Talk:Historical background of the New Testament

surrounding towns

I have a small nit to pick with this sentence regarding the area of Jesus' ministry:

Although there were many Phoenician, Macedonian, and Roman cities nearby (e.g. Gesara and Gadara; Sidon and Tyre; Sepphoris and Tiberias), there is no record of Jesus having spent any time in them.

There is at least one case where he apparently did, in Luke 8:26-39. Verse 26 says, "Then they sailed to the country of the Gadarenes, which is opposite Galilee." There Jesus cast out a "legion" of demons from a man, who entered a herd of swine and cause the swine to drown in the lake. The fact that there was a herd of swine there strongly suggests that it was a Gentile town. Another significant point in this story is that when the healed man asked to join Jesus' followers, Jesus tells him in verse 39, "Return to your own house, and tell what great things God has done for you." This potentially sets a precedent for Paul's ministry to the Gentiles. Or you could argue that this was added to Luke to justify preaching to the Gentiles? Anyway, would you agree it's worth mentioning this brief trip to a Gentile area? There are also several occasions when he visited Samaritans. Wesley 04:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd completely forgotten about that. Dionysus (who didn't actually exist, but did come before Jesus) did something similar. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll make a change; if you aren't satisfied, please fix it, Slrubenstein 17:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bar Kochba revolt and Christianity

While I don't have a scholarly source at my fingertips just yet, I seem to recall from a number of places that the Bar Kochba revolt played a significant role in alienating Christian Jews from non-Christian Jews. Wesley \

Agreed, this was always my understanding of this. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While for a time many Christian Jews (or Jewish Christians?) prayed with both groups, this became less tenable when bar Kochba was acclaimed as messiah. They could not acknowledge both bar Kochba and Jesus as Messiah, and the non-Christian Jews saw their loyalty to Jesus as disloyalty to bar Kochba. This seems too big to leave out of the article. Does it ring a bell with the rest of you, or do I need to go dig up supporting sources? Wesley 05:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is plausible -- but I really never heard this, so I'd ask you to find sources. Also, many Jews did not believe Bar Kochba to be the messiah. Slrubenstein 17:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Given that Wesley and I agree, and that this is a wiki, not an article where Slrubenstein is in charge, I think there is consensus to include this, and therefore it should be put in regardless of any protestation by Slrubenstein. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think SLR's request is reasonable, and don't expect to have too much difficulty finding a source or two, once I find the time to look seriously. Cheese-dreams, I'm a little surprised to hear you agree with this, as a belief in Jesus as fulfiller of messianic prophecies would seem to imply that bar Kochba era Jewish Christians thought Jesus existed in real history so as to fulfill those prophecies? Wesley 05:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ive not heard anything on that, but it sounds plausible. can you check it out? In any event till we know either way, an "It is possible that..." may be in order. FT2 17:37, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

There's a brief mention in Justin Martyr's First Apology, in paragraph 31: "For in the Jewish war which lately raged, Barchochebas, the leader of the revolt of the Jews, gave orders that Christians alone should be led to cruel punishments, unless they would deny Jesus Christ and utter blasphemy." There's also a mention in the Jewish Encyclopedia [1] that refutes the reason given by Justin Martyr and other Christians, and instead blames the suffering of Christians on their refusal to join in the revolt. It might be fair to conclude that there was conflict between Jews and Jewish Christians at this time, though the exact reasons are disputed. Wesley 02:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

neutrality

At what point do we remove the "neutrality disputed" tag? FT2 and I seem to have come to a working understanding; he has accepted many of my changes and I have accepted many of his. CheeseDoodle has been banned. Who still objects? Slrubenstein 18:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wesley and the four Gospels

Wesley, I disagree with your recent addition -- only because the four Gospels get full coverage in the Jesus article. Since that article has little information on how critical historians (as described in the first paragraph of this article) view Jesus, I feel strongly that specifically Christian views (including non-critical readings of the Gospels) should not be in here, unless they are framed as they have been analyzed by critical scholars. I don't just want to revert your work, but I ask you to consider alternatives to what you wrote. Would you be satisfied with a paranthetical (for Christian views, see ...) and have links to the Jesus artical and other articles you think appropriate? Slrubenstein 17:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The main reason I added that is because without it, the paragraph suggested through omission that only Matthew and Luke even claimed that Jesus was God. The claim of Jesus' deity is plainly found in all four gospels, whatever scholars might say about their authorship or dating or motivation for making the claim. The quote from John addresses where Jesus came from, but without the detailed sort of narrative found in Matthew and Luke. Wesley \

But tell me, do 'critical scholars' really think that Mark and John do not claim Jesus was divine, or was that just an unintended implication of the text chosen? If it was just an unintended implication, than perhaps my additions could be removed, and the remaining text changed from (paraphrasing here) "Matthew and Luke say the Jesus was God's Son" to "Matthew and Luke include narratives of Jesus' birth that (suggest/claim/say) that Jesus was God's Son." Admittedly that's wordier, and hopefully it can be phrased more smoothly, but it avoids the false implication. Wesley 05:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, we are misunderstanding one another. I now understand your original point -- I think it should be more concise in the article. But I certainly agree, as would all the historians and Bible critics I have read, that each of the four Gospels considers Jesus to be divine. Any otehr suggestion was unintentional. Slrubenstein 15:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying. The current concise version of that paragraph looks fine to me as well. Sorry if I was being over sensitive. Wesley 17:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Archives

surrounding towns

Bar Kochba revolt and Christianity

neutrality

Wesley and the four Gospels