Talk:Christianity in the 1st century/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem with the statement in the lead pic[edit]

"Paul was a Hellenistic Jew and his influence on Christian thinking has arguably been more significant than that of any other New Testament author."

The problem with this statement is that it is clearly a Protestant bias (the source is the Anglican Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church). My suggestion is to just delete it as Wikipedia:Undo_weight#Undue_weight. If it is to stay it needs to be balanced to represent all of Christianity, not just Protestantism. For example, by the addition of this line: "however Eamon Duffy cautions he was "not it's founder"." Are we really to believe that all of Christianity finds the Epistle to the Romans more significant than the Gospels? 75.14.219.222 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University and Oxford University Press are not religous or Anglican orginazations. They have no ties to the Anglican church. This is also not a comarison between Epistle to the Romans and the Gospels. It is more a comarison between all of a Paul (all his Epistles and parts of Acts) and each particular Gospel author. Carlaude:Talk 15:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incense and Altars - no, not in the 1st Century[edit]

According to Schaff, the earliest mention of the use of incense was not until the 4th century.

According to Brattston:

The ante-Nicene Christian documents that have come down to us indicate that ancient Christians did not use incense in their worship at so early a period. On the contrary, it was expressly prohibited. Some church fathers merely state this in passing as a simple item of information while the same or other authors expressly condemn censing. References to it are unaccountably absent where one would most expect to find them if it had a place in Christian worship in the first three centuries. Early exegetes uniformly allegorised Scripture references to incense as having a spiritual rather than literal meaning. There is one exception to this exclusion of incense from ancient Christian rites, but it is of dubious authority and does not purport to represent actual practice.

According to Warren (The Liturgy and Ritual of the Ante-Nicene Church, by Frederick Edward Warren (pages 129ff)):

§ 12. Incense. — There is no evidence for the use of incense in Christian worship during the first three centuries. The offering of incense was so intimately associated with the worship of idols, and with the early persecutions of the Christian religion, that we may well conjecture, though we have no proof, that it was the association of incense with idolatry, and with suffering for the truth, which accounts for its non-use in the earlier days of Christianity.

The famous prophecy of Malachi was frequently commented upon in early Christian literature but though its Eucharistic reference is nearly always maintained, the allusion to incense is either passed over in silence or explained as referring to prayer in connection with Rev. v. 8.2.

The following words, used by Tertullian, may be evidence that incense was not used in Christian worship in his time. He says that —

'as a Christian, he offers to God the rich and better offering which he himself has commanded, namely, prayer proceeding from a chaste body and an innocent mind, inspired by the Holy Spirit; not grains of incense of the value of one as, not the exudations of an Arabian shrub, not two drops of wine,' etc.

It is possible that this, being a rhetorical passage, should not be pressed to prove the non-use of incense any more than it can be pressed to prove the non-use of Eucharistic wine.

Arnobius speaks of idol-worship and of the use of incense in terms which make it morally certain that he had no knowledge of any custom of using incense in Christian worship [Adversus Gentes, lib. vii. caps. 26-28 ; P. L., v. 1135-1145.]

Lactantius, in a very fine passage on 'the true worship and sacrifice due to God,' speaks of the uselessness of external offerings of victims, vestments, gold, silver, incense, etc., in language which seems to imply, though it does not directly state, that none of those things formed part of Christian worship in his time. [Epitome Div. Institt., cap. lviii. ; P. L., v. 1135-1 145. Origen has a fine passage to the same effect (Contra Celsum, lib. viii. capp. 17-19).]

Incense is first ordered for use in the Apostolic Canons, and in the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, both post-Nicene authorities. See List of Authorities, pp. xii, xiv.


According to Schaff, several writers found the absence of altars in Christian worship offensive, and commented on that, forcing Christians to explain how it was even possible to worship God without altars and incense and sacrifice.


--Jonathan.robie (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christianity in the 1st century. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christianity in the 1st century. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter in Rome[edit]

I decided it was best to remove the entire section on Peter and the Twelve. I think it's possible that some mention of these issues will reenter this article in the future. If this is included, I would like to see it as part of a discussion of Christianity in Rome in the 1st century, or Christian views of authority in the 1st century, with sources focused on these topics, rather than 2nd and 3rd century primary sources and modern authors discussing later concerns of papal supremacy and Petrine primacy. Daask (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merged "Apostolic Age"[edit]

I've merged Apostolic Age into this article per WP:BOLD; it's the exact same topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At second thought, "Apostolic Age" may be more WP:COMMONNAME; moved content to that page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bethlehem[edit]

This article places Jesus' birthplace in Bethlehem, while his birthplace is actually disputed. Per the main article Nativity of Jesus: "most of those scholars who reject the historicity of the birth at Bethlehem argue for a birth at Nazareth, a few suggest Capernaum, and other have hypothesized locations as far away as Chorazin."

The accounts of both Matthew and Luke are ahistorical and should be discounted. Threating the Gospels as reliable sources on Jesus is a very bad idea. Dimadick (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since these events are for the 1st century BC-- they are just removed as off topic for the 1st century AD. tahc chat 15:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tahc: - hi, I restored the deleted events (before I saw your Talk page comment) - as both the Nativity and Herod are mentioned in the Gospels, these events are relevant - the BC dates are from modern scholarship and not traditional dating - the establishment of the year 0 is arbitrary anyway, so there is no firm frame of reference - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not about "Christianity in the Gospels" or such-- it is Christianity in the 1st century-- and no one holds these to be in the 1st century. It doesn't matter if they are also about Christianity. tahc chat 02:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That includes the birth of Jesus, of course. "Christianity in the 1st century" is a convenient short-cut, not a mathematical boundary line. See also Delbert Burkett (2002), An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity, Cambridge University Press, p.26, on the term "Before Christ": how could Jesus be born before before himself? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"off-topic" and "not 1st century"[edit]

User:Tahc reverted my re-orderning of the material at this page, and the addition of sourced info, with the topic-summary Remove as off-topic: not 1st century. The info they removed is about the life and ministry of Jesus, and scholarly views on Jesus; and about Paul and his stance regarding cirsumcision and salvation by faith. In my universe, Jesus lived in the first century CE. And authors like Stendahl and Dunn are among the most relevant sources for Paul, and are to be preferred above having three separate subsections on the same topic ("circumcision controversy"), sourced from primary sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, gain WP:CON via discussion first before making controversial edits. These additions are already covered in other articles and this article is already overlong. tahc chat 17:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 81,000 bytes is not overlong.
  • Those topics are indeed covered in other articles; see WP:RELART.
  • WP:BRD is no excuse to remove sourced info (22,000 bytes); it is intended to improve articles by discussing edits. If you think it's not an improvement, or "controversial," please explain exactly which additions you find controversial, and why; see the subsections below. See also WP:BRD-NOT:

* BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.
* BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
* BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.
* BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please use wikilinks including section links where appropriate. It is not necessary to copy the entire content of sections from other articles into this article. That’s what wikilinks are for. Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France; this does not make it a fork. Another example is where two articles cover the same topic, but are clearly directed at different audiences. In such cases, one of the articles will be prefixed by the text "Introduction to ...", for example General relativity and Introduction to general relativity.

Nevertheless, I've shortened diff diff diff my section on Jesus, in response to your concerns;
  • But please explain why the section on Jesus should be based on primary sources, and present only a faith-perspective; and why it is appropriate not to present a short overview of the relevant scholarly research; see also WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and the section below;
  • Please explain why the old version of the info on Paul, which is strongly based on primary and outdated sources, and neglects the relevant scholarly literature, is to be preferred over my text, which explains why the circimsision-issue was so important for Paul, and makes reference to the New Perspective on Paul; see the section below;
  • Please explain what the objections are to restructuring this article.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

I replaced

Life and ministry of Jesus

Main articles: Ministry of Jesus, New Testament view on Jesus' life, and Chronology of Jesus


See also: Gospel harmony


According to the accounts in the Gospels, after being baptized by John the Baptist, Jesus preached for a period of one to three years. Jesus' method of teaching involved parables, metaphor, allegory, sayings, proverbs, and a small number of direct sermons such as the Sermon on the Mount. His ministry was ended by his execution by crucifixion at the hands of the Roman authorities by demand of the Jews in Jerusalem.

Christians believe that three days after his death, Jesus rose bodily from the dead.[1][2][3][4] Early works by Jesus' followers document a number of post-resurrection appearances[5][6][7][8][9] and the resurrection of Jesus formed the basis and impetus of the Christian faith.[10][11][12] His followers wrote that he appeared to the disciples in Galilee and Jerusalem and that Jesus was on the earth for 40 days before his ascension to heaven.[13]

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, and to a lesser extent the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles.

References etc.

References

  1. ^ Grant, p.176
  2. ^ Maier, p.5
  3. ^ Van Daalen, p.41
  4. ^ Kremer, pp.49–50
  5. ^ Gundry
  6. ^ Weiss, p.345
  7. ^ Davies, pp.305–308
  8. ^ Wilckens, pp.128–131
  9. ^ Smith, p.406
  10. ^ Johnson, p.136
  11. ^ Ludemann, p.8
  12. ^ Wright, p.26
  13. ^ "Christ's Life: Key Events". Retrieved 2007-10-22.

with

Long version of my text

BACKGROUND
Hellenism

Main articles: Second Temple Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism


Christianity arose in the syncretistic Hellenistic world of the first century CE, which was dominated by Roman law and Greek culture.[1] Hellenistic culture had a profound impact on the customs and practices of Jews, both in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora. The inroads into Judaism gave rise to Hellenistic Judaism in the Jewish diaspora which sought to establish a Hebraic-Jewish religious tradition within the culture and language of Hellenism.
Hellenistic Judaism spread to Ptolemaic Egypt from the 3rd century BCE, and became a notable religio licita after the Roman conquest of Greece, Anatolia, Syria, Judea, and Egypt, until its decline in the 3rd century parallel to the rise of Gnosticism and Early Christianity.
According to Burton Mack, the Christian vision of Jesus' death for the redemption of mankind was only possible in a Hellenised milieu.[note 1] According to Price, "Once it reached Hellenistic soil, the story of Jesus attracted to itself a number of mythic motifs that were common to the syncretic religious mood of the era."[note 2]

Jewish sects
During the early first century CE there were many competing Jewish sects in the Holy Land, and those that became Rabbinic Judaism and Proto-orthodox Christianity were but two of these. There were Pharisees, Sadducees, and Zealots, but also other less influential sects, including the Essenes.[2][3] The first century BCE and first century CE saw a growing number of charismatic religious leaders contributing to what would become the Mishnah of Rabbinic Judaism; and the ministry of Jesus, which would lead to the emergence of the first Jewish Christian community.[2][3]

Although the gospels contain strong condemnations of the Pharisees, Paul the Apostle claims proudly to be a Pharisee, and there is a clear influence of Hillel's interpretation of the Torah in the Gospel-sayings.[4] Belief in the resurrection of the dead in the messianic age was a core Pharisaic doctrine.

Jewish and Christian Messianism'

Main articles: Jewish eschatology, Messiah in Judaism, Messiah ben Joseph, and Rejection of Jesus


Most of Jesus's teachings were intelligible and acceptable in terms of Second Temple Judaism; what set Christians apart from Jews was their faith in Christ as the resurrected messiah.[5] While Christianity acknowledges only one ultimate Messiah, Judaism can be said to hold to a concept of multiple messiahs. The two most relevant are the Messiah ben Joseph and the traditional Messiah ben David. Some scholars have argued that the idea of two messiahs, one suffering and the second fulfilling the traditional messianic role, was normative to ancient Judaism, predating Jesus. Jesus would have been viewed by many as one or both.[6][7][8][9]

Jewish messianism has its root in the apocalyptic literature of the 2nd century BCE to the 1st century CE, promising a future "anointed" leader or Messiah to resurrect the Israelite "Kingdom of God", in place of the foreign rulers of the time. According to Shaye J.D. Cohen, Jesus's failure to establish an independent Israel, and his death at the hands of the Romans, caused many Jews to reject him as the Messiah.[10][note 3] Jews at that time were expecting a military leader as a Messiah, such as Bar Kohhba.

LIFE AND MINISTRY OF JESUS

New Testamentical accounts

Main articles: Ministry of Jesus, New Testament view on Jesus' life, and Chronology of Jesus


See also: Gospel harmony


The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, and to a lesser extent the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles.
According to the accounts in the Gospels, after being baptized by John the Baptist, Jesus preached for a period of one to three years. Jesus' method of teaching involved parables, metaphor, allegory, sayings, proverbs, and a small number of direct sermons such as the Sermon on the Mount. His ministry was ended by his execution by crucifixion at the hands of the Roman authorities by demand of the Jews in Jerusalem.
Christians believe that three days after his death, Jesus rose bodily from the dead.[11][12][13][14] Early works by Jesus' followers document a number of post-resurrection appearances[15][16][17][18][19] and the resurrection of Jesus formed the basis and impetus of the Christian faith.[20][21][22] His followers wrote that he appeared to the disciples in Galilee and Jerusalem and that Jesus was on the earth for 40 days before his ascension to heaven.[23]

Scholarly views

Main articles: Historicity of Jesus, Historical Jesus, and Quest for the Historical Jesus


Since the 18th century, three scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during each specific phase.[24][25][26] Scholars involved in the third quest for the historical Jesus have constructed a variety of portraits and profiles for Jesus,[27][28][29] most prominently that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet; charismatic healer; Cynic philosopher; Jewish Messiah; and prophet of social change,[27][28] but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it.[30][31][32] There are, however, overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.[27][28][33]

The most prominent view of Jesus is as an apocalyptic pr eschatological teacher,[34] most notably Albert Schweitzer and Bart Ehrman.[note 4] In contrast to the apocalyptic or eschatological view, certain North American scholars, such as Burton Mack, advocate for a non-eschatological Jesus, one who is more of a Cynic sage than an apocalyptic preacher.[38]

Contemporary scholarship, representing the "third quest," places Jesus firmly in the Jewish tradition. Jesus was a Jewish preacher who taught that he was the path to salvation, everlasting life, and the Kingdom of God.[39] A primary criterion used to discern historical details in the "third quest" is that of plausibility, relative to Jesus' Jewish context and to his influence on Christianity. Contemporary scholars of the "third quest" include E. P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Gerd Theissen, Christoph Burchard, and John Dominic Crossan.

References etc.

References

  1. ^ Mack 1995.
  2. ^ a b Shiffman, Lawrence H. (2018). "How Jewish Christians Became Christians". My Jewish Learning.
  3. ^ a b "Christianity: Severance from Judaism". Jewish Virtual Library. AICE. 2008. Retrieved 17 December 2018. A major difficulty in tracing the growth of Christianity from its beginnings as a Jewish messianic sect, and its relations to the various other normative-Jewish, sectarian-Jewish, and Christian-Jewish groups is presented by the fact that what ultimately became normative Christianity was originally but one among various contending Christian trends. Once the "gentile Christian" trend won out, and the teaching of Paul became accepted as expressing the doctrine of the Church, the Jewish Christian groups were pushed to the margin and ultimately excluded as heretical. Being rejected both by normative Judaism and the Church, they ultimately disappeared. Nevertheless, several Jewish Christian sects (such as the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Elchasaites, and others) existed for some time, and a few of them seem to have endured for several centuries. Some sects saw in Jesus mainly a prophet and not the "Christ," others seem to have believed in him as the Messiah, but did not draw the christological and other conclusions that subsequently became fundamental in the teaching of the Church (the divinity of the Christ, trinitarian conception of the Godhead, abrogation of the Law). After the disappearance of the early Jewish Christian sects and the triumph of gentile Christianity, to become a Christian meant, for a Jew, to apostatize and to leave the Jewish community.
  4. ^ Leman 2015, p. 145-146.
  5. ^ Cohen 1987, p. 167–168.
  6. ^ Daniel Boyarin (2012). The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ. New Press. ISBN 9781595584687. Retrieved 20 January 2014.
  7. ^ Israel Knohl (2000). The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520928749. Retrieved 20 January 2014.
  8. ^ Alan J. Avery-Peck, ed. (2005). The Review of Rabbinic Judaism: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 91–112. ISBN 9004144846. Retrieved 20 January 2014.
  9. ^ Peter Schäfer (2012). The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other. Princeton University Press. pp. 235–238. ISBN 9781400842285. Retrieved 20 January 2014.
  10. ^ Cohen 1987, p. 168.
  11. ^ Grant, p.176
  12. ^ Maier, p.5
  13. ^ Van Daalen, p.41
  14. ^ Kremer, pp.49–50
  15. ^ Gundry
  16. ^ Weiss, p.345
  17. ^ Davies, pp.305–308
  18. ^ Wilckens, pp.128–131
  19. ^ Smith, p.406
  20. ^ Johnson, p.136
  21. ^ Ludemann, p.8
  22. ^ Wright, p.26
  23. ^ "Christ's Life: Key Events". Retrieved 2007-10-22.
  24. ^ The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. by Ben Witherington III, InterVersity Press, 1997 (second expanded edition), ISBN 0830815449 pp. 9–13
  25. ^ The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter, Westminster John Knox Press 2002) ISBN 0664225373 pp. 1–6
  26. ^ Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell, Westminster John Knox Press 1999) ISBN 0664257038 pp. 19–23
  27. ^ a b c The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 pages 124-125
  28. ^ a b c Mitchell, Margaret M.; Young, Frances M. (2006). The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-521-81239-9.
  29. ^ Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (Jul 4, 2005) ISBN 0664225284 page 8
  30. ^ The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter (Aug 30, 2002) ISBN 0664225373 p. 5
  31. ^ Jesus Research: An International Perspective (Princeton–Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus) by James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorny (Sep 15, 2009) ISBN 0802863531 pp. 1–2
  32. ^ Images of Christ (Academic Paperback) by Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes and David Tombs (Dec 19, 2004) ISBN 0567044602 T&T Clark p. 74
  33. ^ Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth by Michael James McClymond, Eerdmans 2004) ISBN 0802826806 pp. 16–22
  34. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBN 978-0195124743.
  35. ^ Matt 3:2
  36. ^ Matt 4:17; Mark 1:15
  37. ^ Matt 24:34
  38. ^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 1. The quest of the historical Jesus. pp. 1–15.
  39. ^ Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition)
Web-references
Notes
  1. ^ Eddy & Boyd (2007), p. 136: "Burton Mack argues that Paul’s view of Jesus as a divine figure who gives his life for the salvation of others had to originate in a Hellenistic rather than a Jewish environment. Mack writes, "Such a notion [of vicarious human suffering] cannot be traced to old Jewish and/ or Israelite traditions, for the very notion of a vicarious human sacrifice was anathema in these cultures. But it can be traced to a Strong Greek tradition of extolling a noble death." More specifically, Mack argues that a Greek "myth of martyrdom" and the "noble death" tradition are ultimately responsible for influencing the hellenized Jews of the Christ cults to develop a divinized Jesus."
    Eddy & Boyd (2007), p. 93further note that "The most sophisticated and influential version of the hellenization thesis was forged within the German Religionsgeschichtliche Schule of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries—now often referred to as the “old history of religions school.” Here, the crowning literary achievement in several ways is Wilhelm Bousset’s 1913 work Kyrios Christos. Bousset envisions two forms of pre-Pauline Christianity: [1. In the early Palestinian community, and 2. In the Hellenistic communities.]"
  2. ^ Price (2000), pp. 88, 92, 94, n. 17, §. The Christ Cults: "[Per] banquets held in honor of the gods, e.g., “Pray come dine with me today at the table of the Kyrios Serapis.” It is no doubt such social events [as these] which trouble Paul in 1 Cor. 8–11, where he admits that indeed “there are gods aplenty and Kyrioi aplenty” (1 Cor. 8:5), but seems to need to remind his Corinthian Christians that “for us there is but one God, the Father, who created all things, and one Kyrios, through whom all things were made” (1 Cor. 8:6). [Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus, trans. John E. Steely (New York: Abingdon Press, 1970), pp. 119–152.] [...] Richard Reitzenstein and Wilhelm Bousset were two scholars who did manage to grasp the relevance of these ancient faiths for the study of early Christianity. Their conclusion was a simple and seemingly inevitable one: Once it reached Hellenistic soil, the story of Jesus attracted to itself a number of mythic motifs that were common to the syncretic religious mood of the era."
  3. ^ See for comparison: prophet and false prophet.
  4. ^ Christian eschatology relates to 'last things', such as death, the end of the world and the judgement of humanity. Eschatological passages are found in the Old Testament Prophets, such as Isaiah and Daniel; and in the New Testament, such as the Olivet discourse and the parable of The Sheep and the Goats in the Gospel of Matthew, in the General epistles, the Pauline epistles, and the Book of Revelation. Jesus prophesised that the end of the world and the Day of Judgement were imminent in sayings such as, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," (Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:15)[35][36] and "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place"[37]

This provides a short overview of the background of the Hellenistic-Jewish origns of Christianity, and a short overview of the scholarly research on the life and historicity of Jesus. This is required per WP:RS and WP:NPOV; the article should present an overview of the relevant scholarly literature, not only a faith-perspective based on primary sources. I kept the unsourced info which was already there in the section on Jesus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though WP:RELART says that articles can have overlap in info, in response to Mathglot concern's, I've shortened this diff diff diff this:

[Shortened version of my text:]

Origins

Jewish-Hellenistic background

Main articles: Second Temple Judaism, Hellenistic Judaism, Jewish eschatology, and Messiah in Judaism


Christianity arose in the syncretistic Hellenistic world of the first century CE, which was dominated by Roman law and Greek culture.[1] During the early first century CE there were many competing Jewish sects in the Holy Land, and those that became Rabbinic Judaism and Proto-orthodox Christianity were but two of these. There were Pharisees, Sadducees, and Zealots, but also other less influential sects, including the Essenes.[2][3] The first century BCE and first century CE saw a growing number of charismatic religious leaders contributing to what would become the Mishnah of Rabbinic Judaism; and the ministry of Jesus, which would lead to the emergence of the first Jewish Christian community.[2][3]

Life and ministry of Jesus
New Testamentical accounts

Main articles: Ministry of Jesus, New Testament view on Jesus' life, and Chronology of Jesus


See also: Gospel harmony


The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, and to a lesser extent the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles.
According to the accounts in the Gospels, after being baptized by John the Baptist, Jesus preached for a period of one to three years. Jesus' method of teaching involved parables, metaphor, allegory, sayings, proverbs, and a small number of direct sermons such as the Sermon on the Mount. His ministry was ended by his execution by crucifixion at the hands of the Roman authorities by demand of the Jews in Jerusalem.
Christians believe that three days after his death, Jesus rose bodily from the dead.[4][5][6][7] Early works by Jesus' followers document a number of post-resurrection appearances[8][9][10][11][12] and the resurrection of Jesus formed the basis and impetus of the Christian faith.[13][14][15] His followers wrote that he appeared to the disciples in Galilee and Jerusalem and that Jesus was on the earth for 40 days before his ascension to heaven.[16]

Scholarly views

Main articles: Historicity of Jesus, Historical Jesus, and Quest for the Historical Jesus


Since the 18th century, three scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during each specific phase.[17][18][19] Scholars involved in the third quest for the historical Jesus have constructed a variety of portraits and profiles for Jesus,[20][21][22] most prominently that of Jesus as an apocalyptic propheto r eschatological teacher.[23][note 1]

References etc.

References

  1. ^ Mack 1995.
  2. ^ a b Shiffman, Lawrence H. (2018). "How Jewish Christians Became Christians". My Jewish Learning.
  3. ^ a b "Christianity: Severance from Judaism". Jewish Virtual Library. AICE. 2008. Retrieved 17 December 2018. A major difficulty in tracing the growth of Christianity from its beginnings as a Jewish messianic sect, and its relations to the various other normative-Jewish, sectarian-Jewish, and Christian-Jewish groups is presented by the fact that what ultimately became normative Christianity was originally but one among various contending Christian trends. Once the "gentile Christian" trend won out, and the teaching of Paul became accepted as expressing the doctrine of the Church, the Jewish Christian groups were pushed to the margin and ultimately excluded as heretical. Being rejected both by normative Judaism and the Church, they ultimately disappeared. Nevertheless, several Jewish Christian sects (such as the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Elchasaites, and others) existed for some time, and a few of them seem to have endured for several centuries. Some sects saw in Jesus mainly a prophet and not the "Christ," others seem to have believed in him as the Messiah, but did not draw the christological and other conclusions that subsequently became fundamental in the teaching of the Church (the divinity of the Christ, trinitarian conception of the Godhead, abrogation of the Law). After the disappearance of the early Jewish Christian sects and the triumph of gentile Christianity, to become a Christian meant, for a Jew, to apostatize and to leave the Jewish community.
  4. ^ Grant, p.176
  5. ^ Maier, p.5
  6. ^ Van Daalen, p.41
  7. ^ Kremer, pp.49–50
  8. ^ Gundry
  9. ^ Weiss, p.345
  10. ^ Davies, pp.305–308
  11. ^ Wilckens, pp.128–131
  12. ^ Smith, p.406
  13. ^ Johnson, p.136
  14. ^ Ludemann, p.8
  15. ^ Wright, p.26
  16. ^ "Christ's Life: Key Events". Retrieved 2007-10-22.
  17. ^ The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. by Ben Witherington III, InterVersity Press, 1997 (second expanded edition), ISBN 0830815449 pp. 9–13
  18. ^ The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria by Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter, Westminster John Knox Press 2002) ISBN 0664225373 pp. 1–6
  19. ^ Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell, Westminster John Knox Press 1999) ISBN 0664257038 pp. 19–23
  20. ^ The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 pages 124-125
  21. ^ Mitchell, Margaret M.; Young, Frances M. (2006). The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-521-81239-9.
  22. ^ Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (Jul 4, 2005) ISBN 0664225284 page 8
  23. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBN 978-0195124743.
  24. ^ Matt 3:2
  25. ^ Matt 4:17; Mark 1:15
  26. ^ Matt 24:34
Web-references
Notes
  1. ^ Christian eschatology relates to 'last things', such as death, the end of the world and the judgement of humanity. Eschatological passages are found in the Old Testament Prophets, such as Isaiah and Daniel; and in the New Testament, such as the Olivet discourse and the parable of The Sheep and the Goats in the Gospel of Matthew, in the General epistles, the Pauline epistles, and the Book of Revelation. Jesus prophesised that the end of the world and the Day of Judgement were imminent in sayings such as, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," (Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:15)[24][25] and "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place"[26]

That's seven lines of sourced info, compared to four lines of unsourced info and three lines of over-sourced info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul - Inclusion of Gentiles[edit]

I replaced three pieces of text on Paul

[1] Disputes over the Law of Moses generated intense controversy in early Christianity.[1][2] This is particularly notable in the mid-1st century, when the circumcision controversy came to the forefront. The issue was addressed at the Council of Jerusalem where Paul made an argument that circumcision was not a necessary practice for Gentile believers, vocally supported by Peter, as documented in Acts 15. This position received widespread support and was summarized in a letter circulated in Antioch. Four years after the Council of Jerusalem, Paul wrote to the Galatians about the issue, which had become a serious controversy in their region. Paul considered it a great threat to his doctrine of salvation through faith and addressed the issue with great detail in Galatians 3[3]

[2] An early difficulty arose concerning the matter of Gentile (non-Jewish) converts as to whether they had to "become Jewish," in following circumcision and dietary laws, as part of becoming Christian. Circumcision was considered repulsive during the period of Hellenization of the Eastern Mediterranean.[4][5] The decision of Peter, as evidenced by conversion of the Centurion Cornelius,[6] was that it was not required, and the matter was further addressed with the Council of Jerusalem. Around this same time period, Rabbinic Judaism made their circumcision requirement even stricter.[7]

[3] At the Council of Jerusalem it was agreed that Gentiles could be accepted as Christians without full adherence to the Mosaic Laws, possibly a major break between Christianity and Judaism (the first being the Rejection of Jesus[8]), though the decree of the council (Acts 15:19–29) seems to parallel the Noahide laws of Judaism. The Council, according to Acts 15, determined that circumcision was not required for new gentile converts, only to abstain from "food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." (NIV, Acts 15:20).

References

References

  1. ^ Acts 10
  2. ^ The Catholic Encyclopedia says of Cornelius: "The baptism of Cornelius is an important event in the history of the Early Church. The gates of the Church, within which thus far only those who were circumcised and observed the Law of Moses had been admitted, were now thrown open to the uncircumcised Gentiles without the obligation of submitting to the Jewish ceremonial laws."
  3. ^ McGrath, pp.174-175
  4. ^ "CIRCUMCISION - JewishEncyclopedia.com". jewishencyclopedia.com.
  5. ^ Hodges, Frederick, M. (2001). "The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme" (PDF). The Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 75 (Fall 2001): 375–405. doi:10.1353/bhm.2001.0119. PMID 11568485. Retrieved 2007-07-24.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Cornelius". newadvent.org.
  7. ^ "peri'ah", (Shab. xxx. 6)
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference McGrath, p.174 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

with the following information:

According to Krister Stendahl, the main concern of Paul's writings on Jesus' role, and salvation by faith, is the problem of the inclusion of gentile (Greek) Torah observers into God's covenant.[1][2][3][web 1] The inclusion of Gentiles into early Christianity posed a problem for the Jewish identity of the early Christians. Many of the Jewish Christians were fully faithful religious Jews, only differing in their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. Observance of the Jewish commands, including circumcision, was regarded as a token of the membership of this covenant, and the early Jewish Christians insisted on keeping those observances.[4] Gentiles were, by definition, not part of Israel, God's chosen people, and the new converts did not follow all "Jewish Law"[note 1] and refused to be circumcised,[5] as circumcision was considered repulsive during the period of Hellenization of the Eastern Mediterranean.[6][7]

Paul objected strongly to the insistence on keeping all of the Jewish commands, considering it a great threat to his doctrine of salvation through faith in Jesus.[8] For Paul, Jesus' death and resurrection solved this problem of the exclusion of the gentles from God's covenant,[9] since the faithfull are redeemed by participation in Jesus' death and rising. According to Sanders, Paul argued that "those who are baptized into Christ are baptized into his death, and thus they escape the power of sin [...] he died so that the believers may die with him and consequently live with him."[web 2] By this participation in Christ's death and rising, "one receives forgiveness for past offences, is liberated from the powers of sin, and receives the Spirit."[10] Paul insists that salvation is received by the grace of God; according to Sanders, this insistence is in line with Judaism of ca. 200 NCE until 200 CE, which saw God's covenant with Israel as an act of grace of God. Observance of the Law is needed to maintain the covenant, but the covenant is not be earned by observing the Law, but by the grace of God.[web 3]

References etc.

References

  1. ^ Stendahl 1963.
  2. ^ Dunn 1982, p. n.49.
  3. ^ Finlan 2001, p. 2.
  4. ^ McGrath 2006, p. 174.
  5. ^ Bokenkotter, p. 19.
  6. ^ "CIRCUMCISION - JewishEncyclopedia.com". jewishencyclopedia.com.
  7. ^ Hodges, Frederick, M. (2001). "The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme" (PDF). The Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 75 (Fall 2001): 375–405. doi:10.1353/bhm.2001.0119. PMID 11568485. Retrieved 2007-07-24.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ McGrath 2006, p. 174-175.
  9. ^ Mack 1997, p. 91-92.
  10. ^ Charry 1999, p. 35-36.
Web-references
  1. ^ Stephen Westerholm (2015), The New Perspective on Paul in Review, Direction, Spring 2015 · Vol. 44 No. 1 · pp. 4–15
  2. ^ E.P. Sanders, Saint Paul, the Apostle, Encyclopedia Britannica]
  3. ^ Jordan Cooper, E.P. Sanders and the New Perspective on Paul
Notes
  1. ^ Generally understood to mean Mosaic Law as the Halakha was still being formalized at the time

The original information:

  • was unnecessarily scattered over three places;
  • depends strongly on primary (Bible-texts) and outdated (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1917) sources; see WP:RS;
  • contains WP:OR: The decision of Peter, as evidenced by conversion of the Centurion Cornelius,[6] was that it was not required, and the matter was further addressed with the Council of Jerusalem. Around this same time period, Rabbinic Judaism made their circumcision requirement even stricter.[7]
  • does not explain why this issue was so important for Paul;
  • does not make any reference to the New Perspective on Paul, that is, Stendahl, Sanders, Dunn and Newt. See WP:NPOV:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Extended content
I probably don't have to explain the significance and academic weight of Stendahl, Dunn, and Sanders. But in case I have:
  • Stendahl, The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West, 513 cites
  • Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 1837 cites
  • Neil Elliott, Taking the Measure of an Earthquake: Comments on the 40th-Anniversary Edition of Paul and Palestinian Judaism:

Perhaps no one has stated the impact of this book better than Daniel Marguerat, who wrote in 2003 that the landscape of Pauline studies today resembles a city “devastated by an earthquake,” in the aftermath of which “people scurry about in every direction, some assessing the damage, others verifying what still stands. Everyone takes the measure of the changes to come, but no one dares to build again, out of fear of a new shock.”

As a reminder, Jamin A. Hübner on Paula Fredriksen's When Christians Were Jews:

A second (and more significant) elephant is the lack of interaction with dissenting secondary sources. When Christians Were Jews would be infinitely more persuasive if the author engaged with her detractors. James Dunn’s three volumes on Christian origins, N. T. Wright’s five volumes on Christian origins, and the works of Larry Hurtado are completely ignored—none are even cited (except a passing reference to Dunn). One gets the impression that When Christians Were Jews is more of a confirmation to those who are already inclined towards the book’s proposals than an argument to convince others.

My text does explain the importance of this issue for Paul, with references to Stendahl, Sanders and Dunn. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC) / updated Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acts of the Apostles[edit]

Acts of the Apostles is a primary text; it typically presents a church-pov on the origins of Christianity. Per WP:RS and WP:NPOV, we cannot base a whole section on such a primary source, without explaining what this text is:

The inclusion of Gentiles is reflected in Luke-Acts, which is an attempt to answer a theological problem, namely how the Messiah of the Jews came to have an overwhelmingly non-Jewish church; the answer it provides, and its central theme, is that the message of Christ was sent to the Gentiles because the Jews rejected it.[1]

References

  1. ^ Burkett 2002, p. 263.

Source: Burkett, Delbert (2002), An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-00720-7 Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diff links and wall of text[edit]

I intend to respond in due course, but it is it's difficult to interact with a wall of text as above; it's hard to know even where to post a comment.

Please note that for comments of the type, "I replaced <BEFORE TEXT> with <AFTER TEXT>" it is not necessary to copy-paste sections of text from the article into the Talk page. In fact, it can be counter-productive, since it makes it harder for other editors to follow your actual Talk page comments which are drowned out by the long inclusions. Such copy-paste sections can be replaced with a diff link instead.

For example, the entire long section headed Background above, can be replaced with this diff link. If you want to show each of the two versions of the article text individually, before and after your changes so that the rendered pages can be compared, you can use this BEFORE link and this AFTER link. (And if you want to get really fancy, you can do a side-by-side comparison of two versions at the same time; ask on my Talk page if you're interested in this.)

Please use the Talk page for adding new text discussing your many good ideas for improving the article, so other editors can see what you're saying, and respond, without it being drowned out by a WP:TEXTWALL; experience shows that this will reduce responses, or generate Tl;dr responses, which (presumably) is not what you are looking for. Mathglot (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: thank you for your reply, especially the tone of it; appreciated. I've collapsed part of my text in response to your advice. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See diff, diff, and diff, for the convenience of having the same structure at those duplicate articles; it makes it much easier to synchronise the further development of those articles. Restructuring is only the groundwork; the real work is checking and adding info, based on WP:RS. For your info, I'm reading several books at the moment, by Dunn and Hurtado. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly views on Jesus[edit]

@Editor2020: I don't like it at all to revert any of your edits, because I highly appreciate your work, and the quality of it; but I think that, in this case, per WP:NPOV, a section on Jesus should not only provide an overview of what the Bible, a primary source, tells about him; but also what critical scholarship tells about him. The quest for the historical Jesus represents a significant change in the perception of Jesus. But there may be, of course, compelling reasons not to include this info, so I'm looking forward to your thoughts (which can also be stated in editing, of course, as so often is the case between the two of us). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged part of that info on the quest with the rest, and removed the other part. Seems lime an acceptable compromise to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you feel is correct. Editor2020 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas in India[edit]

This is not fact, not proved, just is a legend. We don't know anything sure about Thomas's life because there are no authentic documents left. --Milei.vencel (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- see Wikipedia:Verifying different types of statement - "The policy on verifiability is clear that the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The fact is that it is recorded in Acts of Thomas - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You want proof? Evidence that there were Jews in IndiaCochin Jews evidence for a Roman presence in History_of_Kerala#Spice_trade_(3000_BC_-_1000_AD). Please read through these works. I want peer review and push on verifiability.Manabimasu (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That there were Jews in India and Roman contacts with India certainly does not prove that St Thomas went to India. There is not even any proof that there ever was such a person.Smeat75 (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Apostolic Age[edit]

CONSENSUS FOR MERGE, NO CONSENSUS FOR WHICH ARTICLE TO MERGE TO

Joshua Jonathan proposed a merge of Apostolic Age into Christianity in the 1st century. PPEMES supported the proposal. Mathglot and Epinoia commented about the failure of other merge proposals and did not express an opinion about this merge proposal. Randy Kryn suggested that Christianity in the 1st century should be merged into Apostolic Age.

The consensus is that Apostolic Age and Christianity in the 1st century should be one article. There is no consensus about which article should be merged into which, with two editors supporting a merge of Apostolic Age into Christianity in the 1st century and one editor supporting a merge of Christianity in the 1st century into Apostolic Age. There is no prejudice against further discussion about which title the content of both articles should exist in.

Cunard (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal[edit]

Apostolic Age and Christianity in the 1st century are the exact same topic, acept for the time-period (with or without Jesus). Having one article on the same topic is quite more effcicient qua editing. NB: while "Apostolic Age" is more in line with WP:COMMONNAME, "Christianity in the 1st century" gives a more inclusive coverage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

And now, this one. It's somewhat frowned upon to keep jumping around from one article to another, starting the same, or similar discussion after a short interval, especially without linking to the previous discussions. This has now been done in the links above, so you should be okay to continue your discussion. Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following the advice to limit the merger-proposals to singular proposals; the previous discussion became too complicated, but made clear that Early Christianity should stay. This is the first of those two sub-proposals. Thanks for adding the links. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - after the failure of the other merge proposals, it might be an idea to let this rest for now, to avoid confusion, and reopen the discussion in a couple of months when it can be approached with clear heads - right now this issue is tangled up with the other merge proposals - there's nothing wrong with the articles as they stand so waiting a while will do no harm - in peace - Epinoia (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Epinoia; that's a heartfelt wise advice. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't think we need to make this more complicated than it has to be. The previous discussion seemed largely in favour of this merge, or at least not decisively against. I'd insist this specific merge request here ought to proceed as started. PPEMES (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jut wait; give it due time. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seems to be no opposition. Why don't you go ahead? PPEMES (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES: I've posted a closure-request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Christianity in the 1st century#Merge with Apostolic Age. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: Thanks. That seems to be taking time, though. Are you keeping an eye on it? PPEMES (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If merged, merge to Apostolic Age, seems a more accurate name (did the apostles and first century adherents call themselves Christians?). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean as a condition? PPEMES (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thoughts[edit]

@Joshua Jonathan: You're good to go. The question of the actual article name could be dealt with post merge. PPEMES (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, better discuss this first. @Randy Kryn: the problem is, with Apostolic Age, that it will give discussions about the scope of the article: include Jesus Christ himself, yes or no? When "apostolic Age" is a redirect to "Christianity in the 1st century," this problem can be avoided (on semantical grounds). Yet, otherwise, when merged to "Apostolic Age," we could add several "See also" links (Ministry of Jesus, Life of Jesus in the New Testament, Historicity of Jesus, Historical Jesus, and Quest for the Historical Jesus) to the "Apsotolic period" subsection. Maybe I should just do that. What are your thoughts on this? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a strong preference either way. From a quick Google search (unreliable: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Google test and WP:GNUM) it would appear that Apostolic Age is the common name (WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA). But Christianity in the 1st Century is more neutral in tone and gives broader scope; for example, the disciples did not become apostles until given a commission and so Apostolic Age excludes the first part of Jesus's ministry, the nativity, etc. Also, Christianity in the 1st Century may make it easier to separate the gospels from the apostles as there are many who fervently believe that the gospels were written by apostles and regularly edit articles to reflect this view. As the gospels were probably written in the first century, the title Apostolic Age may give undue weight to the position that the gospels were written by apostles. Also, Apostolic Age may be too closely tied to the development of Proto-orthodox Christianity and Pauline Christianity and not give appropriate weight other forms of Christianity, such as the Nazarenes and nascent Gnosticism (although the Split of early Christianity and Judaism article has now been merged with Apostolic Age article). - not sure how significant these points are, just some thoughts. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cit1c has more pageviews than AA. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Apostolic Age#Merged to "Christianity in the 1st century":

The article should be merged with 1st century Christianity but not Early Christianity/History of early Christianity, which covers the period from the beginning of the apostolic age to the Council of Nicaea. However, Early Christianity and History of early Christianity should be merged with each other.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I've merged "Apostolic Age" into "Christianity in the 1st century"; it will never be perfect, but C1c is indeed more neutral, and more inclusive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second half of 1st century[edit]

Does the lead section proportionately cover that without mentioning with apostolic fathers, including Ignatius of Antioch who first coined the term Christianity? Also is it really fair to ommit the Primacy of Saint Peter? PPEMES (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is fair to omit the primacy of Simon Peter, because it not important to understand the Christianity of that 1st century.
It was only an issue latter on-- when Rome wanted to try an establish a reason for the primacy of Rome. tahc chat 19:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

way over long[edit]

This article way way over long. It is already longer than Early Christianity ever was. This merge (as you have done it) only makes it worse. An obvious place to cut is background info on modern efforts into the historiography. This seems to be more numourous the Jesus section than the actual information about Jesus. tahc chat 04:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also-- stop making things even long by "explain jargon". The great thing about Wikipedia is that the read can just look up term that they don't know with hyper-links. Explaining jargon is add length to no good purpose. tahc chat 04:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I pargly agree wigh you. The section on Jesus is in deed long. There are two subsections on the historical Jesus that could be merged. But you argue again for a non-historical approach. "The actual Jesus" does not exist; what we have is textual sources, and interpretation of textual sources.
But overall, the article length is fine; the main text is ca. 6000 words. That's far within the limits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to treat Jesus as non-historic. Any number of ancient persons have Wikipedia articles written in straight forward prose even when they lived before the time of photographs and tape recorders.
Jesus didn't exist? Says who? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is arguing that. I think what Joshua Jonathan is saying is that different groups have come to different conclusions about Jesus' life, and some discussion of the written sources they base those conclusions on is important to understanding of that subject and subsequent development of various forms of Christianity. -- Beland (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tahc: I agree this article is too long, but for logistical reasons it may get slightly longer for a short period. I've barely begun the merge from Early Christianity; as it turns out the two articles once again have a lot of passages that are word-for-word copies that have diverged. It's difficult to both resynchronize those texts and rewrite the destination text at the same time, and there's a burning need to finish the merge because Early Christianity is a user-visible mess in the meantime. My plan was to finish the merge, and get everything from both articles piled in the same place, Marie Kondo style, and then figure out what paragraphs might be consolidated and what details might be moved into subarticles. The section on Jesus' lifetime can definitely be condensed because there are different ways of saying the same thing, and the "quests for Jesus" coverage probably doesn't belong in this article's chronology (as opposed to the information gleaned from and the sources used by those quests, which definitely does). We can also offload some details to Jewish Christianity and put a better but shorter summary here. Some information is potentially moving from History of Christianity to Early Christianity to Christianity in the 1st century and then on to subarticles and I'm trying not to drop anything on the floor while it's in transit. The good news (pun intended) is that because there was so much word-for-word copying between articles, even the resynchronizing phase is substantially reducing the amount of prose covering this subject across all articles, a huge amount of which was redundant.

As we trim this article for length, we have to be more careful to make good edits (consolidating redundant phrasing, moving to subarticles and leaving good summary-style paragraphs here) rather than blindly refusing incoming information or textual improvements due to overall length. In particular, explaining jargon is a mandate from the Manual of Style, which explicitly says to use parenthetical clarifications (or wholesale rephrasing) instead of relying on links. (See WP:JARGON.) -- Beland (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It says to "minimize" jargon, but you can still explain too much. If no one is complaining about the jargon, then maybe it great as is. I wish you would at least do all the merging first, and only later "explain" or remove jargon.tahc chat 18:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't add explanations unless I had trouble understanding it on first reading myself. When they encounter jargon-laden text, most people get bored and give up and complaints are rarely filed. -- Beland (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tahc: how did you come up with 82kb diff? The prose counts nearly 6000 words, nearly 36,000 characters. That's ca. 36kb. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ask me on my talk page and I will let you know. tahc chat 18:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity_in_the_1st_century/Archive_1&oldid=996704559"