work -- author in quotes because I split it off of Jesus, using most of the information that was there), but seems like a random collection of themes that need to be organized into a coherent structure. Based on the reaction to Slrubenstein's rewrite, that is never going to happen with this article, because anyone who tried would just get reverted.

That's why I advocate the better-structured article as a base. Does it have flaws? Absolutely. Is there information from FT2's article that needs to be brought back to it? Of course. Is the lead perfect? Of course not. I just feel that it is a better base document to begin with. (I will be in suspense to see what is worked out by the time I return...) Mpolo 19:27, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Counterproductive disputes

I've just skimmed this Talk page and, being short on time, would like to quickly record my opinion: Cheesdreams, your stance is very unreasonable and has caused folks like SLR and Mpolo to sink major time and effort into struggling with you instead of improving the encyclopedia. I don't deny you your right to any POV you like, but at some point the project must embrace a consensus scholarly view and be free to address the relevant, specific issues without going back to square one every other sentence. The view that Jesus didn't exist is not just minority, it is utterly fringe. This article should give one nod to the fact that some question Jesus' historicity, then proceed with his cultural and historical background without further reference to this fringe dispute. All your voluminous concerns should be addressed in the Historicity of Jesus article, leaving the people who want to develop this article in peace. JDG 19:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article is an archive. It should not be edited. Your POV is because you are Slrubenstein's mate (see your talk page), and thus has no bearing on REALITY. CheeseDreams 14:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) HAH! You have no idea how much JDG and I have fought in the past. But of course, you have no idea how people can fight and still treat each other civilly and respect each other. Slrubenstein

Sorry, I put my comment in this archive by mistake. Moving... JDG

Tigermoon

Tigermoon reverted the article without any substnative revision. But she made two claims. First, she claimed that I it was completely unfair for me to have replaced FT2s version. PLEASE read the two versions. You will see that I incorporated a good deal of FT2s work into my revision. You will also see that at the end of my revision I included a good deal of FT2's work, which I had mot been able to incorporate onto my version, but which I thought would be unfair simply to delete. Tigermoon either did not read the material carefully, or is being very unfair to me. Second, she says FT@s version is better. Well, please explain how/in what way? On the talk page I have over a dozen specific problems with FT2s version (FT2's Ultimate Version) but so far no one -- FT2, Amgring, Tigermoon -- has responded to my critique. Amgine at least had the integrity and courtesy to provide a list of problems with my version. I think he is wrong but respect his gesture. I made specific replies to shwo why I thought he was wrong. Mine need not be the last word. Why can't Tigermoon or others contine the process of dialogue Amgrine so reasonably initiated? Slrubenstein

Note to reader (who may at this stage have lost the will to live/track of what is going on) - (Copied from elsewhere, but written by me) "Since Slrubenstein repeatedly refuses to apologise or comply with the Misplaced Pages:Civility policy, I hearby regard him as a non-person, as specified as an appropriate course of action in the Civility policy" CheeseDreams 21:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams, if you're looking for an apology for something SLR said about the appearance of a couple of your remarks, well, I cannot recall a single instance in the course of this debate in which you have apologized for anything at all, or admitted to any trivial error however slight. (I would of course be happy to be correct, as I will admit to having some difficulty keeping up with the conversation, let alone the edits.) I think it's time to drop that and move on. Although a number of editors are unhappy with some of SLR's edits or "process violations" he might have committed, I'm not aware of anyone else who thinks that shunning him is the appropriate response. Wesley 00:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You will also not be able to recall any instance of me calling someone a racist. CheeseDreams 20:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In addition see the Misplaced Pages:Civility policy, where one is advised to ignore the uncivil individual. CheeseDreams 20:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is CheeseDreams admitting to using a sockpuppet? Slrubenstein By the way, I am always willing to angage someone concerning specific edits of mine they object to. If you (Wesley) have specific objections to any of my edits I hope you will tell me, Slrubenstein

Be assured I will, at least once I find time to a) find such an edit; and b) find time to tell you. I didn't have anything specific in mind when I wrote the above, other than the general objections to your large edit following FT2's request for comments before editing. Regarding that edit, you obviously disregarded FT2's request, but I think you were well within Misplaced Pages's general "edit boldly" policy. Either way, I'd rather get on with discussing the article than arguing over process. Wesley 04:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tigermoon's user contributions page strongly suggests a sock puppet. john k 06:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tigermoon only came on here because I asked him to comment on something as a favour, he has very little time and not that much interest for Misplaced Pages, so don't expect him to have masses of edits. CheeseDreams 20:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you know him outside of Misplaced Pages, then? john k 21:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He is an ex.CheeseDreams 21:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only reason I suggest that Tigermoon is CheeseDream's sockpuppet is because immediately after I challenge Tigermoon to respond to my comment, CheesseDream explained that he doesn't recognize me and will not respond to me. Why did CheeseDream place his remark immediately after my comment to Tigermoon? Slrubenstein

Dear reader, an ability to remember what one has written often prevents stupid accusations. For example "On the talk page I have over a dozen specific problems with FT2s version (FT2's Ultimate Version) but so far no one ....... has responded to my critique." CheeseDreams 00:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request to Archive

It's now 10 days since the last archive was made, and since Slrubenstein is still unwilling to submit to concensus or collaboration, and still continues on verbose tracts because he is unable to write succinctly, would someone awfully mind archiving some of the above (but keep section (2)-votes- which is already archived, but important to keep aware of) CheeseDreams 21:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will attempt to clean up after I return from the consulary; probably a few hours.

Thanks CheeseDreams 22:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have to run again, back in a few - Amgine 01:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) Back at it again - Amgine 01:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Responses to SIrubenstein

Okay, lets try quick comments to the points you make:

Let me first say that I appreciate your finally responding to me. I wish you would respond above, in the section on FT2's Ultimate Version (unless you do some of that here!). But I appreciate the gesture. Slrubenstein

• 1 Seems that the intro is felt by more than one or two people not to be "a mess" but to be a more neutral and balanced version, introducing the topic appropriately. See above.

ANd there are a number of people who prefer my intro. Look, if it really is eavenly divided, maybe we can merge them. Still your first sentence seems awfully complex.Slrubenstein

Thats clean-upable. What that 4 para intro is, is neutral. Can we shorten and simplify yes. My impression in editing wikipedia is that the hard thing is to get something neutral. Once its neutral it can be made less clumsy. Lets start with that and see if we can simplify *without* losing the neutral approach and wording. FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• 2a You're assuming a Christian outlook in your writing, that is the main problem people have.

"The main problem people have?" Excuse me? Are you speaking for others? Who else criticizes my Christian point of view. Also, I hope you will explain what the Christian point of view is. Slrubenstein

I'm speaking for those whose opinion in the edit war this article was in earlier, that some felt you were ingoring others in favour of a view which was a little too religion-oriented and not appropriate to the article. If Im wrong, and I'm imagining others having thought that at times, perhaps you'd explain the NPOV tag I didnt put there and the comment I didnt put there with it? FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

As an admitted Christian, I honestly don't think Slrubenstein is trying to push a Christian POV. Some parts of what he presents regarding the emergence of Christianity are rather at odds with how many Christians view that century. Is it considered too Christian to presume that Jesus existed? That would make Christians out of an awful lot of Muslims and Jews. Wesley 00:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You wrote that I am assuming a Christian outlook in my writing. I want to know why you believe this. I would like you to explain to me what my Christian outlook is. It is not my responsibility to explain an NPOV tag that I think is unwarrented -- you will have to ask whoever put it up. I know you didn't. I am not asking you to explain the silly NPOV tag. I am asking you to explain why and how you think I am expressing a Christian outlook. Slrubenstein

• 2b Your statement was that "the relationship between the saducess, the pharisees, the Temple, and the Torah. Every historical paragraph I added served to explain these four variables, crucial to understanding..." The problem is that actually a lot of context needed to understand those times is not one of those four. Reducing it to these four shows a gross simplification, and a poor understanding of several other dynamics. For example, one cannot understand the Jews reaction to Rome, nor to Messiahs, without understanding the recent past at least as far back as the Macabbees, nor can one understand Jesus' approach to questioning his elders without an understanding of the child prodegies of which there were many at the time. Not everything comes back to elements of the Gospels, and this is a major criticism others had of your present approach.

Are deliberately being unfair? You know I was responding to AMgine who was critcising me for putting in too much material, dating back to 1000 BCE! You are being disingenuous -- I do not reduce the whole article to the Saducees, Pharisees, Temple and Torah -- this was must my explanation to Amgine for why I went as far back as Ancient Israel and Judah. You certialy know that I do not reduce things to these four variables -- you well know I have extensive sections on prophets, millenial prophets, the Essenes, Sicarii, bandits, and Zealots.. By the way, what is your evidence for child prodigies in the first century, and what is its relevance to this article? Slrubenstein

Its reported in the Talmud, the ages at which a child is supposed to know Torah, Gemarrah, Mishnah amongst the Jews. The ages 8 and 13 are the relevant ones I seem to remember. A quick search on Google brings up this text: "Mishnah Aboth 5:21 - He used to say: five years for Torah, ten for Mishnah..." So an ordianry student was expected to begin studying Torah from age 5, Mishnah at 10, Talmud by 15... what would a brilliant student achieve? I think if you view Jesus amazing people with his mastery of law as a young man, you'll find why this section on child prodigies is actually relevant and why jesus' ability was simply not unheard of for jewish society at that era. Anyway thats the source of that one. FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

So you're speculating that if everyone starts studying a given subject, there will be numerous child prodigies in that subject? That might be reasonable if there's statistics to show that x% of a student population studying a random subject turns out to be prodigious in that subject, but if so, surely the article should mention that that's the basis of the statement? Wesley 00:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does this mean you concede my point about the four variables? Slrubenstein

As to youth and study, my advice to you is not to accept a google search as a substitute for research. My recollection is that Mishnah Aboth 5:21 says that there are four kinds of scholars -- I forget all four but it is something like a funnel, a sponge, a seive, one other. This quote is describing adult scholars and has nothing to do with child-scholars. I believe you are referring to the Talmud, not the Mishnah. Well, the Talmud was compiled in Babylonia is 500. If Jesus was a child in the Galilee in the first century CE, please tell me what on earth a quote from four hundred years later and 550 miles away has to do with the "Cultural and Historical Background for Jesus?" Moreover, the Talmud is not describing how people actually behaved but rather an ideal for behavior. You are misusing it as an historical source. Finally, the Gospels tell us little about Jesus as a child. So what is your point about Jesus being a child prodigy? I have no idea what you are talking about. The issue is not that Jesus was questioning his elders, they issue is that like any adult Jesus was discussing Torah with other adults. What is the poing about a child prodigy? You confusion about the mishnah and the talmud is just one more example of why I distrust your scholarship and question your edits. Slrubenstein

I owe you an apology -- I am mistaken about Aboth 5:21 -- I was remembering 5:15 (I think) and you are correct on the Mishnah. However, my main point stands: you are quoting ben Tama's position, which is not necessarily an accurate account of Jewish practice; his position is 100 years after Jesus; it is about education, not child prodigies. No one contests Jesus' knowledge of scripture, but there is no reason to claim he was a prodigy either. Slrubenstein

I think this is in reference to the story in Luke 2:41-52, when Jesus traveled to the Temple with his family but remained behind when his family left. Verses 46-47 read, "Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teadchers, both listening to them and asking questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers." FT2's point seems to be that while such a story may be true of a 12-year-old Jesus, that other 12-year-old Jewish children would have also astonished people by their understanding and answers. Wesley 03:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• 3 The comment "Politically as time passed, the foreign powers often came to view the wish of some Jews not to become integrated as a divisive and therefore political wish, and often considered it a personal affront to the emperor" is more than "might be true. As a historic statement it is accurate to state that in each case (persians, macedonians, and romans alike) the rulers began benign and it gradually became as described, conflictive. If this was not true for any of these three, please state which it was untrue for.

Well, many of the conflicts started as conflicts between Jews and gentiles, in which Imperial authories only got involved later. And of course if we are talking about the Maccabees, what you say here completely contradicts Tcherikover. The Romans were very tolerant of Jewish beliefs -- most conflict started because of Jewish resentement of taxation, not Roman resentment of Jewish difference! Anyway, how would you deal with Tcherikover? Slrubenstein

Which were the gentiles involved in the persians and macabees and romans then, where the imperial authorities "got involved later"? Just out of interest? FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know of conflicts where the Persians got involved, but if there were any it would have been conflicts between the returning Babylonian exiles and gentiles then living in Judea -- perhaps Philistines. You just wrote Macabees but above you wrote Macedonians. Do you know what you are talking about? In any event, when the Macedonian Imperial authorities got involved in conflicts it would have been between Jews and gentiles living in the Decapolis or other Hellenic cities. When the Romans got involved it could have been in conflicts between Jews and gentiles living in Ceasarea. Don't you know this stuff? If not, why are you trying to write the article? And you still haven't explained to me why you reject Tcherikover. Slrubenstein

• 4 Again, the article is on the historic and cultural background. Jewish views, whatever they are, are germane to that background and essential for its understanding. The quote is an accurate representative of typical Jewish views. It is not possible to accurately represent the cultural origins of the time of Jesus without accurately in their own words stating where the jews were coming from in recent memory at the time. (If you are still concerned that this is not clear, the remedy is to explain the quote's origins)

So please explain the quote's origins. You think all Jews are alike. I don't deny that that quote illustrates "a' Jewish view, I just say it is a view that has no place in an encyclopedia article. It odes not reflect the view of Jewish historians, and it does not reflect the jews of th first century. Slrubenstein

Its a statement by a Jew, attempting to summaruise how he feels jews felt at that time. FInd a better one that captures it and use that, or summarise a range. The purpose of the quote is to show how jews felt (emotion) not thought (conceptual). FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I am not convinced the article needs a quote. But if you want a quote, please do not use this crappy non-authoritative quote. Look for one from a real historian. How about this:

All the Judaisms of the Hellenistic period, of both the diaspora and the land of Israel, were Hellenized, that is, were integral parts of the culture of the ancient world. Some varieties of Judaism were more hellenized than others, but none was an islandunto itself. It is a mistake to imagine that the land of Palestine preserved a "pure" form of Judaism and that the diaspora was the home of adulterated or diluted forms of Judaism. The term "Hellensitic Judaism" makes snese, then, only as a chronological indicator for the period from Alexander the Great to the Macabees or perhaps to the Roman conquests of the first century BCE. As a descriptive term for a certain type of Judaism, however, it is meaningless because all the Judaisms of the Hellenistic period were "Hellenistic." Cohen 1987: 37 Slrubenstein

• 5 Again, you miss the point. Saying "X% lived in towns, Y% in villages" or some such would not be a "cultural" description. It's a demographic one. Culturally most Jews at the time were hard working. Culturally most were God fearing. Culturally most lived in villages.

"culture" involves all spheres of meaningful human activity, see culture. In any event, please provide the evidence for "most Jews were hard working," and the evidence for "most Jews were god-fearing" Slrubenstein

One speaks of the middle ages as "superstitious" because that is the general sense of the era. The general sense of the era was poverty and village life. Anthropologically in such circumstances there arent many "slackers". Boys start work helping their fathers, girls their mothers, from a young age, more so when money is scarce. God-fearing - "sense of the age": they were not as a rule hellenised, village people tended to be less hellenised than city people. I can look up the stats, but I dont have them here, can you check that one for me? FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

The "one" you talk of is not an historian and should not be writing encyclopedia articles. In fact, the whole purpose of an enecyclopedia article is to correct their ignorant views -- to educate them. See the above quote. Slrubenstein

• 6 Corruption is measured by most historians standards. Earlier emporors lived and thrived. Emporors and rulers of 1 CE era tended to be murdered, lived shorter reigns, were by any standard crueler than their predecessors of 150 years earlier, tended to polarise more between military rulers and hedonistic ones, and the like.

Who makes this argument? And what do you mean about earlier emporers 150 years ago? We are talking about the Julian emperors -- the very first dynasty of emporers. It's not like there were many more emporors before them. You think Tiberius or Caligula had a shorter life than Mark Anthony or Pompey? really! Where do you get this stuff from? Slrubenstein

Look at the trend. But okay, perhaps I over stated. I am thinking of the emporers maybe 100 or 200 years later perhaps, round 200-300 CE, when rome had declined some. I'll concede this one could be inaccurate. FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• 7 Again, there is a cutoff point on the article. The matters which are cultural and historic background are relevant. Perhaps you can indicate which exact items you mean, by a link to the edit which removed them? Then I can check this.

Sorry, I do not understand your point here. Slrubenstein

• 8The Mandeans were mentioned because that is compromise, and a basis for discussion. Others mentioned them, your view is not the only one to count.

Oh for goodness sake, don't you knwo what an encyclopedia is? So what, soemone else mentioned them. Okay, here goes: "There is micoroscopic life on Jupitor." There, I mentioned it. Now, for the sake of compromise, will you put this in the article? I hope not, because that would be a stupid thing to do! Microscopic life on jupitor has nothing to do with this article, even if I insist you put it in. Just because another contributor likes the mandeans does not mean it goes into the article. THIS IS NOT WHAT COLLABORATION MEANS. Collaboration is people who ahare one goal: improving the article. The criteria for improvement are in our policy: NPOV and verifiability. Mandeans simply have no place in this article. There is no evidence they existed in 1st century palestine or had anything to do with John the Baptsits or Jesus. I know my view isn't the only one to count. But the principle is NOY that all views must be included, it is that all views must be taken into account. Well, we took CheeseDreams' view into account: we considered it, and saw that it had not value or merit. Finito! Slrubenstein

Thats why I left it in. To see if it would be justified or consensus'd out. Its an odd point to make, so I wasnt sure what it signified. So I didnt assume. FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

It didn't strike you as strange when I asked CheeseDreams for sources or evidence and he couldn't provide any? And don't you think that if you are going to contribute to this article you have some responsibility to do research? You edited together a version. Take responsibility for your edits. I take responsibility for mine. Slrubenstein

• 9 Likewise the next comment - it was a contribution by others, left in to be discussed. Perhaps relevant or accurate, perhaps not. But it was a statement which might have meant something, so it was left for discussion (remember thats what I said needed to happen next? Mediation means giving others a say-so). In other words, ask first.

Okay, I am discussing it. Let's discuss it. I have serious reservations. Lwet's discuss it in the talk page before putting it in the article; after all this is what talk pages are for. Slrubenstein

fair enough. I'm, ok with that. I left in what seemed odd enough that it might have had some point, for others to consider too. FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• 10 Again, read any book on Judaism. A good one. The Jews always had two sides to their religion, temple worship, and halakhah/prayer. That is historically factual, and the reason the Jews did not vanish with their temple.

Are you being thick, or mean? You know very well that the Children of Israel -- meaning those who lived up until the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians -- di dnot have the mishnah. Period. To make this claim is ignorant. Or are you refering to the dual heritage thing? You mention temple worship and then halacha and prayer. But you know that prayer is a form of avodah and comparable to temple worship, and that halacha involves civil, political, and ritual elements. To reduce this to "two" sides is an insult to Judaism. Slrubenstein

No insults please. When you say "always" you dont mean back to antiquity. When I used "always" I meant "for many hundreds of years". Apologies if thats caused you to misread it. But the temple worship goes back to sinai (1500-1300 BCE) and the temple itself (950 BCE0. Halakhah and the studies that belong to the oral traduition and became the Mishnah go back almost as far. They had an oral version. I didnt say they had it in written form, is all. But Mishnah (or what became mishnah) existed in oral form for hundreds of years prior. FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

That is a particular POV. It is a legitimate POV but it is only one POV. But most historians would say you are wrong. The Temple wan't constructed until 900+ BCE. Before that time Jews had various sacred places. There is no historical substantiation for the account concerning the Ark in the desert in Numbers. The first evidence of the law is quite some time after that. I mean, if you want to be NPOV and not merely assume an Orthodox Jewish POV. In any event, you seem to be missing my point which is that these things do not reduce to "two" dimensions. That is what I was objecting to. Slrubenstein

• 11 "Children of Israel" ... again, that is someones wording used out of respect. It is not an edit I made, it is one retained because someone else used it, whose words presumably were thought through. The correct way to address that is to 1) comment as requested and 2) seek consensus.

• 12 "Apolcalypse" - if this is borrowed, then fix it or comment. Its a minor point.

That is why I deleted it when I revised your version. I didn't think you'd object. Slrubenstein

I'd have liked others to have a chance in case we were mmistaken. You deprived them of that. FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Do you really mean this? Please think about what you are saying. The implication is no one should edit, because as soon as someone edits they deprive someone else the right to have made that edit. Slrubenstein

• 13"Hypothesised" - if you don't know... ask first.

I asked this several times in discussion over the past week or so and no one could give me any answer. Since no one ever had a justification, why put it in? And okay, so, you put it in and then I asked. I asked. Now answer, please. What is the answer? you are being evasive by not answering my question. Slrubenstein

• 14 "Seems speculative". Seems like this translates "I dont know but I dont really want to bother finding out". Again, ask first.

Again, I did ask first, in the two or three weeks prior to your writing your version. I never got an answer. Well, okay, you wrote your version. So now I ask. Yup, I aksed. SO what is the answer? Again, you are being evasive. You know the questions I am asking, you are writing all this supposedly to respond. So answer my questions. Slrubenstein

• 15 "Jewish rejection"... again, the section on rejection was very specific. It was not "jewish rejection of Christianity", was it, as you say. It was a general cultural description of "factors which would have inclined the Jews to reject a variety of cults, groups and beliefs". But again, you mis read and didn't ask first

You miss the point. It is a poorly written statement that conflates a historical process and never specifies which Christianity is being rejected. Seriously: did you just make this stuff up? I really want to know. Slrubenstein

See below. FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• 16 I like this: "Yohanan" is not Hebrew for Jonathan; the Baptist's name was "John" (or it's Hebrew equivalent, Yohanan). Does anyone else spot the illogic?

You are kidding, right? In your version you translate Yohanan as Jonathan. That is just false. If you can't even admit when you have made a mistake, what kind of human being are you?

See below. Remember Davids friend "Jonathan"? David and Jonathan? Universally called "Jonathan" not John? Yohannan? Check it out. "John" is not hebrew...... FT2 21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't look illogical to me. So, what was his name? How was it first written? What's the Aramaic version? The New Testament was first written in Greek, though some think there was an earlier version of Matthew in Aramaic. I don't know of anyone who thinks it was first written in Hebrew. Did some other groups write about him in Hebrew? Wesley 00:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What on earth are you saying? There are two Hebrew names: Jonatan and Yohana. Yonatan is represented in English as Jonathan. Yohanan is represented in English as John. Are you making fun of me? Ar eyou yanking my chain? Waht does "Jonathan" have to do with "Yohanan? John the Baptist was not names Jonathan -- Jon is not John. Jesus, are you seriously trying to argue this? Do you know anything? I am seriously starting to question your competence here and I really am serious, not trying to be rude, because I know you have made some reasonable edits to other articles. But what you are saying here is a charicature of a nut, you must be making fun of me somehow ... Slrubenstein

• 17 The organisation is clean. Culture and history has several aspects. It is important to be able to view cultural factors separate from historic, to understand cleanly what each institution was and what it signified, and the like. A historic narrative fromat aloneis inappropriate - its not just "a history of the holy land 200 BCE to 200 AD". The intent is to give an understanding of the cultural tensions, issues, backgrounds too.

There is no human history outside of cultural frames, there is no culture except as historically specified. Haven't you done any research? Slrubenstein

It seems to me that a chronological organization stands a much better chance of being NPOV. Organizing it into topics is much more of an interpretive task, which risks getting a POV embedded into the organizational structure. Wesley 00:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, you wanted specific responses. Thats them. FT2 17:57, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture. I find most of these unsatisfying. But you still won't answer my questions. Let's try one more time:

the sentence "It is hypothesised that to make it palatable, and draw a line separating them from the Jews (who were by now becoming politically dangerous associates due to their rebellion against Rome) many more of the restrictive laws were removed and the emphasis was shifted." is a poor one for an encyclopedia. Who hypothesized this? In any event, the "hypothesis" makes no sense. Jews never believed non-Jews should obey Jewish law. No Jew, including early (Jewish) Christians, would have demanded that gentiles obey Jewish law. Nothing had to be stripped to make things easier. By the way, many Gentiles did turn to other religions with very restrictive practices, so there is no reason to think that "restrictions" were what got in the way of appealing to gentiles. Please answer my question: Who hypothesized this? On the basis of what evidence? How do they handle the problems in their argument I point out? I am asking, please answer. Slrubenstein

I have no idea what scholarship the section on Jewish reactions to cults and messianism is based on, it all seems speculative. Please tell me what scholars make this argument. I am asking, please answer. Slrubenstein

Both are fair questions - I dont have the reference books for either (some things you read, remember but dont necessarily remember the exact source):

1. Did you notice that you in fact completely mis-read this one? I didn't write "Jews believed other people should obey Jewish Law". Writing that sentence out in full, what it says (or should say is:

• Early Christians had not made headway with what they felt their natural audience should be, namely the Jews. (they evangelised to both, but its clear initially they expected the Jews would listen more)
• So they a) felt rejected and b) turned more to spread the Gospels amongst the Gentiles.
• So It is hypothesised that they drew a line separating themselves from the Jews, by divesting themselves of many Jewish customs and beliefs the early jewish-christians had perpetuated into early christianity.

This hypothesis makes no sense. You could have had Jewish Christians obeying Jewish law, and Gentile Christians not obeying Jewish law. This hypothesis is so silly it is hard for me to believe. So if I am wrong and it is a legitimate hypothesis I want to know who made it. Slrubenstein

• As a clear side effect, dropping more Jewish traditions made their beliefs more palatable to the Gentiles (they could have converted anyway, buty there is no denying that just because some would convert, removing restrictions encouraged others)

Not logical. The whole notion of a "Judeo-Christian ethic" is that gentiles found some ideas of Jews appealing and accepted them even though Jews observed practices that the Gentiles had no interest in practicing. Keeping or dropping Jewish traditions had no affect whatsoever on the teachings of Jesus they would have preached to Gentiles. Slrubenstein

• And this happened for two key reasons,

• a) it separated them more from the Jews who had mostly rejected them, and who in any event were becoming seen as a 'problem' by Rome and therefore christians might have been caught up in coming conflict (it was politically useful not to in fact be Jews), and

Wrongo. Even after the Bar Kohba rebellion the Romans treated Jews better than they treated Christians. Slrubenstein

• b) The removal of various beliefs laws and rituals which early christians would have kept, basically the dismissal of halakhah and its ultimate replacement by pure faith alone, simultaneously made them more accessible to gentiles.

Why? Are you saying an Orthodox Jew can't be a high-school teacher in the US, because the fact that s/he observes halacha means that students will reject lessons in English, algebra, or U.S. istory? This is offensive -- but just plain wrong. Slrubenstein

I don't think as paraphrases go, thats entirely misrepresentative of some fairly common academic views. My apologies though if it was poorly worded.

2. For some Jewish points of view, Jewish reactions, you actually have to go to Jewish sources. Now lets try asking the same question the other way:

• Given what you know of the Jews, how they are now, what documented evidence says they felt towards other "Messiahs" such as Sabbattai Lev in the 1400's,

Do you mean Shabbatai Tzvi? He was in the 1600s. Once again, you cause me to doubt that you know what you are talking about, and you cause me to question your ability to edit factual substantive claims in this article. By they way, you cannot possible believe that Jewish belief did not change in a 1500 year period! If so, you have no business working on this article which is all about historical context. An example from the seventeenth century has no bearing on the first century. Slrubenstein

• Given what their books and traditions say of their reactions to offshoots of Judaism which acclaimed one person as divine,

First century messiahs and prophets never claimed they were diving. Slrubenstein

• Given Jewish reactions both biblical historic and Halakhic all the way back to the Golden Calf,
• GIVEN that they were under intense pressure from Rome (and we know what pressure does to Jewish sense of Identity from the Macabbes, all the way through to 1948)....

What do you imagine Jews would think of people preaching non-mainstream beliefs, whether Christ-centred or otherwise?

(Hint before you answer - consider how many non-mainstream Jewish cults were accepted over the millenia, and how many rejected? And why rejected?)

Hint: Let us have some evidence from the first century CE. This is called historical research. This is what writing an encyclopedia article is all about. Don't give me your own speculatiojns -- that is a clear violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages is not for orginal research. Your questions above are irrelevant. Slrubenstein

Research that first.

Then notice what the section actually said, and that it was deliberately not Christ-specific. It is generic Jewish reaction, and quite representative. Specifically it said jews tended historically to reject many new cults, beliefs and messiahs because:

• Jews have considerable law on false prophets (confirmed)
• Jews as a group tend to be protective of their national identity and polarise under pressure (accurate)

You are ignorant of first century historiography and making an anachronistic claim. Slrubenstein

• Major reasons for non-mainstream acceptance of any new interpretation would likely be for certain key reasons, including that jews as a group even back then, tended to be conservative (confirmed in gospels and history books), sceptical of radical new interpretations (are you denying it?), disinterested in afterlife/salvation stories (mainstream judaism yes, but variable), and political tensions (accurate).

You just utterly miss the point. Jews in this period were making all sorts of original claims; what you call "the mainstream" did not clearly exist back then. The Rabbis who came to dominate Jewish culture were making radical claims! Your reasoning is specious and ignorant. Slrubenstein

Remind me which exactly of these statements of "reasons Jews rejected many cults" are you saying is inaccurate?

This runs counter to the diversity of beliefs and practices that characterized the Jews in pre-Temple, first Temple, and Second Temple periods. You are making stuff up based on an ideal from a certain ideology. This is not the result of NPOV research. Slrubenstein FT2 21:12, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I do not think you have responded to any of my objections satisfactorally, with evidence from serious historical research. Slrubenstein

Appropriate sources

Two brief remarks about the process here. First, I think historical research should be consulted and relied upon as much as possible. I say this even though I disagree with many of the conclusions of these "critical historians". Better to cite these academics then let any wikipedian make stuff up, myself included. Second (and related) point, if we want the article to represent "consensus", it should be the consensus of historians, not the consensus of wikipedians. We editors should not ever be in the position of voting on what is and isn't historical. If we did, next thing you know we'll be voting on whether the earth is round or flat, or on whether the Holocaust happened. Is there any way we can agree on what appropriate sources are?? Wesley 04:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have documented over 125,000 hits on Google regarding other messiahs, some of them quite scholarly and all of the relevant articles indicating the widely accepted opinion of biblical scholars that multiple messianic figures were active in the region during the first century.

Google is no substitute for books. The best current historiography is in books and articles, not the web. Slrubenstein

Darling reader, historiography is about books. CheeseDreams 00:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have also examined several texts by historians, each of which also used the term messianic to describe rebel leaders, prophets, and purported miracle workers in the context. This wide acceptance is due to the primary historic texts outside the Gospels by Josephus. However, Slrubenstein has repeatedly stated Josephus, considered authoritative by most historians, is not acceptable as a citation.

First, I never ever said Josephus is not acceptable as a citation. Where did I say this? I think you are lying. Second, most historians do not think Josephus is an authority. They thin his work is an important historical source but must be read critically. See Cohen's book on Josephus for starts. Slrubenstein

Slrubenstein previously had the following in his comment As a matter of fact, Josephus is my source for claiming that some people CheeseDreams listed as "messiah's were not messiahs (because Jesus calls them prophets, and never calls them messiahs) however it was removed by John Kenney at 01:07 on 24th November - either John Kenney is a sock puppet or his is editing people's comments to change the appearance of the person CheeseDreams 01:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I am a sock puppet. Or, perhaps, I added a huge number of comments interspersed through another section and hit edit conflicts three or four times. Although I made efforts to incorporate everything, I could not find where this comment was supposed to be when trying to incorporate it. I apologize for the removal. john k 01:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Therefore, and among other reasons, I question this article's supposed devotion to historians if our self-proclaimed most studied contributor does not, in fact, follow their lead.

Fortunately, I have secured access to ATLA, an index to the primary biblical and historic journals regarding this field of study and am currently researching a supported framework of sections for a rewritten article. - Amgine

I have added a few sources and a citation to the FT2 article, and will add more tomorrow.

Comments on Slr's version

In the interest of trying to lay out my opinions, I thought I'd try to quickly (although this may turn out to be not so quick) lay out my criticisms of both of the competing versions of the article. I'll start with Slr's.

1. I do feel as though it takes rather a while to get to the period of Jesus. I'm not sure if this can be avoided, though - most of the information seems relatively salient.

You should know that some contributors, such as CheeseDream, feel that Jesus should not even be mentioned in this article. Most contributors felt that it was okay to mention Jesus, but that the emphasis should be on the general historical and cultural context. I was trying to accommotdate their views. Slrubenstein

Well, it's fine to emphasize the context. I just find it odd to write an article that is entirely context for another article, without even referencing the subject of that article other than in the introduction. This is much more a problem in the other version of the article, though. john k 23:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Should the issue of the Hasmonaeans claiming first the high priesthood (under Jonathan) and then the kingship (under Aristobulus I) be mentioned? This seems significant given discussions of the messiah and all that.
2. Antipater the Idumaean ought to be mentioned, no?
3. There should be a discussion of Herod's reign, given that he appears in the Gospels and is rather famous
4. It ends rather oddly, with a lengthy discussion of the emergence of rabbinic Judaism, which seems somewhat extraneous to the topic at hand, at least at this level of detail. How does the Bar-Kochba revolt or the Talmud relate to the context of Jesus decades or centuries earlier? Certainly, it seems odd that the "Emergence of Rabbinic Judaism" section is longer than that "Emergence of Christianity" section.
5. There are various copy edits (some of which I have done, and some not)
6. I do wonder if “Cultural and historical background of Jesus” is appropriate as the title. It seems more like a “Cultural and historical background of Christianity,” especially given that it goes past the destruction of the 2nd Temple.

I think the real solution is to have as little post-2nd Temple material as possible. However, I think there is a need for some post-2nd Temple material for two reasons. First, many historians writing about Jesus refer to that material as relevant to understanding Jesus' historical horizon. Second, the way Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism emerged helps explain many of the anachronisms and much of the bias in the Gospel accounts of Jesus. Slrubenstein

I would agree that there should be something, it just seems like too much at the moment. john k 23:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Occasionally (especially in the first paragraph), it seems as though an excessive number of sources are being mentioned. Is it really necessary to mention five different historians in the intro, for instance?

Next I'll try to go through the FT2 version. john k`

Comments on FT2/Amgine's version

I will now do for the latest version of FT2/Amgine's version of the article what I did for Slr's version.

1. "For those who believe in his existence" is a terrible opening - "According to the Gospels" seems a lot more NPOV to me.
2. Surely Christianity did arise in Roman Palestine - it was not merely alleged to do so.

   Some think it arose in Rome, and was retroactively made to have originated in Jerusalem, particularly due to the apparant lack of any early christianity in Jerusalem or its surroundings (as would be expected), except perhaps for the Ebionites who were very different. Ive just noticed no-one has mentioned them in the article -maybe they have too much to do with the history of Christianity rather than Jesus.

   I would agree that some discussion of the Ebionites would make sense. At any rate, can you cite some historians/religious scholars who think that Christianity arose in Rome, and why people in Rome would choose to create a religion based on someone who is purportedly a Jew who was executed by the Romans in Palestine?

   Christian tradition has it that the Christians were forcibly driven out of Jerusalem early on, which led to its early expansion. This might also explain the lack of evidence for early Christianity in Jerusalem. Wesley 04:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3. The second paragraph is weird and unencyclopedic. Encyclopedia articles should not have to justify their existence.

   Id like that cut, but I think many people (see early discussion in the archives) wanted to keep it. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   Well, I'd be interested to see if anyone currently involved will defend this stuff. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

4. Ditto the third paragraph

   Can't remember what that is. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   More of the same... john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

5. I generally prefer Slr's parenthetical reference to the Historicity of Jesus article than it's getting an entire paragraph to itself.

   Everyone else preferred the other version. (And it took ages to determine what that ought to be). CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   Well, I don't feel incredibly strongly on this one. If a strong majority really prefers a wording like this, it doesn't seem unworkably awful. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

6. History does not overlap and is entirely separable from culture, religion, and politics?

   It should be seperated as much as possible, this isn't an essay. Its a text to look things up in. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   No, individual articles on Saducees, Pharisees, Prophets, Messiahs, and so forth are useful for looking things up in. I don't see why this article should essentially be a bunch of mini-articles stuck together. this article should try to form a single piece discussing the "Cultural and historical background of Jesus". john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

7. I strongly disagree that these four (history, culture, religion, and politics) need to be discussed separately. They are all tied together, and dividing them up like this will only lead to unnecessary repetition

   It is entirely possible to seperate them, and reads much more clearly as well. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   I imagine that we won't be able to get anywhere arguing about this, because I don't see how this way of organizing the article makes any sense at all, and certainly I can't begin to imagine how a version that essentially consists of taking apart Slr's version and randomly separating out different paragraphs from it into different sections of the article can be considered to read better than the actual article as he wrote it. The FT2 version of the article is constantly giving completely out of context information in what appears to be an exquisitely random article. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

8. Why on earth are we discussing Canaanites, Philistines, and King Saul?

   Slrubenstein went into the "history" excessively, prompting FT2 to insert more "historical" material into the concensus version. I have no objection to removing much of the detail from the earlier history sections.CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   Well, that's something, sort of. I think both versions probably include too much early history, but Slr's is mostly to the point and relevant, while most of this seems to be FT2's ramblings. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

9. Did "prophets and priests" really rule the "first Jewish kingdom" along with kings? Also, isn't "Jewish" an inappropriate term to refer to the Israelites in the First Temple period? Also, what about the Kingdom of Israel?

   (a) See Judges

   The book of Judges predates the first Temple and the monarchy. You are mixing up two very different periods. Slrubenstein

   Indeed. The Judges were certainly not contemporary with the later kings. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   Readers should note that the dating of the book of judges is put by most scholars to around 600BC or later. CheeseDreams

   Sure. But the events that it describes are clearly said to occur before the establishment of the Kingdom. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   (b) Are you claiming they were not Jews?

   Most historians would agree they weren't Jews, although I think it is okay to use the word "Jew" when talking solely about members of the tribe of Judah. Slrubenstein

   I could see using "Jew" to talk about people in the Kingdom of Judah, as well. Using it to refer to people from the northern Kingdom seems extremely dubious. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   Readers should note that Jew doesn't mean Judahite. CheeseDreams 00:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   But that's exactly what it derives out of. The inhabitants of the northern Kingdom are never called Jews, nor are the Israelites as a whole during the united kingdom period. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   (c) What about it? CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   The implication of the current form of the article is that there was a single Jewish kingdom before the Babylonian captivity. This is, of course, incorrect. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   If you call the Kingdom of Judea the first kingdon, and the Hasmoneans the second kingdom, what do you call the kingdom of Israel? It is an obvious question, and you should answer it (and maybe explain why you don't understand it). Slrubenstein

   I seem to remember someone accusing me of sock puppetry when I apparantly responded to a question directed at another user. CheeseDreams 00:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   Ah, so you are suggesting that Slr is your sockpuppet? That would be rather unlikely. At any rate, this is hardly a defense of the question.

10. Why no discussion of the Second Temple and the Persian period? The idea that there was a continuity between the First Temple period and the Second Temple period seems highly dubious to me.

    Yes I noticed that too. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Glad to see it. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Intertextual note: This is the problem with splitting up all the different aspects, rather than trying to present a single unified narrative. You either leave out stuff that makes the section seem incomplete (as in this utterly inadequate history section), or you repeat stuff you've already said.

    You were stating earlier that the history section should be cut down. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    I thought the earlier history should be cut down. I certainly don't think that it should be cut out of the history and put into a different section. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

11. I think Slr's discussion of Hellenistic influence is far superior to the one in this article. (Also, don't the hundred-odd years of Ptolemaic rule deserve a mention if we're going through all the empires)
12. Who is the "Emperor" who found himself personally affronted? Macedonian rulers were kings, not emperors.
13. I don't understand the need for a lengthy dicussion of the Maccabean Revolt

    Because it enforces the understanding of why there was a strong cultural idea of independance, and that the Romans were a recent re-imposition of non-independance thing.

    Well, obviously it should be mentioned. I just don't see the need for all the detail. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    This "strong cultural idea of independence" is at best a vast oversimplification and probably just wrong; it certainly shows real ignorance of Jewish history and the historiography of this period. Slrubenstein

    Readers should see the article historiography for the proper use of the term. Also they should probably see the article on Arrogance and Vanity if they exist, for context. CheeseDreams 00:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Ah, ad hominem. Well done.

14. The Saducees, as well as the sages and scribes, seem to appear out of nowhere in the discussion of the Second Kingdom.
15. Once again, there is no discussion of Herod

    I seem to remember it was in one of the history sections, though the link to Iduma seems to have dissappeared.Maybe you are looking at the wrong version of FT2s text?

    I think in Slr's version there was some text on Herod at the bottom. I added a bit into that version about Herod. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

16. Christianity is not mentioned at all in the historical overview!

    Christianity HAD NOT HAPPENED. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Well, considering the article is titled "Cultural and historical background of Jesus," the historical overview should attempt to, you know, lay out how Christianity, or at least Jesus, fits into the whole thing. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

17. I once again protest the way this article is organized. Going back from the post-Rebellion period to the first temple era seems pointless, and is based around a bizarre idea that history and culture are unrelated.

    I once again refute the protest. It is based around the idea that history and culture can be discussed seperately - see Historian and Anthropologist which are not the same by any means. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    No. I don't say that they can't be discussed separately. Of course they can. I just find this way of doing things to be ridiculous. Have you ever heard of "cultural history"? It means the history of culture. A discussion of the culture of Roman Palestine in the 1st century AD and the centuries preceding would fall under such a rubrik. Separating out culture implies that the cultural development is unrelated to the political development, which is ridiculous and misleading. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

18. Why the mention of Orthodox and Reform Judaism? That seems utterly irrelevant and unhistorical.

    Because Slrubenstein won't accept "later forms" and insists on "Rabbinic" even though he was the only one objecting to "later forms". CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm saying that the whole mention of later forms of Judaism is entirely irrelevant to this article. And the idea that the Saducees and Hellenized Jews have much in common with modern Reform Jews seems absurd. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    I objected because it was unhistorical -- so now you defend a claim that is even less historical? Slrubenstein

    Dear reader, making one accusation is not the same as defending ones own position, thus objecting to the term "later forms" (agreed to by the other parties) is not the same as justifying "Rabbinic" (disapproved of by the other parties). CheeseDreams

    Who are all these "other parties" involved here? You will forgive me if I am not terribly willing to believe that you are accurately summarizing the views of others on this article. At any rate, if something is wrong, it is wrong, whether or not a majority approves of it. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

19. Why on earth is the discussion of Judea and Galilee as client states put into the culture section? This is ridiculous.

    Because it is predominantly a demographic and political feature. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    So politics isn't part of history, either? What is history, then? john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

20. Ah, now on to key institutions - once again, I don't understand the way this article is being organized.

    Once again (maybe twice), Anthropologists are not Historians. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Indeed, but historians certainly talk about institutions and culture. That you seem to think they don't suggests you have a rather strange view of what history is. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

21. I don't like these kind of "most people don't understand this topic" sentences like "The Jewish priesthood is often misunderstood by non Jews."

    That derives from Slrubenstein's text - you will have to take it up with him. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Readers should note the presence of the word derives (and look it up in a dictionary). CheeseDreams 00:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    So far as I can tell, this material isn't present in the version of the article currently under protection, which is Slr's version with some minor changes and additions by me. In what way does this derive from his text? john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    This is a lie. I never wrote this sentence. Slrubenstein

22. The sections here are tiny. I still don't see why this material should be stripped from the historical overview.

    So? Its an encyclopedia not a novel with nice evenly spaces sections. Some articles are HUGE others are tiny. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    I don't see why we need sections that are essentially references to other articles. A link will do just as well. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

23. Religion and Cults - once again a discussion of the Saducees and Pharisees. This is ridiculously repetitive.

    From the point of view of their religious nature. This is not a repetition. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Not exactly a repetition. But various material on the Saducees and Pharisees that should go all together has been split up so that it ultimately becomes incomprehensible. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

24. Uh...Jesus?? This article is even more unfocused and less connected to Jesus than Slr's version. There is no discussion of how the Gospel story fits into the larger context - the article seems to essentially assume that you've read the gospels. Surely at the least Pontius Pilate deserves some mention - after all, he is the key personage tying the gospel story (and the Christian faith) into the thread of classical and Jewish history. Both Apostles and Nicene Creeds specifically mention Christ suffering under Pilate. More broadly, the article assumes that we know everything about Jesus already, and thus doesn't make any effort to explain how the stuff in the article connects to the Gospel story.

    Information on Jesus can be found at Jesus, New testament views of Jesus, Christian views of Jesus, Miracles of Jesus, etc. The importance of NOT detailing Jesus was agreed by all but 2 of the earlier contributers, and all but 1 (Slrubenstein himself) of those that Slrubenstein had not asked into the debate. As Pedant said (and I have paraphrased)THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT JESUS IT IS ABOUT BACKGROUND, IT SHOULD ONLY MENTION JESUS IN PASSING WHERE NECESSARY, AND GO ON TO EXPLAIN THE DETAIL OF THE ASIDE NOT OF JESUS. FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO REFER TO A STORY ABOUT JESUS TO MENTION THAT RABBIS OFTEN TAUGHT ON STREET CORNERS TO GATHER A CROWD CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    The article started as a daughter article on how historians view Jesus (not whether he existed or not, but rather, what he did and the meaning of his words and deeds). There is no other article on how historians interpret Jesus' life; this is that article. Slrubenstein

    Exactly. The point of the article is to give context to help people understand Jesus. If you want to write an article about 1st century Palestine, write that article, but that's not what this is. I agree with CheeseDreams that the article should not use stories about Jesus to explain the context of 1st century Roman Palestine. That would be ridiculous. But the point of the article is to use the context of 1st century Roman Palestine to explain Jesus. Some explicit references to how the various things discussed in the article relate to Jesus seems to me to be entirely necessary, or else the article has nothing to do with its supposed subject matter. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Dear reader, Slrubenstein made this claim many many other times in the past. Repeatedly it has been condemned by the others because This is not that article, this is not The historical Jesus. if you want an article on the views of historians, write the article The historical Jesus, this is not that article. CheeseDreams 00:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    "The Historical Jesus" is indeed not what this article is. But it is an article which is supposed to put Jesus in context. That requires mentioning Jesus now and again. For instance, would it makes sense to have an article called Cultural and historical background of the French Revolution which spoke entirely about trends in ancien regime France without ever relating this to the French Revolution itself? john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Does this suggest a compromise? I would have no objection to making FT2's latest version of the article the article "Cultural and Historical Background" IF CheeseDreams and others wimply want to take my version (the one currently protectses) and re-title it "The Historical Jesus." Slrubenstein

    I would certainly consider that an offer for compromise. I could not address its relevance or accuracy for that title, but I'm sure that would be discussed in that fork. I would recuse myself from involvement in that article - I would not want to accidently be a source of contention. (I would suggest, however, that Slrubenstein remove the draft notes after the Sources section.) - Amgine

    This strikes me as an awful idea. In the first place, Slr's version is clearly not an article on the historical Jesus - it's an article on the historical context in which Jesus arose. In the second place, FT2's article is just as clearly not an article about the Cultural and historical background of Jesus. I'm not sure what it is, but that's very clearly not what it is. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    It is, however, a reasonable and traditional (on Misplaced Pages) method to develop two separate articles which are stopping all progress on either. Generally the articles begin to converge as each is given an opportunity to develop, and eventual merging of the two may occur. Sometimes the articles diverge, and develop to address separate core concepts, in which case they would of course continue on their separate trajectories. There are of course other potential outcomes, but these are the most relevant to this particular discussion.

    More importantly, I believe this is a reasonable response to an impasse, which I think is evident to most of the participants of the past 3+ weeks of discussion. - Amgine 01:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    I agree, splitting this into two articles for a while could be very helpful. To succeed, participants need to agree (or at least agree not to fight over) titles for the two articles, and the topic and scope of each article. Is this worth pursuing? Wesley 04:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

25. The whole Jewish reactions to cults and messianism section seems deeply POV.

    As did Slrubenstein's version. CheeseDreams 21:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    No one ever explained why my version was NPOV. I did however raise the question of verifiability. My version is verifiable; CheeseDream's is not. Slrubenstein

    Dear reader, no-one ever claimed Slrubensteins version was NPOV. The statements were that it was POV. CheeseDreams 00:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Right, I meant to write, "no one ever explained to me why or how my edits lacked NPOV" Slrubenstein

    It's clear enough what he means. Slr gave references and explanations in defense of his version. The version in FT2/Amgine's version of the article was attacked on various grounds earlier in the talk page, and no convincing defense of it has been made. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At any rate, there's a start. I look forward to responses. john k 17:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments on Mediation

Don't you find it interesting that Slrubenstein is now slagging off the Mediator? CheeseDreams 21:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't seen that evidence, but I believe this is the inappropriate venue for such a discussion. - Amgine 21:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First, what do you mean "slagging off?" Second, what do you mean "mediator? I am not sure if the mediator has been agreed on or chosen yet, but so far the mediator has made no comment on this page. Slrubenstein

This is not the appropriate place for this discussion, please use Misplaced Pages:Requests for Mediation to communicate with mediators, or user talk pages. - Amgine 23:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its in the recent edits since a few days -

• "please do not use this crappy non-authoritative quote"
• "I went through his version carefully. I found it full of inaccuracies, oversimplifications, anachronisms, sloppy scholarship, and lack of NPOV"
• "Are you being thick, or mean?"
• "Haven't you done any research?"
• "really! Where do you get this stuff from? "

CheeseDreams 00:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FT2 is not a mediator in any reasonable respect. Certainly by creating his own version of the article, he has abdicated any right he may have had to be considered a mediator. john k 01:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1) by the comments of him, others, and Slrubenstein to him, in the earlier part of this talk, EVERYONE treated him as the mediator

2) he did not "create his own version" of the article. He applied the consensus and issues raised in the talk of this page TO the article.

CheeseDreams 01:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

None of these statements were addressed to the mediator. Also, what do you mean "slagging off?" I really do believe that FT2 (the contributor to whom I addressed some of these) hasn't done any research, used a crappy, non-authoritative quote, etc. What do you mean "mediator? I am not sure if the mediator has been agreed on or chosen yet, but so far the mediator (Llywrch) has made no comment on this page. Slrubenstein

This is not the appropriate place for this discussion, please use Misplaced Pages:Requests for Mediation to communicate with mediators, or user talk pages. - Amgine 23:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the article while you work out a compromise wording. I have not reverted first, I rarely do that onlt in the case of vandalsim or crystal clear POV pushing with no discussion, and as far as I can see people are talking here. I hope (nay expect) to lift the protection very shortly. If you all come to a compromise before i remember to check this page please let me know and I'll lift the protection straight away. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 22:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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 Format:

• 2.4.1 is misnamed. I suggest renaming it to "Kings, Procurators, and the Sanhedron"
• 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 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 aneschatological prophet. Slrubenstein

FT2s Version

We should start work, after unblocking, on the consensus version constructed by the mediator of this talk page.

It was not a consensus version, and it was not written by the mediator -- and a mediator wouldn't do something like that anyway. Slrubenstein

Further, any view among so-called-historians about Jesus rather than about background should be in The historical Jesus.

Because, as Pedant and others have stated

THIS IS NOT THE ARTICLE The historical Jesus. THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT BACKGROUND

CheeseDreams 16:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pedant is only one view, and his is a minority view. Slrubenstein

First, FT2 is as far as I'm aware a self-proclaimed mediator of this talk page. While I appreciate all the work (s)he put into that version, putting a lot of work into a version does not by itself merit special status. Carefully combining the views of all the editors is also not the best way to get a good article or even a NPOV article, particularly if half or a large minority of the views so included are both factually wrong, and not representative of any significant group of people or historians. Wesley \

FROM THE VIEWS EXPRESSED EARLIER, Everyone treated FT2 as a mediator. ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE. That only changed when Slrubenstein discovered that the consensus was against him. CheeseDreams 21:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stop screaming. He was never mediator; I never treated him as mediator; the "consensus" is not against me -- only you, Amgine, and FT@ have disagreed strenuously with me (and without ever providing evidence to support your points). Give up the delusion that whatever "you" think is "the consensus." Slrubenstein

Second, if this article is to avoid "history" but focus on "background", I'm curious to know how we should learn about that background? Should we learn about it from the historical record as analyzed and interpreted by secular historians and "critical" historians? from Christian tradition? from Jewish tradition? Gnostic tradition? We need to have at least one acceptable source of information on which to base what we know or think we know about the background. Wesley \

Whom we learn about it from is irrelevant. If the marquis de sade had researched it and published a paper on the matter, his evidence would be just as acceptable. CheeseDreams 21:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood your point and it's not the history to which you object, but discussion of Jesus. If that's the case, I would remind you that the great majority of wikipedia editors here, like the great majority of scholars, agree that someone named Jesus who at least vaguely resembles the Jesus described by the four Gospels did exist in history, and the complete denial of the existence of the man Jesus is a radical, fringe view held by a small minority. Wesley 20:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would remind you that Christianity was once a radical, fringe view held by a small minority. Situations change. Truth always finds a way out. This is only the beginning. CheeseDreams 21:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Compromise discussion

Yesterday Slrubenstein brought up a possible method to avoid a re-initiation of the revert wars which are plaguing this article. This suggestion, that the article should be forked into a version tentatively titled "The Historical Jesus" and the Cultural and historical background, imo has the potential to allow the articles to develop separately rather than the current impasse of neither version gaining strong edits/contributors due to the wars. I know at least two of us responded to this as a reasonable resolution, and two opposed (one as an unnecessary addition since one of the current versions is clearly superior; the other opposed the tentative title of the additional article.)

Would anyone else care to comment on Slrubenstein's suggestion? - Amgine 21:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As people have pointed out before, no-one has objected to Slrubenstein editing The historical Jesus instead. As pedant has stated This is not that article, this is not The historical Jesus. if you want an article on the views of historians, write the article The historical Jesus, this is not that article CheeseDreams 21:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment by FT2 (copied by Cheesedreams from an RfC page)

History of article dispute:

I have been involved in trying to help participants in this article reach consensus for several weeks now. A visible and tentative consensus was reached on several key points, and a large number of wording suggestions. Based upon those, and several weeks listening to each side, and noticing that there was no neutral version yet, I drafted a version for discussion, containing both accurate material as well as material which needed a consensus as to accuracy and appropriateness.

• A long period of informal mediation (as in, listening to and working with both sides) produuced a large amount of compromise or consensus wording.
• An early consensus indicated that the article needed fully recasting/rewriting in a manner which did not put the gospels first nor saw it as a historic view on Christianity.
• A draft version was produced which was deliberately stated in the talk page to be for discussion, please let stand briefly so others can read it and comment. and talk page

• It was a consensus version in the sense that it retained material for discussion by others (even where needing discussion) not just a single POV.
• It was neutral in the sense that it was neither oriented around Jesus, nor assumed a reader had read (or cared) about the stories of him.
• It was organised and more encyclopediac in the sense that different relevant aspects of the culture were highlighted in their own right for comment.

• SIrubenstein overwrote it with an approach that had already been criticised by some people for being

• POV (gospel oriented) and
• Lacking in approach (treated it one-dimensionally as a historic narrative leading up to christianity and thereafter.

• This version was reverted and reinstated a few times.
• Rather than an edit war, I requested an RFC on the two versions.
• The revert activity continuing, Theresa re-locked the article.

Comments on present RFC:

That said, this RFC is not about article content primarily. It is the contributors right to edit well or poorly, and it is the right of others to revert work they feel lacking. It is about whether locking the page is appropriate. Comments:

1. The page became unlocked to give consensus a chance
2. Within 24 hours one of the initial disputants (SIrubenstein) had ignored a request to allow the page to stand a day for comment and consensus building, and had mass-reverted it, thus plunging the article back into an edit war.
3. There were views both ways, some users stated they did not approve of this, or that they felt it was inappropriate or POV (CheeseDreams, Amgine, Amgine again, Maurreen). I myself feel that it was quite disrespectful, given that it was a version stated to be for comment with a request for a day or 2 for others to contribute, in order that both sides could cool down, build consensus and deal with any material lacking in merit which had been introduced or brought forward.
4. The other contender (CheeseDreams) did not in fact add any of their own edits, but reverted it to the version for discussion, which was undone several times.
5. After several repeats of this a different sysop (Theresa) locked the page once more.
6. Theresa has not been involved in the page previously
7. The page had previously been locked for exactly the same reason up until very few days ago

Based on this history, I cannot personally find fault in the decision to re-lock the page. It was clear that one of the contenders had shown little interest in others opinions as it related to consensus-building and informal mediation, even for as short a period as 24-48 hours.

I would suggest arbitration is an appropriate avenue for this article; in light of recent experience, I see little reason to believe mediation would accomplish much different. FT2 03:20, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone else, aside from Me, and FT2, think that Slrubenstein will need to go to Arbitration before he will stop trying to impose his will on the article rather than submit to consensus? CheeseDreams 23:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)