text:
Talk:Dissolution of Czechoslovakia

Communist Beginnings
It needs to be clarified that by 1946 the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, and the Social Democratic Party won majority representation in Parliament, or the National Assembly. Only in 1948 did Stalinization occur. It is wrong to say Czechoslovakia emerged communist because of the USSR. I cite:
 * Schwartz, Morton, "Czechoslovakia's New Political Model: A Design for Renewal," The Journal of Politics 1968
 * Fowkes, Ben The Rise and Fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, St. Martins Press, 1993
 * Scholpfin, George, Politics in Eastern Europe: 1945-1992, Blackwell 1993
 * Kolakowski, Leszek, Main Currents of Marxism: Its Origin, Growth, and Dissolution Vol. III, Clarendon Press, 1978

I may be compelled to change the wording so as to dispel the myth that the USSR alone installed communism in Eastern Europe. Billyvamp4 (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

History of the separation
"By the 1990s, in economic terms, the Czech Republic's GDP per capita was some 20% higher than Slovakia's, but its long-run GDP growth was lower. Money transfers from the Czech budget to Slovakia, which had been the rule in the past, were stopped in January 1991." Please were is the reference to these estimations? I would rather say: it was reported by Mass-media that GDP in Czech part is higher and there is massive money transfers to Slovakia. Finnaly it is not only true but was also a important reason for split (together with medialisation of underpresentation of Slovaks by Slovak massmedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.80.47 (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Slovak language coverages from Slovakia
a) Sentence The Czech TV news, however, recently started to reintroduce Slovak language coverages from Slovakia. looks too optimistic. Slovak news (~10 minutes) are aired early in the morning and in main news, events from Slovakia are sometimes commented in Slovak. The use of Slovak on Czech TV has dropped considerably.

I meant that for one year or so, there has been a report on Slovakia in Slovak in the main news almost everyday, which previously was not the case (and if so it was in Czech). For me, this is quite striking. (I did not mean the main Czech news on Slovak TV in the night or the Slovak news on Czech TV at 6 a.m., of course... :) )

 * I do not watch TV much but hearing Slovak is very rare there. News from Slovakia is usually told by Czech reporter sent there (quite understandable - its near, yet one gets allowances, no danger, easy work). Maybe this sentence should be removed from article.

 * The point is it is not a Czech reporter anymore (I know that this was the case before). Just pick out several days (outside the holidays), watch the main news (in 19:15 or so) and you will see what I mean ... But I'm not insisiting on the one sentence ...Juro 21:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Just about the current state: The three main Czech TV stations have in Slovakia Slovak speaking reporters. Interviews with locals are not being dubbed, but sometimes subtitled (especially when the speaking person uses a dialect). Slovaks also appear in TV talk (and other kinds of ) shows and speak just their language (with exception those living in Czechia who can Czech). Bob 08:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

15:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)15:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)15:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)125.25.141.4 (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)!!!!!

Slovaks studying at universities in Czech Rep.
b) Slovaks studying at universities in Czech Rep. - wasn't there dip in their numbers? I remember in the beginning it was negotiated just some 70 students could study in other country for free. People who study unis in CR in Czech language have now the same conditions (= no fees, access to free accomodation) no matter where they are from but this was established years after dissolution.

I left that out because I am not sure (it's always better to say nothing than to lie...). The number was definitely much higher in reality. There were some problems in one year, but then they somehow solved it...But if you have better information, you can re-insert that part, of course.

 * I have only anectodal information. Better leave as it is.

Sametovy rozvod
c) Is the term Sametovy rozvod actually used in Slovakia? (It is not in CR)

I know that and definitely not. (And in Slovak, it would have to be Nežný rozvod, because the revolution is called Nežná revolúcia). The term is an English invention, because - I assume - from the international point of view the most striking thing about the divorce was the fact that it was non-violent (given the then developments in Yugoslavia etc.).Juro 22:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I'll update article accordingly. Pavel Vozenilek 18:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gypsies with criminal records

 * The Czech Republic law allowed to grant citizenship automatically only to those without felony record and this excluded a very large percentage of Gypsies.

"A very large percentage" can mean just about anything. This needs to be qualified better in order to avoid being weaselly and discriminatory towards the Gypsies. Who, BTW, prefer to be called Roma, too. --Joy [shallot]   14:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * AFAIK Czech statistics in criminality do not quantify race or nationality, since '90 (leading often to wild speculations). People oposing such citizenship law argued that the number (both absolute and relative) of affected Gypsies is so high that it makes the law targeted specifically on them (this was quite likely intention of proponents of the law). Please feel free to reword the sentence. The name Roma got used in CR only later and in media/official texts. Pavel Vozenilek 18:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dubcek and his influence
"The untimely death of Alexander Dub& was widely seen as depriving the "Czechoslovakists" of the one figure with sufficent public standing to have successfully resisted the break up of the federation."

Roma section: "existing state" is what?
"The issue dragged on for years and in the end the existing state was codified."

Perhaps being dumb here, but which "existing state"? That the Roma are stateless? That the Roma are citizens of Slovakia? Of the Czech Republic? Shenme 05:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Split of Czechoslovakia
The title of this article (Velvet Divorce) is naive and definitely wrong. It had nothing to do with so called velvet revolution.

The page should be renamed. I suggest neutral Split of Czechoslovakia, see also Czech Republic (info-box).

-- Cepek 08:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cepek on this one, just because the term is used in journalism doesn't mean it should be used in an ecyclopedia. Also, the term was only used in the US and UK and to a much lesser degree in Australia, virtually nowhere else. However I suggest renaming the article to "Dissolution of Czechoslovakia", not split. +Hexagon1 (t) [[Image:Australian Federation Flag without Union Jack.svg|30px]] [[Image:Flag of the Czech Republic.svg|23px]]  03:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If no-one objects in the next few days, I'm moving it. If someone does, we'll hold a WP:Requested Moves vote. +Hexagon1 (t) [[Image:Australian Federation Flag without Union Jack.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of the Czech Republic.svg|15px]] 15:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I had to look up dissolution in my dictionary but/and I agree. My Czech dictionary in the last (5-th) meaning of dissolution reads nevázanost, zhýralost, zhýralý život, prostopášnictví and I can only agree, dissolution of Czechoslovakia was zhýralá prostopášnost. Sorry for mixing Czech and English ... actually, because someone changed dissolution to split in Czech Republic infobox, I came to a false opinion, that split is a better term in this context, so I suggested it here. Cepek 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misunderstanding the term, dissolution is just a general term refering to "rozpuštění, rozklad, rozložení". Zhýralost is a very very strange translation, I can't imagine ever hearing dissolution used in such a context - ever. That's seriously just plain weird... +Hexagon1 (t) [[Image:Australian Federation Flag without Union Jack.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of the Czech Republic.svg|15px]] 11:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was just joking a bit with zhýralost and nevázanost (this translation is really very strange). Cepek 19:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, moved with no objections. +Hexagon1 (t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 11:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Velvet Divorce in English-speaking media
"It is sometimes referred to as the Velvet Divorce in American and British media."

I have seen "divorce de velours" in French language media from Quebec and France. It is possible that other languages have adopted the expression. This phrase gives the impression that this is specifically an English language occurence, which it does not appear to be. --Liberlogos 23:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Divorce de velours seems to have been used in French, but the equivalent not so much in Spanish. Where I saw it in Spanish in a recent Google search, the term was virtually limited to the Spanish Wikipedia, obviously a translation from this one. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps of the new states?
Do we have a map on Wikipedia showing both new countries well, or can somebody make one? Would help illustrate this article quite fittingly.MadMaxDog 09:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How about now? +Hexagon1 (t) 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Public Opinion
How was the public opinion about the seperation. My relatives live in Prague and my mum said many were against it --88.153.177.193 (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 * That's true in any political situation. However, a majority of the people seem to have wanted the split into seperate nation-states.  Time will tell how wise it was.  If the populace one day decides a re-unification is beneficial, I'm sure it will be done in a friendly atmosphere. 98.67.15.192 (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Dual citizenship of Slovaks and Czechs following dissolution
Currently the article states unequivocally that dual citizenship was not allowed and was only possible "years later". However, my understanding of the Citizen Act (Slovakia) is that following the dissolution citizens had a period of one year to apply for the dual citizenship but that very few people opted to do so. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the matter can enlighten us or update the entry to include this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.15.252 (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong linking of English and German articles
The linking of the English and the German articles is wrong. While the English article is about the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1993, the German article is about the German occupation of Czechia in 1939. Could someone please correct this? Unfortunately, I don't know how to do it.--Mottenkiste (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Respekt
Four times, the article quotes an otherwise unsourced and article-less Respekt, which is of course the Czech journal but who's to know that? Also, shouldn't the statements thus confirmed give a source, like the article in Respekt that is (probably) quoted there? ahoi --WernR (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dissolution of Czechoslovakia. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150107141134/http://www.ducr.cz/drurad/CAP-extrakt.pdf to http://www.ducr.cz/drurad/CAP-extrakt.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060816024204/http://book.publica.cz/ to http://book.publica.cz/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Implausible claim
"According to the Prague Post (September 8, 2014: Is the Czech Republic richer than Slovakia?), "Slovak GDP reached 95 percent of the Czech GDP, and it is likely to draw level with it."

The Czech Republic has almost twice the population of Slovakia. The above statement, as written, seems quite implausible. Presumably, it was intended to mean that Slovak GDP per capita reached 95% of the Czech GDP per capita. But it doesn't actually say that.Lathamibird (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dissolution of Czechoslovakia. 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120716013641/http://noviny.joj.sk/politika/4-9-2009/clanok/v4-chce-spolocne-velvyslanectva.html to http://noviny.joj.sk/politika/4-9-2009/clanok/v4-chce-spolocne-velvyslanectva.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"Violated the agreement" in Background
The article states: "Czech and Slovak representatives signed the Pittsburgh Agreement, which promised a common state consisting of two equal nations.... Soon afterward, (Masaryk) and Edvard Beneš violated the agreement by pushing for greater unity and a single nation...Some Slovaks were not in favour of that change, and in March 1939, ..." The claim "violated the agreement" (which I underlined) seems rather strong, and is not explicitly mentioned in History of Czechoslovakia. Is this universally acknowledged, or a controversial interpretation that should a) be toned down, or b) at least sourced? Martinp (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 * @ 176.219.136.164 (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There having been no comments here in over 2 months, I went ahead and reworded to focus on the underlying trends rather than who may or may not have "violated the agreement", which apart from being unsourced is not terribly relevant for a brief background section here. I make no pretense to having expertise here and improvements or reversion are welcome. However, while the dissolution was calm, I think we should be careful of interpretations and editorializing precisely who did what and with what legitimacy 100+ years ago, and include it only if we find appropriate sourcing in reputable secondary sources. And I think that as an editorial matter, such a discussion would belong better in History of Czechoslovakia. Martinp (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dissolution of Czechoslovakia


text:
Talk:Historical background of the New Testament/Archive 16

Archives

 * Archive 1 has been lost.
 * It contained discussion prior to the big dispute. We do not know where it is.

restored archive 1 I think this is accurate, it might overlap the later archives... I haven't summarised it Pedant 21:01, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there ever was an archive 1; the link was created by Sam Spade on Nov 7, at 20:25; but he never deleted any material from the talk page. Ben Standeven

 * /Archive 2 -- (Amgine 20:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC))
 * votes; son of man; 10 key issues in dispute; the meaning of messiah

 * /Archive 3 -- (Amgine 00:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC))
 * votes; debate over "new messiah" paragraphs, meaning of messiah

 * /Archive 4 -- (CheeseDreams 20:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC))
 * FT2's version vs. SLR's version; due process

 * /Archive 5 -- CheeseDreams 21:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * increasingly verbose discussion of outstanding issues

 * /Archive 6 --CheeseDreams 22:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * summaries of the above; meta-debate about this talk page

 * /Archive 7 --Slrubenstein
 * Please be aware that Archive 7 is infact predominantly a duplicate of archive 6 caused by an editor acting too hastily to suppress information. CheeseDreams

 * /Archive 8 --Slrubenstein
 * very similar to archive 7

 * /Archive 9 --Slrubenstein
 * very similar to archive 7 (again)

 * /Archive 10 -- CheeseDreams 22:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * predominantly a repetition of events in archives 1-6 - summarised here

 * /Archive 11 -- Ben Standeven 01:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * questions about use of the word "fundamentalist", listing of CheeseDreams' still outstanding objections to SLR's version, listing of SLR's objections to FT2's version that CheeseDreams countered by his earlier list. The impasse caused is discussed below.

 * /Archive 12 -- Slrubenstein 20:39, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Ben Standeven's take on the differences between SLR and FT2's versions; FT2 and SLR work out compromises. CheeseDreams views on Cohen and Crossan.

 * /Archive 13 Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  07:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC): Archiving everything over a year old.
 * surrounding towns; Bar Kochba revolt and Christianity; neutrality; Wesley and the four Gospels; anonymos user and Cheese Dreams; TY; Dealing with editwarriors; Refreshing Objection?; explaining my recent revert; announcing new policy proposal; dates; Does anyone really object to the Jew infobox?; Sanders

 * /Archive 14 Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  07:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC):Archiving everything over six months old.
 * Current round of edits (Oct 2005); my changes; two changes; Rule by proxy.

 * /Archive 15 Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  07:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC): To June 1, 2006.
 * March 2006 round of edits; Jesus and Good Article Collaboration of the week; Jesus article, the cultural and historical background, and sources; recent changes; 3 RR warning; Another perspective on the BC/AD vs. BCE/CE debate; SV comments

 * /Archive 16 Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  07:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC): To June 5, 2006. A lot of discussion in just 4 days!
 * Scope; NPOV tag (june 2006); Priest kings section placement; Suppression of viewpoints; "Critical Scholars"?; Minor wording tweak, views?; Notes; Scope Paragraph; What is this article about?

The origin, scope and focus of this article
This article was originally created to discuss the history and culture of the time in and place in which Jesus is traditionally held to have lived, without treating the subject of who Jesus was or whether he did or did not exist. The focus of the article is not Jesus per se but the 'stage setting' in which the (choose any of:) Miracle of Jesus's life/Jesus Myth/Historical Jesus/Jesus the Prophet/Bedtime story/Jesus Fable/ occured. This was the actual and definitive reason for creating the article and should to a great extent determine its scope. Anything about: Jesus' teachings/his life/evidence that he was a historical figure/evidence that he was not a historical figure/ etc. belong in one or more of the other articles in the Jesus and history constellation or in Jesus.

The reason this was created was that information on this topic, notwithstanding Jesus existence or nonexistence or humanity or divinity, is useful for anyone involved in studying the context but much of the contextual information was being disputed as 'not belonging in' various of the Jesus articles. This article was created to retain the context, while allowing NPOV to be maintained in all the other articles, as some of the context was being used as 'evidence for Jesus' and some was being used as 'evidence against Jesus', there was much editing and reverting and gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair and it was not good.

In my opinion, this original scope and focus ought to be maintained, for the same reason the article was created one year and one day ago. User:Pedant 07:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

the above is false

 * The above account is false. This section was originally created as a section in the Jesus article on the "historical Jesus" meaning the one discussed by Vermes, Sanders and fredriksen.  One editor entitled the section "in historical and cultural context" to convey that this is why Vermes, Sanders and Fredriksen´s views of Jesus differ from that of Christians.  An article that is solely about the culture and history of Jews would obviously simply be an article on Jewish history and culture.  No, this article is about a set of similar interpretations of Jesus informed by a study of the historicla and cultural context in which he lived.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

no it isn't
Nope. It isn't. I'm not gonna argue about this with you, you were there, cheesedreams was there, lots of folk were there, regardless that the archive of the original discussion is 'lost'. (and how did that happen?) I know how this article happened to be created, I was the one who suggested that it be created and suggested the name. Maybe it has changed and evolved to not be that any more, I still stand by what I said, and I think that its obvious I didn't say, as you characterised it: "solely about the culture and history of Jews" I said "the history and culture of the time in and place in which Jesus is traditionally held to have lived, without treating the subject of who Jesus was or whether he did or did not exist" as anyone can read above. The time and place in which Jesus is traditionally held to have lived is not about Jewish history alone, as anyone can see from a cursory examination of the article itself. The arguement arose between you and Cheesedreams about whether the section on history was too long and whether it was POV or not, and I suggested a new article to break out the relevant text, so that we didn't lose data but had an appropriate place for it... without an endless debate between the two of you. You seem to me to cherish arguments, but I don't.

Remember the conext this quote from you came from?: "Again, you miss the point. If the article is to provide background for the NT, then it should cover the history of Palestine as well as the Roman provinces in what is today Turkey and Greece from 70 to 382. But since the article covers an earlier period, it is providing background for the life of Jesus. Slrubenstein"

You and I both know the truth, and this is all I will say about it. User:Pedant 05:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

see for yourself
Anyone who is interested in the original discussion of the scope and focus of the article should look at the talk pages in this vicinity and the Talk:Jesus discussion from the time which just precedes the date of the origin of this article (Cultural and historical background of Jesus). User:Pedant

 * First, Pedant, you are factually wrong. You are distorting the history of this article.  This article began as a section entitled "The Historical Jesus of Nazareth" in the Jesus Article (around August 14, 2004).  The title itself signals the acceptance that there was a Jesus - a non-existent Jesus cannot be a historical Jesus.  Moreover, you take the history out of context.  This section in the Jesus article was preceeded by a short sections called WThe Historicity of Jesus" and "Academic Historians and Religious Texts" that plainly described the existence of a particular POV, that of scholars who accept the existence of Jesus but not his divinity and whose scholarship is based on an attention to historical and cutlrual context and a critical reading of primary sources in this context.  The next section - the one that was within a day or two moved by Mpolo to form a new article, began with this:
 * This section provides a historical view of Jesus, based largely on textual evidence from the 1st and 2nd centuries.

 * There has been a good deal of recent research on Jesus by critical scholars: two synthetic accounts are The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders, a historian with a doctorate in theology, now Arts & Sciences Professor of Religion at Duke University, and the three volume A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus by John Meier, a Catholic priest, and Professor of Biblical Studies at the Catholic University of America. The following is a brief summary of the dominant position among critical scholars.
 * There is nothing in these paragraphs to suggest that no claims are being made as to whether Jesus existed or not. On the contrary, they make sense only if he existed (that is, if the scholars whose works are being drawn on here believe he existed; similarly, their scholarship is of value only if he existed).

 * Second, this is the very first sentence of the article, as it was created by Mpolo: "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." It is clear that the article assumes Jesus existed.  Now, here is the opening paragraph after CheeseDreams was banned - note that it is very similar to thte current opening:
 * According to the Gospels, Jesus lived in Judea and the Galilee (modern day Israel, Palestine, and Jordan) around the first half of the first century CE. While large numbers of Christians of all denominations take the Gospels to be an reliable and (largely or wholly) accurate account of Jesus' life, other people will question whether Jesus ever existed (see Historicity of Jesus for an account of this debate). Some people, including critical Bible scholars and historians, however, accept that Jesus lived, but reject the Gospels as a literal account of his life. They rely on the Gospels as historical sources, but reject supernatural elements including miracles; and argue that the Gospels were written from the point of view of, and in order to support, an orthodox Christianity that was emerging between the second and fourth centuries CE. Moreover, they claim that an account of Jesus' life must make sense in terms of his historical and cultural context, rather than Christian orthodoxy.
 * This introduction makes clear - just as did the first sentence of the original article - that according to the scholars discussed in the article, Jesus existed (while, for NPOV purposes, acknowledges that some do not believe he existed) and that this article focuses on the views of scholars who claim Jesus existed.

 * Finally, Pendant, your position is absurd. If Jesus did not exist, then the cultural and historical context OF JESUS would make no sense.  One could just go to the article on Jewish history.  If Jesus never existed, then the cultural and historical context in which he lived can have absolutely no importance to people who believe he never existed.  It won´t be of much importance to people who believe Jesus was divine, either, because for them the meaning of Jesus will have more to do with theology and ideology but nothing to do with the dialy life of the man himself (who, by this position, never existed and thus had no daily life).  The cultural and historical background of Jesis is relevant to scholars who claim he existed but deny his divinity, and this article provides their interpretation of his life.  For them to provide an interpretation of his life, they must believe his life existed. Your logic only provides the basis for deleting the article - the wors form of POV warrioring.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this

 * "This article began as a section entitled "The Historical Jesus of Nazareth" in the Jesus Article (around August 14, 2004)" --quote from Slrubenstein

'''I ask you, how can you say the article started as part of another article. Obviously it started as this article'''. This article is this article, it isn't Jesus, and any consensus reached at Jesus was only that we needed to break parts of that article out to other articles. Any consensus regarding Cultural and historical background of Jesus could only be reached here, not there. And it was, see links below.User:Pedant 13:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It was an Article Spinout. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  17:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you say I am factually incorrect. this is a link to the discussion where we reached consensus for the intro that the article doesn't address Jesus' Historicity and this is a link to a discussion and consensus for what the scope of the article is I will accept that our opinions and memory of the discussion are different, but I do not agree that I am factually incorrect.

That discussion you (Slrubenstein) refer to spawned several different articles, each of which discusses different aspects of Jesus, so citing that discussion in general is pretty worthless as far as what this article began as... the article began after that discussion, and all the articles in the Jesus and history series came out of that discussion.

Historicity of Jesus discusses whether he existed.

Historical Jesus assumes he existed.

Jesus as myth makes arguments supporting a mythical Jesus

etc... if Cultural and historical background of Jesus assumes he existed, then this article should be merged with Historical Jesus but it doesn't and isn't intended to assume he existed, rather it assumes that people wrote about him and discusses relevant historical events of the the period in which those authors placed him and the cultural influences affecting a person such as Jesus was described as being, in the time in which Jesus was described as living.

How do you propose to keep this article factual about the culture and history, if it assumes the existence of Jesus? Assuming that Jesus existed is POV Assuming he is divine is POV. The article can only accurately and neutrally discuss the culture and history without assuming his existence or divinity. This article talks about a time and a place and a group of coexisting cultures, not about a person, but about documents that talk about the person.

You had no objection to the following

"Many historians accept that Jesus existed, but argue that an account of Jesus' life must reject supernatural claims"

 * (quote from Slrubenstein)

Not all historians believe he exists and according to you:

"see Historicity of Jesus concerning debates specifically over the existence of Jesus"

 * (quote from Slrubenstein again)

whether Jesus existed or didn't exist goes in a different article:

"Christian POV that is already represented in the article on Jesus. "

 * (another quote from Slrubenstein)

Maybe you changed your mind since then.

I don't get how you can continue to say that Jesus had to exist in order to talk about him or the culture and background he would have lived in if he had existed. We had a firm consensus that we were making the assumption that Jesus existed, but that the article was about the context, and not about whether he existed. I just don't get "Jesus had to exist in order to talk about him" from the following exchange, from Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus back in 2004... I don't know when YOU made your comment as you didn't timestamp it. User:Pedant 11:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Pedant, you just do not get it. It is not that the "article" assumes that Jesus existed, it is that the article "acknowledges" that a number of historians believe Jesus existed, and goes on from there.  In fact there has been considerable discussion of merging this article with the historical Jesus, and it is not a closed discussion. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Now it is a year later. Maybe I will write an article about the Cultural and historical background of Paul Bunyan. He certainly had no actual historical existence, but quite certainly stories about him have a common cultural and historical background in the dawn of the Resource Extraction Industry.  Yet a cultural and historical background of Paul Bunyan certainly does exist. User:Pedant 02:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. I look forward to reading it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC) ---~

 * I've made this point before, but...
 * What about, say, the Cultural and historical Background of George Washington? Or Davy Crockett? George Washington never chopped down the cherry tree; Davy Crockett didn't kill himself a bear when he was only three. Both are real historical figures to which myths later became appended. Most historians would say the same about Jesus. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  17:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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, but I agree the sentence is clearer and more dense with information. - Amgine 22:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * 2004? The above comment seems out of place, chronologically speaking.

I just created several additional archives. There was a LOT of discussion in June. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  07:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposals
I propose taking information from Cultural and historical background of Jesus and Historical Jesus and creating two seperate article: one focusing on history, and the other focusing on culture. I'd also propose less POV titles. For example Cultural background of 1st century Judea and History of Israel, 600 BCE - 150 CE. Reasoning: this article is really long, and this article doesn't really describe the cultural background, and parts of historical Jesus don't really describe the historical Jesus. I would love imput on this, and perhaps better title suggestions. If people agree with this proposal and we get some support, I'd propose creating two sandboxes in my userspace to start this process and I'd urge anyone interested to help contribute.--Andrew c 16:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Historical Jesus for my response. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  17:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I am in principal opposed to separating culture and history. They cannot be divorced one from the other. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Well maybe we need to just split this article up into "Early Second Temple" and "Late Second Temple" because 71kb is way large. The issue was that there were questions like "what languages were spoken in 1st century Judea, what were people's socio-economic status like, literacy, family life, social roles, religion, etc" all addressed in the Historical Jesus article that I wanted to split off into a "Cultural background" article, and then there is the history presented in this article that seems to fit into its own history section. Maybe we could combine the two ideas in one article, but like I said, I feel that we'd need to find another place (perhaps chronologically) to split that article just due to size.--Andrew c 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I would separate Persian, Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and Roman into separate articles. The most relevant article for Jesus's ancient context is the Roman Period. --Haldrik 04:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andrew's 2nd proposal. I'm not sure if we have enough data for four articles as Haldrik suggests, but I may be wrong. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  04:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I like this second proposal more too. I would put it differently: pre and post Hasmonian. here is my logic: the first article should introduce all the basic institutions that are eventually at play in Jesus´s life: the Temple, the Law, Pharisees and Saducees, Prophets, Priests, and Kings. The history of how these institutions developed provides crucial but admittedly general context for Jesus. The Hasmonian period on involves the politicization of Pharisees and Saducees, the confrontation with Hellenism and then Rome, which provides the immediate context for Jesus. Put another way, instead of early and late second temple, how about pre-Hellenic and post-Hellenic? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be a cultural way to do it. I think that would work as well. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  06:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Does "pre-Hellenic" mean the same thing as "pre-Hasmonaean"? It seems to me that this is somewhat problematic due to the lack of clear historical materials on the early second temple period.  After Ezra, Nehemiah and the minor prophets close down in the 5th century BC, there's about two centuries where the sources are quite meager.  The "Early Second Temple" (however it is actually defined article would appear to cover a long period about which we have very little direct information, while the "Late Second Temple" article has rather an embarrassment of riches.  Not sure how to deal with this. john k 22:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Hellenic does mean pre-Hasmonian. It is true that primary source material is limited, but there has been lots of archeology and there are many good scholarly secondary sources on pre-Hellenic first and second temple Jewish (er, as it were) history that could be drawn on. True, the Bible itself is the primary source. But every volume of the Anchor Bible has loads and loads and loads of critical historiography and historical analysis, for one thing. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

 * In Israeli archeology, the periods are (usually) as follows: Biblical Period, Persian Period, Hellenistic Period, Hasmonean Period, Roman Period, Byzantine Period. Thus "pre-Hellenic" (pre-Hellenistic) equals the Persian Period, whereas "pre-Hasmonean" equals the Hellenistic Period. --Haldrik 03:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. In any event, I mean pre-Hasmonean. This would include both Hellenic, Persian, Babylonian, and Biblical (kingdom) periods. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

lead section
See WP:LEAD. This intro, like very many intros on Wikipedia, is terrible. It's more like an author's preface than a lead section. It talks about the context of the article but does not summarize its content. Unless there are unforeseen objections, I'm going to write a proper lead section. Jonathan Tweet 15:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * JT, I have no objection but I would ask you to present your proposed new intro here for discussion before making the change to the article. It is true that this article has a different kind of lead than others.  But I believe very strongy that we ought not to take a cookie cutter approach to articles.  Different articles, on different kinds of topics, will require different structures and different introductions.  I am not saying this article cannot be improved, I am saying only that the fact that it's lead is not like, say, the lead to "geography" does not make it bad.  Let's see what improvements you come up with and see what others think, and take it from there, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, is it my imagination, or does the lead section set this article up as Christianity versus scholarship? Second, what's the topic of this article? I thought the topic was the historical context of Jesus' life, the people, religion, politics, of 1st-century Galilee and Judeah. Jonathan Tweet 14:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead isn't meant to create a contrast between Christians and scholars but rather should distinguish between scholarship that is religiously partisan versus "modern" or "critical" scholarship (which can be produced by a Jew or Christian or Muslim, but without making theological assumptions and without intending to serve theoological ends). I think for historical reasons of the development of the article i.e. various arguments over the years it took the form it has taken, but perhaps it can be improved.  As to your second question, this article was spun off from the Jesus article when the jesus article got too big.  I did not give it this title and I am not a fan of the title, but see above or archives for extensive discussion about this.  The Jesus article provides a NT account of Jesus and has brief paragraphs on Jewish and other views.  This article is meant to provide the views of non-religious scholarship (regardless of whether or not one of the scholars is religious or what religion he or she has - the point is, they bracket their personal beliefs and are not expressing a Christian (or Jewish etc.) view, about Jesus.  There is another article that is closely related on debates among historians as to whether Jesus exists or not.  This article reviews those scholars who believe that Jesus existed but ignore theological claims like, he is one with God, he performed miracles, he was resurrected.  These scholars rely on research on the cultural and historical context in which Jesus lived and his followers lived and wrote, which I think is why the cultural and historical context is foregrounded in the title.  But the key (in other words, why this is not just an article on Jewish history) is how scholars use their knowledge of this context to make sense of a human Jesus. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's my first stab. I take it as my premise that the title of this page accurately describes its content, as does the disambig statement. In other words, this article, and its lead section, are primarily about the cultural and historical background of Jesus, and only secondarily about the history and methods of related scholarship.

 * Scholars examine the cultural and historical background of Jesus in order to better understand Jesus, his ministry, and the origins of Christianity. This examination treats the New Testament as a fallible historical artifact, analyzing this and other sources in search of the historical Jesus.

 * Jesus lived in Roman-controlled, partially Hellenized Palestine. The Roman Prefect’s first duty to Rome was to maintain order, but rebellions, riots, banditry, and violent resistance to Roman rule were recurrent. The conflict between the Jews’ demand for religious independence and the Romans’ desire to control this valuable territory culminated decades after Jesus’ death with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

 * The Judaism of Jesus’ time featured various sects, controversies, and millennial elements. Jewish beliefs such as the Resurrection, the bosom of Abraham, miracle-workers, and the immanent arrival of an apocalypse all appear in some form or another in early Christian writing.

 * The complimentary and conflicting forces of Jewish tradition, millennial hopes, Greek philosophy, and Jesus’ own ministry combined in the new religion, Christianity, that arose soon after Jesus’ death on the cross and his reported resurrection.

Each paragraph could be twice as long, with more details included, but let's agree on the structure and general content before going further. Jonathan Tweet 21:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the current intro explains why the topic is importrant or how it fits in, rather than actually summarizing the article for readers. So I'm open to a redraft if that is handled some other place (if still needed). I think there needs to be a parallel discussion "do we need to retain the old introduction as some kind of "contextualizing" 1st section beneath the intro and TOC?

In general, not bad as a rewrite, and approval of going slow on it. I have issues with the following clauses: My $0.02, hope it helps. FT2 (Talk 01:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "This examination treats the New Testament as a fallible historical artifact, analyzing this and other sources in search of the historical Jesus" (sets this article up as only of interest to scholars, and in opposition to everyday christians and others). -> "This examination treats the New Testament as one of many documents, written and perhaps later edited by people who wanted others to believe as they did, which can be used to piece together a more complete and authentic understanding of the life and times of Jesus and the founding of early Christianity."
 * "The conflict between the Jews’ demand for religious independence and the Romans’ desire to control this valuable territory culminated decades after Jesus’ death with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem" *(slightly misrepresents the tensions of the period) -> "The conflict between the Jews’ demand for religious independence and the Romans’ desire to impose a common system of governance upon their entire empire (including in religious and cultural matters) culminated decades after Jesus’ death with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and the final stage in the birth of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism."
 * FT2, would you be so kind as to splice together your version of the lead section, using your versions, and mine. If the result is acceptable, I'll post it onto the article. Jonathan Tweet 02:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Only one comment so far: we can't just say "scholars." I think we need to qualify it - not with a weasel word like "some" but with some term that adequately encompasses scholars like Sanders, Vermes, Crossan and Fredricksen - scholars who accept, without claiming absolute proof, the existence of a human being named Jesus or perhaps an Aramaic or Hebrew equivalent of that name who was the basis for the accounts in the canonical Gospels, but who do not accept Christian dogma as historically accurate.  It is important to be clear about this because some (I believe a small minority) of Biblical scholars and historians of Roman Palestine doubt Jesus's existence, while others give greater weight to orthodox Christian readings of the Gospels than to non-canonoical and non-Christian historical and cultural context. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Do any actual reputable "Biblical scholars and historians of Roman Palestine" doubt Jesus's existence? Most of those that I am aware of who doubt Jesus' existence are amateurs, or specialists in other subjects (in, to bring my own POV into this for a moment, the classic pattern for crackpottery - c.f. also Shakespeare authorship doubters, for instance). I'm not sure that giving merely "greater weight" to the Gospels than other scholars really does anything more than put more conservative scholar on a different place in the same continuum as the ones you're emphasizing.  I think "scholar" makes sense in describing a broad consensus that is different from both Biblical literalist apologetics on the one side and "Jesus didn't exist" fringe theories on the other.  Everything else is just a broad continuum of mainstream scholarship - often differing widely on the details, but accepting at least some basic premises of this sort. Jonathan's suggestions seem like a good idea for the intro, if we're committed to keeping it at this location.  In the past, I've suggested that moving the article somewhere else might be the best course of action. john k 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

FT2, if you'd like to overwrite what I put up as the lead section, be my guest. Jonathan Tweet 03:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I've gone ahead on this, I hope you like the current version. I think it works "none too bad" for me. FT2 (Talk 15:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

redistribution of information
This article should be about the cultural and historical background of Jesus, as the new lead section portrays it. Material that is not on this topic should find its place elsewhere. I'm thinking particularly of the long biography of the historical Jesus. "Jesus" is a great topic, but it's not this article's topic. My proposal is that the biographical material move to Historical jesus, because that's it's topic. This article would have a summary of historical Jesus pointing to HJ as its main article. HJ would have a summary of CAHBOJ pointing to this article as its main. Then you'd look here for Jesus' background and to HJ for Jesus himself (historically speaking). Jonathan Tweet 01:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Jonathan, this has been a stable article for a long time, and many people worked on it. Now you are trying to rewrite the whole thing bit by bit.  Delete what you propose and Wikipedia loses valuable content that is no where else.  To delete valuable content because it doesn't square with your ides of the title is the cart leading the horse.  I have a counter proposal: change the title to "Jesus in light of his cultural and historical context." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Anyone who wishes to comment on this proposal, I urge you to review this section of archived talk which lays out several different views about the nature of the article.  Thanks. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * You're right. This is valuable material that must not be deleted from Wikipedia. If I gave the impression that I want to delete it, then I apologize. But if we changed the title of this article so that the topic was "Jesus" instead of "background," then the majority of this material would be out of place (since it's background and not Jesus). In addition, Historical Jesus already covers the topic of "Jesus in light of his cultural and historical context." There are at least two topics here: Jesus (the historical figure) and his background (enough material for that to be in a sister article), plus probably Gospel criticism (a topic in its own right) and early Christian cultural context (establishment of Rabbinical Judaism, etc.). Currently, all this material sits in one very long article (this one), with some duplication in Historical Jesus. Here's how I'd divide that up.
 * Historical Jesus = "This is the page I go to in order to find out who (historians say) Jesus was." That's straightforward, a lot like any other article on any other historical figure.
 * CAHBOJ = "The page I read to find out about Jesus' cultural and historical background."
 * Gospel criticism seems like a valid topc for its own page. It's of interest to people reading about the Gospels or early Christian as well as to those reading about Jesus.
 * Early Christian context could stay with CAHBOJ, but it's not really Jesus' background, is it?
 * I staunchly maintain that article titles and lead sections should both describe the articles' topics. Since this article includes several topics, there's no title that would fit. Jonathan Tweet 16:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Jon, I am glad I misunderstood you. I think that the core problem is that there was a long and heterogeneous Jesus article with many conflictinmg POVs as well as lots of content, and at some point it was too long and had to be subdivided - and at that point, there was inadequate discussion about the organization of the overly-large article and thus it was unclear what spin-off articles were POV forks, content forks, or redundent, etc.  I agree that there is a need for reorganization but I think (and I think I am agreeing with you, just trying to be more explicit) that wqe need a "global" discussion of all Jesus related articles and how they fit.  Have you looked here - ?  If you haven't you should, it gives important context and more important other views you should know about.  But I think this discussion belongs on the Jesus page or somewhere else - a general consideration of all the Jesus-related pages, how they fit together, make sure all POVs are represented and all forks are content forks not POV forks. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I would not want to see good content lost, and although reorganization would be difficult task indeed, it is worth considering. There are many related articles that should be looked into and assess what fists were. What about starting a centralized discussion were re-organization proposals can be discussed as Slrubenstein proposes? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I made a proposal (at the top of this talk page) which seems similar to JTweet's. I agree that this article is way too long, and disjointed. There are two sections dealing with First and Second temple Jewish history. There is no reason to view this information through a Jesus lens. Simply create articles about these periods in history, right (instead of POV-forks)? We can summarize information more relevent to this topic here, thus reducing article size, and making this article more focused on the actual topic.--Andrew c 16:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I had read (OK, "skimmed conscientiously") the archive. It sounds like we're up for the daunting task of reorg. My only caution is that we not (please) hold the discussion in relation to the Jesus page. The Jesus page is actually mostly "Jesus according to the Gospels" rather than "Jesus as a historical person." The information we're dicussing here is all "Jesus as a historical person." Let's get that information organized right, but let's not try to coordinate it with "Jesus according to the Gospels." I would nominate Historical Jesus as our "core" page, the one around which we organize the others. Why? Because Historical Jesus is the top-level page, it's where the most casual reader goes to find out who (historians say) Jesus was. The other articles support that page and allow the less casual reader to delve deeper. I've already started talking about this re-org on Talk:Historical_Jesus. Jonathan Tweet 17:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me note that I echo Slrubenstein's comments; the material on Jesus needs to be looked at as a whole, rather than as individual articles. If I recall correctly, for a long time the Jesus article basically gave the critical-historical view of Jesus; then a number of Christian editors re-wrote it to reflect the Christian view of Jesus, which is where much of the biographical information appeared. Since then it seems to have swung back to a somewhat more balanced view. Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Following both Jayjg and Jonathan, I have to say that my main point is to view all these Jesus related articles collectively in deciding how best to distribute information. The "Jesus" article highlights a summary of what most people - the pious and critical scholars alike - consider the primary source material, it does not nor do our policies allow it to privilige a Christian POV.  As to this article's relation to historical jesus, I agree that the rleationshiop between these two articles is a mess.  That article does more clearly focus on Jesus but I do not think it has as clear a structure or is as well-sourced as this.  Also, while it provides more information on Jesus' presumed life, it also mixes in contextual information.  Actually, I think that article is much improved over the last time I looked at it, but I think it is problematic in that it seems to start with "what the Gospels say" and then what historians say.

 * Folks, there are two big problems as I see it: First, no "historical" account of Jesus makes any sense without the contextual material. I agree we need to do something, but I wouldn't divide one article into "context" and the other into "text" vi.z Jesus' life).  But I think as educators (i.e. encyclopedia writers) our job is at least in part to provide accurate accounts of how scholars use context to analyze text.

 * JohnK, I think, raised another big issue some time ago: If we take Jesus out of this article, so that it is only the context, then what we are left with is an article on Jewish history. This leads to big prblem #2: that in this specific instance, jewish and Christian history and culture are very much intertwined.

 * I think both of these problems create unusual challenges for editors of an encyclopedia, but if we can overcome them in a consistent and sensible way we will have done well indeed. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

 * To start with, I propose that I take the current material about how historians evaluate the gospels and make a new article based on it. Then that material on this page gets replaced by a summary. The "evaluating gospels" information is not strictly speaking a subset of this page. It's equally relevant to the gospels page, the Bible page, the Historical Jesus page, etc. Jonathan Tweet 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, I do not in principle object but I would like to know what others thing - I would especially like others who were vocal in the past (e.g. JohnK, AndrewC, CTSWYnekan, Haldrick, and of course Jayjg and FT2) to weigh in. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmmm... it's sometimes hard for me to wrap my head around this, because we have so many different articles. I'm thinking the biblical criticism page is weak. Perhaps we could move that information there? And while we are working on that article, instead of having one sentence on higher and lower criticism, perhaps we could create section of a paragraph or two which summarizes those articles in a little more depth? And I really don't like that the bulk of the historicity of jesus article is just a summary of the document sources for Jesus. I'm thinking the Gospel analysis from this article, and the pagan and Jewish sources from the historicity article may fit together. (and I still feel that we need to spin-out the material here that deals with the pre-Christian historical time periods in Judea). Oh, and there is also Historical-critical method, which seems like it should be merged with biblical criticism.--Andrew c 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Andrew, these are indeed related pages, but bear in mind that they relate both to the Christian and Hebrew Bibles and thus cover much broader ground than a discussion of historical (and critical0 research on say the Gospels. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Andrew, thanks for finding those bible criticism pages. They should be merged. Does "gospel criticism" have enough going for it to be its own article? I sort of think so. The issues of piecing together a biography of Jesus from the gospels includes a lot of specialized information. Naturally, it would link to the bible criticism page. Then again, the bible criticism page is so weak that it could use some meat. Historical criticism of the gospels could just be a big section (the biggest for now). As for the historicity of Jesus page, buy I hate that page. A whole lot of talk all to shore up the well-accepted idea that Jesus really existed. What's there that really deserves to be ported over? Jonathan Tweet 17:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Slr, how do we solicit opinions from the people whose opinions you want? It's pretty crazy to have gospel crticism stuff in Wikipedia and not on the bible criticism page. Jonathan Tweet 17:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest leaving messages on their talk pages. The names I suggest are those of people whose views I respect because they are based on serious research (even if I disagree with their edits) and who have participated in these discussions in the past, but it was just a partial list.  I trust you have encountered other people you have dicovered to be very knowledgable and level-headed regarding history and comparative literature and other related topics.  In any event, if "Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it seems to cover two distinct themes: I don't know if that helps, but what might be worth looking at is, to what extent either of these Note that it can be fine to have more than one article on the same core material, if the emphasis and focus differs. FT2 (Talk 15:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Background to the emergence of rabbinic judaism and early christianity: - a summary of the history and cultural status quo prior to about 1 CE, extending through into the cultural status quo around 1 - 50 CE, and a brief look at how those played out from around 50 - 200 CE.
 * How that fits into the life of Jesus; or how the life of Jesus fits into that.
 * 1) Overlaps other articles, or
 * 2) Looks at the material of other articles from a different emphasis and perspective.

 * See the section above; in reworking the intro, I feel it now matches the article better too, and makes sense. Thoughts? FT2 (Talk 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Cite query
According to Geza Vermes, such scribes were often addressed using a basic term of respect, "lord."

What is the exact term used (aramaic or hebrew or whatever) that is being translated "lord", and where's the cite for this? Thanks FT2 (Talk 16:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I will check,perhaps "adon?" Good question.  I will see if I can find the answer. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

intro sentence
Two versions of the same sentence:

 * 1) The conflict between the Jews’ demand for religious independence and the Romans’ desire to impose a common system of governance upon their entire empire (including in religious and cultural matters) meant there was a degree of underlying tension alongside peaceful governance, and four decades after Jesus’ death this culminated with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which in turn catalysed the final stage in the birth and divergence of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.
 * 2) The conflict between the Jews’ demand for religious independence and the Romans’ desire to impose a common system of political, cultural and religious governance upon their entire empire meant there was a degree of underlying tension alongside peaceful governance, and four decades after Jesus’ death this culminated with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which in turn catalysed the final stage in the birth and divergence of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.
 * 1) The conflict between the Jews’ demand for religious independence and the Romans’ desire to impose a common system of political, cultural and religious governance upon their entire empire meant there was a degree of underlying tension alongside peaceful governance, and four decades after Jesus’ death this culminated with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which in turn catalysed the final stage in the birth and divergence of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.

The second is a "run-on", but still seems better to me despite that. Gets rid of the parentheses. Thoughts? FT2 (Talk 16:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Shorter is better. Make it easy. This is the Internet, not college.
 * The Jews demanded religious independence while the Romans imposed unified rule across their empire. Roman rule was for the most part peaceful but punctuated with revolts and oppression. This conflict resulted, 40 years after Jesus' death, with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The loss of the Temple catalyzed the birth of Rabbinic Judaism and of Christianity as a separate religion. Jonathan Tweet 17:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Historical method and Jesus
I think this is irrelevant to this article- the issues are discussed elsewhere. Suggest deleting it Slackbuie 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Not sure I agree. This article is all about how history is reconstructed and viewed, and in that context it's notable if a specific group of scholars follow a different rationale, and where it didffers, and why. Can you say more why you think it would be better deleted, or whatever you're thinking? Thanks. FT2 (Talk 01:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Of course this material shouldn't be deleted. Do I detect a hidden agenda? I'll give Slack the benefit of the doubt. The material, however, is not cultural or historical background of Jesus. It should be summarized here and placed on a page about using the historical method to reconstruct the historical Jesus. My vote is "Quest for Historical Jesus," which seems made for discussions of how scholars currently use the historical method. Jonathan Tweet 04:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

 * No need for overtones of bad faith. The question's reasonable; but the answer seems very obvious. I think a separate "Quest for Historical Jesus" and "Historical Jesus" would be unnecessarily confusing. if the information on methods is excessive then an article "Methods of analysis of early Christianity related documents" would be more suitable (if longer). I don't have a problem with an article on that, if needed, but would like to see considerable debate on it, before we assume it's for the best (if we do). FT2 (Talk 15:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

 * A little too late for that, Quest for the Historical Jesus.--Andrew c 15:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Andrew, with all due respect, that page is practically just a disambiguation page for a long list of scholars. It does not explain the methods of analysis of early-Christianity related documents let alone the fruits of using such methods. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. I was pointing out that the page exists, not that it's current form is exactly the same as JT's proposal. --Andrew c 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * FT2, you say 'I think a separate "Quest for Historical Jesus" and "Historical Jesus" would be unnecessarily confusing.' I disagree. Articles with controversial content are often overburdened with information about the process by which the information is derived. "Historical Jesus" and "How historians reconstruct the Historical Jesus" are two separate (but related) topics. A reader curious about who Jesus was (from a historical perspective) deserves an article on that topic that doesn't ask them to wade through an analysis of the historical method. Likewise, a reader who questions the validity of the historical Jesus deserves an article about how historians fashion that reconstruction. But they should be separate articles. Quest for Historical Jesus is a little loopy, but we need a "How historians reconstruct the Historical Jesus" page, and I think that should be it. Jonathan Tweet 18:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the titles are confusing. With clarity of thought a separation might be a good idea. But not under such similar titles. FT2 (Talk 03:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have three distinct though related problems: first, deciding on reasonable "content forks." POV forks are forbidden, but content forks are allowed and inevitable when complex articles get too long. The question is, how to divide up the various topics relating to Jesus. Second, decide how to redistribute content that is currently in the variety of articles linked to Jesus. Third, decide on the the appropriate titles for these articles. Many article titles were decided on an ad hoc basis, and some surely ought to be changed. My main point is that the titles of articles should depend on their contents which should depend on how we decide is the best way to organize a series of related articles - and that how we organize material should not be dictated by the current titles of articles we have. I think that is putting the cart before the horse. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's my proposal.
 * Historical Jesus = "This is the page I go to in order to find out who (historians say) Jesus was." That's straightforward, a lot like any other article on any other historical figure.
 * CAHBOJ = "The page I read to find out about Jesus' cultural and historical background." Early Christian context could stay with CAHBOJ, but it's not really Jesus' background, is it?
 * Quest for the Historical Jesus = "the page I read to find out how historians arrive at historical Jesus and the history of the history of Jesus." (Name could change.)
 * Gospel criticism seems like a valid topc for its own page. It's of interest to people reading about the Gospels or early Christian as well as to those reading about Jesus. I'd stick it on a current page, one of the Bible criticism pages. Could also go on QftHJ.
 * Counter proposals? Jonathan Tweet 14:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Slackbuie replies!:

Glad to have started this discussion, which I think might save users of Wikipedia a good deal of confusion if we can sort it out. Let me answer one or two points and then give my proposals:
 * Jonathan Tweet says not to delete this, but then suggests moving this stuff elsewhere. I agree that this content ought to be somewhere, but it largely is elsewhere, so why not just put in the appropriate links? Jonathan seems to agree it ought not to be here, for the reason he himself gives later on: 'A reader curious about who Jesus was (from a historical perspective) deserves an article on that topic that doesn't ask them to wade through an analysis of the historical method'- I agree with that. And there's no hidden agenda, by the way. I'm just interested in getting this material into a more readable and logical form.
 * Jonathan suggests using 'The Quest for the Historical Jesus' and FT2 wonders about the difference between 'The Quest for the Historical Jesus' and another page with 'historical Jesus' in the title. Let me comment on both proposals: I think you should have a page which Jonathan calls "the page I read to find out how historians arrive at historical Jesus and the history of the history of Jesus"- call this simply 'Historical Jesus'. It would be misleading to call it 'The Quest for the Historical Jesus', for 'The Quest' is one (very important) strand within the history of historical Jesus research. I suspect it deserves its own page, even at the risk of overlapping with the broader field. Clearly you would need good links between then. Agreed that at the moment Quest for the Historical Jesus does look a bit like just a page of links to different scholars, but someone might want to make it much more narrative.
 * Finally, despite Jonathan Tweet's aspersions about me I mostly like his proposals for reordering this material, but I make the following comments:

 * 'Historical Jesus = "This is the page I go to in order to find out who (historians say) Jesus was." That's straightforward, a lot like any other article on any other historical figure'.

I entirely agree!
 * 'CAHBOJ = "The page I read to find out about Jesus' cultural and historical background."'

Early Christian context and Jesus' background are, though, two different things- different time period from 1st Century CE but also for a few centuries afterwards) and different geography (not just Palestine but much of the Mediterranean). So separate page(s) on early Christianity, please.

 * 'Quest for the Historical Jesus = "the page I read to find out how historians arrive at historical Jesus and the history of the history of Jesus." (Name could change.)'.

Yes, but don't call it this: it would need to be called something like 'History of historical Jesus research', with a separate, linked page called 'The Quest for the Historical Jesus', for the reasons I give above.

 * 'Gospel criticism seems like a valid topc for its own page. It's of interest to people reading about the Gospels or early Christian as well as to those reading about Jesus. I'd stick it on a current page, one of the Bible criticism pages. Could also go on QftHJ.'

Gospel criticism is, indeed, a kind of biblical criticism. But the 'Quest', and indeed the whole subject of this historical background of Jesus or reconstruction of his life is not the sum total of historical-critical research on the Gospels. 'Gospel criticism' would also include textual criticism, literary approaches, theological matter, and perhaps more.

Hope that's all clear! Slackbuie 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I think this goes wider than this one article. if other editors are agreeable, I'd like to see this discussion moved to "Wikiproject:Jesus", not just a section within this one article. At that pointm, and after debate, we can (in usual Wiki style) post up all the various proposals and see what comments and views (support/object) each one attracts. FT2 (Talk 02:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Earlier (in archived discussion) JohnKenney and CTSWYneken had valuable and thoughtful points about these questions, I would like to hear from them before we make any decisions. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Slack, I'm glad I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Meanwhile, I'm no longer sure I have the heart for this project. It seems pretty clear that this page covers at least three separate topics and should be split up, and it would be great for Wikipedia to have a coherent set of articles about Jesus from a historical perspective. If the attitude is "Let's fix it," I'm in. But if it's "Let's make sure that we have buy-in from everyone before we do anything," then I'll probably learn to live with the articles the way they are. Unable to give up so easy, I'll make one last suggestion: I cut this article up into its discrete parts, stick those parts on existing pages or make new ones, and interlink the resulting articles. Simply put, this article would be better as separate articles than as one. It would be a big organizational change but the content would be the same. Once the article is split up into its component parts, we can work on each one. I just can't understake such a task as part of a committee. If people would give me leeway to go to town, I would. If folks want to make sure first that I'm going to do it the way everyone will agree on, then I'll wait for someone else to take on the task. Jonathan Tweet 15:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I think once the cake is cut (ie; subject divided into its separate conceptual articles), it'll be easy to decide what goes in each article. Deciding what is the best way to cut the cake and whether it should be cut differently, is the big task, and that's what this question has always been around. Possibly best handled at wikiproject level though, since it affects multiple articles, not as an article talk page discussion. FT2 (Talk 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we move this debate to: WikiProject_Jesus/Articles ? And we probably need to let editors of Historical Jesus, Historicity of Jesus and Quest for the Historical Jesus know we're discussing this question too, as it affects those articles. FT2 (Talk 19:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm for FT2's proposal. Seems a good idea to involve everyone in this. Slackbuie 20:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there is a huge difference before requiring everyone who has ever edited the article to provide their approval for any change, versus inviting comments from people who have repeatedly made thoughtful comments. I am frankly not sure what Jonathan Tweet meant when he wrote that he would detach from working on this article if it's "Let's make sure that we have buy-in from everyone before we do anything," All i said is that there are two very knowledgable interested people whose thoughts are worth getting before we take decisve action.  I do not see how this is either unreasonable or burdensome. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The project page is unused. I went ahead and moved the Gospel Analysis section to the Biblical Criticsm page and summarized it here. The summary could be longer, but this page is already too long. Jonathan Tweet 20:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the First Temple to Roman Rule material to a new page, Historical background of Jesus. I have summarized the First Temple material. Next, to summarize the Second Temple material. I've lifted the Roman section up a level in priority and put the earlier history all under a "historical background" section. This whole page is too long, and material needs to be moved to other pages or new ones. Jonathan Tweet 17:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I moved the Historical background page to History of ancient Israel and Judah (1000-63 BCE). While this may not be the best title, and I would be open for change, I feel strongly that an article that doesn't mention Jesus, and is about the history of a region/people from 1000-63 BCE should not be just that, not a POV fork of the Jesus articles. -Andrew c 20:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. It was my understanding that folks intended this information to be not just history in gedneral but specifically that which would be relevant to an understanding of Jesus. But I can hardly take exception to someone moving forward without a consensus. Jonathan Tweet 21:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed chunk(s)
Removed the following detail, seemed the text didnt justify its inclusion or belongs in other articles:
 * Jesus may have been born in Nazareth, and Joseph may have been his biological father. The assertion that he was born in Bethlehem, and that Jesus was the son of Joseph and a descendant of David, would have substantiated the claim that Jesus was the Jewish messiah.
 * Jesus may have been anointed by John, at which point he could literally claim to be messiah, which means "anointed one." The phrase "son of God" was often used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to an especially righteous person (see Names and titles of Jesus); some suggest that God adopted Jesus as His son when Jesus was baptized by John, a view known as adoptionism.
 * the account of the Virgin Birth, and the claim that "son of God" means that Jesus was literally God's son and divine, represent a Christian view that may have developed during the period when Christianity was breaking away from Judaism. Virgin births of a flawless divine Son of God who is sacrificed are similar to beliefs of other, non-Jewish, religions at the time, and these may have influenced early Christianity, especially as larger and larger numbers of non-Jews were drawn to the new religion.

The italicizwed part I have kept though, it's useful background. FT2 (Talk 04:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

religious beliefs
1st century Jewish beliefs, especially those that rose after the Torah was redacted (c. 400 BCE), deserve a section on this page. They're certainly relevant to a historical understanding of Jesus. Jonathan Tweet 15:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There aren't clear "Jewish beliefs" - there are the beliefs of the Pharisees, Saducees, and Essenes primarily, most of which are spelled out. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Many weasels in one short section... rewording or citing needed

 * Many historians argue that the Gospels took their final form after the Great Revolt and the destruction of the Temple, and need to be understood in this context.

 * By contrast, many historians argue that Jesus was Jewish, and that his life and teachings must be understood in the context of 1st century Judaism. Moreover, they depict first and second century Judaism — especially after the destruction of the Temple — as being in a state of flux, consisting of a variety of sects.

 * Many view Christians as much as the Pharisees as constituting competing movements within Judaism that decisively broke only after the Bar Kokhba's revolt, when the successors of the Pharisees claimed hegemony over all Judaism, and Christianity emerged as a new religion.

I've tried to clean these up a bit, but they really need citing and attention from someone more knowledgable. FT2 (Talk 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(**) Details of re-ordering:

FT2 (Talk 21:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Great revolt, emergence of rabbinic judaism, emergence of christianity, in one section.
 * 2) Historical analysis methodology in another section.
 * 3) Split of the "many historians" (above) into two places -- 1st and 3rd into the introduction of one section, and the 2nd as the conclusion of the previous section. Some weasels removed, but still needs citation.

 * I have added some citations at some of these points Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hittites
The Hittite empire collapsed long before the cormation of the Judean state. Look, I have nothing against Hittites or anyone from what is today called Syria or Anatolia, they just weren't important at the historical moment of this article. Certainly, an article on the Ancient Near East or the history and religion oif Israel in its ancient near Eastern context would have to talk about Hitites and other groups - they just aren't appropriate here. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 * What is the "historical moment" of this article? The First century? In that case much of the current article would not apply. Is the "historical moment" the entire History of the Jews up to the first century? In that case the Hittites would deserve at least a mention. 75.0.9.51 20:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The particular section you were editing discusses institutins that developed with the establishment of the monarchy and the First Temble app 1000 BCE - 500 BCE Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Battle of Kadesh is generally dated to 1274 bce, a few generations before the establishment of the First Temple. Are we assuming the Jews were nonexistant before the First Temple? (The Merneptah Stele has them there in 1208) Is pre-Temple Judaism irrelevant to the cultural and historical background of Jesus? 75.0.1.11 20:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean Israelites - Jews definitely did not exist prior to the Hellenistic period. In any event your comment is a non-sequitor - the point of this section is not the history of Israel as a whole, it is the development of key institutions especially the monarchy, the Temple, scribes and prophets.  Please provide me with a verifiable source that claims that Anatolian polities were infuential in the formation of these institutions.  If you can provide a source that says this, in it goes. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The topic is "Cultural and historical background of Jesus", not foundation of the monarchy. And here is your source: H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, page 4: "From the cultural viewpoint the country was primarily exposed to continued influences emanating from the oldest centres of civilization in the Near East - Mesopotamia and Egypt - centres that had emerged into prominence towards the end of the fourth millennium. Moreover, the cultural forces of Anatolia also penetrated into Palestine via Syria, as did those of the Aegean Basin, sweeping in from the west specifically in the Mycenaean phase. These major cultures of the day often came into conflict there, but even more frequently clashed with the various local cultures, foremost among those being that of the Canaanites. At times, however, symbiosis was attained. The net result was the engendering on the soil of Palestine of a dynamic spiritual and material creativity that expressed itself in continual change and renewal and never lapsed into tranquil passivity." 64.149.82.109 18:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing an appropriate source. Nevertheless, 1100+ years before the birth of Jesus is not what i would call "historical context."  The Davidic monarchy (1000 years before the birth of Jesus0 is included because it is part of the cultural context which is not some vague amorphous inclusive thing, it refers to specific beliefs and institutions that play a role in the Gospel account of Jesus' life: the importance of the house of David; the origin of the Temple; the origins of the Saducees and Pharisees.  If Hittite culture influenced these, then it is worth noting that.  But how did they influence this context?  And according to what source? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"The net result [of exposure to Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Anatolian and Mycenaean culture] was the engendering on the soil of Palestine of a dynamic spiritual and material creativity that expressed itself in continual change and renewal and never lapsed into tranquil passivity." Highly relevant to the Cultural and historical background of Jesus. 64.149.82.109 19:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You have to be more specific than that. What role or contribution specifically does Hittite culture play in the cultural background of Jesus?  Note: I have not removed the reference to Anatolia, and i won't.  But if you want to mention the Hittites specifically, there needs to be a specific manifestation of the influence. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Anatolia is fine by me, how about adding Mycenaean? 64.149.82.109 20:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just tell me what elements of Mycenaean culture influenced jesus? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cultural/historical background: Pottery, Olive, Grape, some sort of written language connection, i.e. not Hieroglyphs or Cuneiform. 64.149.82.109 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with helping us understand Jesus in contrast to anyone else of his day? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just cultural/historical background. Different than say Indian or Chinese or Japanese or Ethiopian ... 64.149.82.109 22:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What exactly do you mean? Culture refers to learned ways of thinking, acting and feeling. In what way did the Hittites or Mycenean's pass on a specific way of thinking or acting that we need to understad to underswtand jesus? Jesus did not get written language from the Myceneans, he did not get grapes or olives from them, or pottery - and besides, these are things shared by losts of people, they are not important in the context of Jesus' life and teachings or what people believed about him.Show me exactly how which elements of Mycenean culture influenced jesus in what way? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"a brief history of the Jews: why I think Jesus was an intinerent preacher"
Why is "article" this arranged as if it was an essay entitled "a brief history of the Jews: why I think Jesus was an intinerent preacher" rather than an encyclopedic article about the cultural background to the biblical accounts of Jesus?

Any kind of summary of Jewish history (as with the history of most long lasting civilisations) will inevitably run the risk of missing out important details in ways that could be seen as introducing large amounts of bias (whether intentional or not).

I don't see why the "culture" part has to be so immersed in the "history" that it almost sinks without trace. You can talk about the Culture of the United States without it becoming a history article, you can do the same about the Culture of England and Culture of France and Culture of Spain, and so on; for ancient cultures, you can talk about the Culture of ancient Rome, and Culture of Ancient Egypt. I really don't see why 1st century Judea is somehow so entirely different that history must be the dominating factor.

If you were a tourist in the ancient world, a history book wouldn't be much use to you to tell you what 1st century judea was like right now.

Clinkophonist (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

 * This article is a daughter article of the Jesus article. It is meant to do exactly what it says: provide the historical and cultural context for Jesus' life.  It draws on works by historians of Jesus and of Hellenistic Jewish history to explicate whtever they consider important context.  As the title points out, this includes cultural context and historical context.  Given that Jesus and his followers actully quote texts that they presume to be over a thousand years old, and that two Gospels introduce Jesus by tracing the geaology of Joseph back to David, it is no surprise that the "historical context" covers this history.  As to your other point, why first century Judean culture is different from other cultures, well, it isn't - but all major scholars of any culture consider history to be an essential component of culure.  I am not talking bout guidebooks for tourist, but actual academic scholarship. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Work by historians... is fine. But anything covering such a subject would by definition mainly require input from such people. This is a given.
 * On the other hand, you don't give a potted history of Russia, 900-1900, when you want to explain the background of Communism.
 * You agree that (a) first century Judean culture is not different from other cultures
 * Therefore I fail to understand why you insist that this article be written like a summary of [Jewish] history, rather than like the other articles about historic cultures (eg. Culture of the United States, Culture of England, Culture of France, Culture of Spain, Culture of ancient Rome, Culture of Ancient Egypt) which do not obsess about history like this. Clinkophonist (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * uh, are you asking for my own opinion? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

some editing
I did a little editing, in part to make the historical trends clearer, and also to cut the article down - my edits and reorganizing got it down by 7 kb, not much but it is a little tighter at least. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Bryggen inscriptions

The Bryggen inscriptions are a find of some 670 medieval runic inscriptions on wood (mostly pine) and bone found from 1955 and forth at Bryggen (and its surroundings) in Bergen, Norway. It has been called the most important runic find in the twentieth century. Before the find of these inscriptions, there was doubt whether the runes were ever used for anything else than inscriptions of names and solemn phrases. The Bryggen find showed the everyday use that runes had in this area, and presumably in other parts of Scandinavia as well. Another important aspect of the find was that many of the inscriptions were obviously at least as recent as the 14th century. Previously it was believed that the use of runes in Norway had died out long before.

The inscriptions have numbers for Bergen finds, mostly "B" followed by three figures.

Many of the inscriptions follow the formula Eysteinn á mik (Eysteinn owns me, B001), and were most likely used as markers of property – like modern-day name tags. Some contain short messages of different types, such as Ást min, kyss mik (my darling, kiss me, B017) and others have longer messages such as business letters and orders. Yet others contain short religious inscriptions, often in Latin, such as Rex Judæorum In nomine Patris Nazarenus (B005) and may have been intended as amulets.

The inscriptions are currently kept at Bryggens Museum in Bergen, and some are on display.

Other interesting inscriptions

 * One of the inscriptions, listed as N B145, refers to the pagan Norns. It has both a complete Skaldic dróttkvætt verse and Virgil's famous verse "Omnia vincit amor et nos cedamus amori" engraved.
 * Another one, listed as N B368 M was written on the wax tablet and was supposed to be hidden under the layer of wax with some trivial writing. It was a top-secret message calling to someone to change the sides in the civil war: "I would ask you this, that you leave your party. Cut a letter in runes to Ólafr Hettusveinn's sister. She is in the convent in Bergen. Ask her and your kin for advice when you want to come to terms. You, surely, are less stubborn than the Earl." The letter was continued on another wax tablet. Ólafr Hettusveinn is probably Olav Ugjæva, died in 1169.
 * N B257 (dated ca. 1335) is a poetic charm, apparently a piece of love magic, similar in content to a curse in the Eddaic poem Skírnismál.
 * Likewise, N B380 contains a pagan inscription, reading ”May you be healthy, and in good spirits. May Þórr receive you, may Óðinn own you.”

title: Bryggen inscriptions