User talk:Pedant/CaHBJv1

Meta Editing Discussion

Fabulous critique! Very impressed. May I suggest the following: you're critiquing the entire article as it stands, which is great. However, I am far behind you on the studying/researching curve. Why don't you prioritize the items you would like to address, and we can tackle them in that order? My items of priority are:

1. Intro/opening
2. Messiah section
3. Citations/footnotes for above
4. some effort to develop a bibliography of source texts
5. some effort to develop a bibliography of contemporary studies

I'm also going to break this out as per the current article's architecture: - Amgine 22:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. You and I have discussed sources so you already know who I rely on (I mean, contemporary sources. As for historical texts, I think there are two other articles that cover that, see Textual evidence for Jesus or some article like it). I don't think citations are really needed in most articles -- only if the point is really contentions. If someone serious contends any of my claims I can provide a citation. In the case of my comments, I am asking for basic verifiability first. As for dividing work into intro section and then messiah section, I have no objections. I have to tell you, though, that although I was happy to respond to your request for comment, I am afraid that if I make any changes to this I will get bogged down in a revert war with someone else. Slrubenstein

Here are some preliminary comments on this draft:

Intro/opening

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. 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.

No objections to the first two sentences. The function of the third sentence is to provide a link to a related article; I suggest that this sentence be abbreviated, made a patranthetical, and placed at the end of the paragraph e.g. (see Historicity of Jesus concerning debates specifically over the existence of Jesus). The "but if so" clause is clumsy. I would rewrite it for grace, but also to provide more information: "Many historians accept that Jesus existed, but argue that an account of Jesus' life must reject supernatural claims; take into account biases in the New Testament; and interpret Jesus' life in terms of its cultural and historical context." This sentence is clearer, provides more information, and I think better introduces the article Slrubenstein

I agree with the clumsiness of the third sentence construction. I may be concerned with the word "Many", the use of semicolons in a list <grin>, but I agree the sentence is clearer and more dense with information. - Amgine 22:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After Jesus

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.

Change "This" to "The first century CE" Slrubenstein

Excellent idea! - Amgine 22:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Culture

The paragraph on different languages sticks out in this section. It should have its own section heading (Linguistic Diversity or something) Also, which contemporary scholars debate what languages he knew? Who exactly has argued that as a carpenter he probably knew Greek? I suggest these two sentences:

Scholars debate whether Jesus himself spoke any other languages than Aramaic. In favor of his knowing at least some Greek is the notation in the Gospels that he worked as a carpenter. In a wood-poor land such as Galilee, he would have had to deal with caravans from the wider Middle-East in order to obtain the raw materials for his work.

be cut unless we can provide citations. They seem to be trivial speculative points unnecessary for the article. Slrubenstein

I couldn't comment specifically. I have two sources stating both Aramaic and Greek were common languages in the region, one of which suggests (I don't have the exact quote) that Greek speakers were primarily the aristocratic/wealthy Jewish families, implication they were unpopular perhaps in part due to their use of Greek (Neusner, of course.) Agree the statements are speculative, and should probably be cut without citation. - Amgine 22:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pilate's administration was marked by many antagonistic actions toward the Jews.

The above sentence should be followed by one pointing out that the itme of Pontius's procuratorship was not escpecially antagonistic. There were no recorded uprisings during his procuratorship. Slrubenstein

Actually, that was a specific I wanted to bring up. There were, apparently, 6 different uprisings during Pilate's time; none were to the degree of previous, and none apparently required additional troops. At no time is it reported that any city broke away, unlike previous. But he also had a much more pliant priesthood to work with?

I would have to say Pilate was much preferred to Varus and Archaelus, much less a lightening rod for dissent and also seems to have (for a Roman) been particularly diplomatic, and so *less* antagonistic, which the above sentence would tend to indicate the opposite. And remember, the Jews under Archaelus went to Rome demanding to be put under the Procurator, and got it. - Amgine 22:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you can detail the six? I am not questioning that there were disputes, but I didn't think there were any uprisings. By uprising I mean an organized rebellion (not a riot or a protest). Let's go for more clairty, even -- especially -- when it means adding content. Slrubenstein

Most Jews were desperately poor and resented having to pay tribute to Rome. Although Jews were relatively autonomous, ruled by a Jewish high priest and tetrarch, these officials were appointed by Rome and thus had questionable legitimacy.

The above paragraph should probably being the section, no? Slrubenstein

Begin the section? Definitely. Might also want to point out the recognition of their recent economic history was one of wealth under the Hasmoneans, to poverty under the Romans? - Amgine 22:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I am the last person in the world to defend the Romans, but I really am not sure how much the Romans really impoverished the place more than the Hasmoneans. Remember, the Hasmoneans weren't so popular either. What are you r historical sources? Neusner? He is well-respected; I'd only ask you if he is being more nuanced or specific thatn what you have summarized.. Slrubenstein

Religious Factions

The Sadducees and the Pharisees were the most important, followed by the Essenes and the Zealots. Most Jews, of course, did not belong to any faction, but were more or less affected by the preaching of the various groups.

The above two sentences should be cut. There is no evidence that the Saducees and Pharisees were most important -- anyway, accroding to whom? By what standard? It is so blatantly POV. The following sentence is mushy. What does it really mean? If we cannot specify what the "affect" was, lets just cut it. Slrubenstein

<nod> Also, there were at least three (or was it four?) other "parties"/"schools"/whatever which were somewhat powerful at this point, but which would later lose power and join together to form the Karaites. Better to just remove at this point and expand back in when we have citations. - Amgine 22:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Josephus is the source for "parties" (he uses a greek word which can also mean "schools," and I think it is has the same root as "heresy" though of course it meant something else back then. My main source is Shaye Cohen with a little bit of Neusner. But after mentioning Saducees, Pharisees, and Essenes he does mention Zealots and also other groups in the Diaspora -- he doesn't call them parties but they are certainly religious or social movements. I think the four mentioned here are ALL important for the context of Jesus, but we don't need to rank their importance. What is significant is that most Jews didn't belong to any one group. Slrubenstein

<!-- This is as far as I've gotten -->

I have questions about the following paragraph

The Sadducees were primarily composed of aristocrats and priests and occupied most of the important posts in what self-government the Jews were permitted under the Romans.

I agree wtih the first clause but not the second. What is the evidence? Slrubenstein

The Sanhedrin was largely, though not exclusively, populated by Sadducees.

What is the evidence for this claim? Slrubenstein

They tended to be disliked by the common people, partially because of their "collaboration" in the Roman occupation.

What is the evidence for this claim? Slrubenstein

The following sentence is POV editorializing and has no place in the article. It should be deleted: "When these traits were taken to the extreme, there was the danger of falling into skepticism." Slrubenstein

Jesus, as a believing Jew, had great devotion to the temple. Most of his preaching in Jerusalem was carried out in the temple precincts. The Gospels report that his family made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem every year. Jews were required to offer sacrifices at the Temple three times a year: Passover, Sukkot, and Shavuot. Due to the large distances involved, many Jews did not complete all of these pilgrimages, though most attempted to do so.

The above is really two different paragraphs -- the first two sentences are specifically about Jesus. The seem out of context. Can they be cut? If so, they belong somewhere else. The last two sentences are general context and belong somewhere else. They definitely do not belong in a section on the Saducees, as these are general points. Slrubenstein

There is a sentence on Pharisees being refered to in "the Bible." My Bible never refers to the Pharisees. "The Bible" should never be mentioned in this article -- it should be either "New Testament" or "Hebrew Bible." Slrubenstein

"The Pharisees taught further that a Messiah was coming, who would unite the people under one rule." -- I know of no evidence that this was a specifically Phariseic belief and it should be cut Slrubenstein

"If their various beliefs were taken to extremes, there was the danger of entering into extreme fanaticism and legalism, even entering into hypocrisy." this is POV editorializing and should be deleted. Such POV speculations don't belong in an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein

"Many of Jesus' teachings coincided with the Pharisees, but the New Testament reports many disagreements with them. Most scholars believe that these were created by the evangelists and reflect more the situation between Christians and Jews after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, when Pharisaism emerged as the hegemonic form of Judaism." this needs rewriting. Pharisaism did not emerge as the hegemonic form of Judaism. The Rabbis and Christians competed for hegemony over Judaism, and the Rabbis achieved hegemony. The Rabbis claimed continuity with the Pharisees, but Rabinnic Judaism is not the same thing as Phariseic Judaism. Slrubenstein

Concerning the Essenes: "They too awaited the Messiah and sought to purify themselves for his coming." needs to be changed. The awaited both a restoration of the line of David AND a "messiah" by which they meant a high priest. This is not exactly what other Jews meant by "messiah." The point is, at this time "Messiah" was used in different ways and we cannot assume that the word has one stable meaning. SO we must always be much clearer. Slrubenstein

"When the Romans under Titus came to destroy Jerusalem, they carefully sealed their writings into clay jars hidden in caves. These writings, which were discovered at Qumran between 1947 and 1956, are called the Dead Sea scrolls." Historians debate this. Many do believe the Qumran scrolls are essene, but some scrolls or many may not be. It has not be proven, there is no consensus except that this may have been what happened. Slrubenstein

The Essenes practised a sort of ritual bath, which has led many commentators to suggest that John the Baptist was a member of the Essenes, or at least had significant contact with them. A few have suggested that Jesus himself was an Essene.

The above needs to be rewritten. It wasn't a "sort of" ritual bath -- it was a ritual bath (and who puts "sort of" in an encyclopedia?). But probably all Jews went to ritual baths. Ritual baths is not an Essene practice, it is a Jewish practice. So this is no evidence that John the Baptist was an Essene, indeed, if ANYTHING in the Gospels is tru, John wasn't an Essene. The claim that Jesus studied with the Essenes (not that he was an Essene) is based not on his baptism but on his rhetoric. Slrubenstein

"Under the Roman occupation many Jews hoped for a messiah who would replace the Romans." Here, it must be made clear that they meant a monarch of the house of David restoring God's Kingdom. Messiah meant other things, so this needs to be specified. Slrubenstein

In this environment, individuals claiming to speak for God, in the prophetic tradition of Isaiah and Jeremiah, or claiming to be able to heal people, in the prophetic tradition of Elisha, developed followings who believed their leaders to be messiahs.

What evidence is there of this? The only example I know of a person who combined both claimns is Jesus. I know of no other examples. Unless someone can provide an example (and evidence or a historical source) the last dependent clause must be deleted. Slrubenstein

Some of these groups, including those following Jesus, added the concept of a godhead, a unique being who would save them in the sense of salvation, and by "Messiah" it was this role to which they referred.

Jesus is the only example of this. Moreover, I know of no major historian who claims that Jesus or his followers claimed this while he was alive. It makes NO sense in the historical context and seems to me to represent eh Christian POV that is already represented in the article on Jesus. This sentence should be deleted. Slrubenstein

Even though this was not a part of the Judaic tradition of the time, they connected some Jewish prophecies with their "Messiah" which were not generally associated with the term in Jewish thought at that time.

What proof is there for this? I believe this claim is wrong and should be deleted. This claim contradicts the interpretations of major historians. Slrubenstein

A few of the messianic organizations would develop into religions which continue to this day such as the Mandaeans, who believe John the Baptist is the single messiah, and most faiths of Christianity, who believe Jesus is the single messiah.

It is true that Mandeans believe John the Baptist was the messiah, but there is no evidence that the Mandeans were descended from his followers. This article is on 1st century Judea and Galilee and there is NO evidence of Mandeans at this time, in Judea. Mandeanism is a Persian phenomena, and should not be brought up in this article. Slrubenstein

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.

Is this paragraph mere speculation, or is it based on research? I know of no historians who make these claims. First, what are the "some requirements" that were removed? Evidence? Second, "new emphasis on faith and not detailed laws" is anachronistic, most historians argue that Christians developed this approach AFTER Jesus died. There is no evidence that Christians started preaching to Gentiles only after Jews rejhected Jesus' messianic claims. This sentence distorts the situation and should be deleted. The sentence "To make it more palatable" must also be deleted as it is patently false. No Jew ever claimed Gentiles have to obey any Jewish law, so there were no laws to be "removed." Slrubenstein

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pedant/CaHBJv1"