User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 10

Jesus Context Paragraphs

Dear SL:

I hope Passover was joyful and restful for you. We're just back from in-laws for Easter. I'm not sure when I'll get to it, but my plan is to work down through the article from the top -- if I can get people to stop playing with the first three paragraphs! I haven't even been able to finish the notes! Just as I get close, we have other ideas people want to explore!

I'm almost afraid to look at what has happened in three days I've been away! --CTSWyneken 21:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear SL:

Boy, that Cultural page is a mess. If time permits, I'll go out there and work on it. Is the talk page very busy? --CTSWyneken 16:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should stay away. I still have to finish up with the main Jesus page. I do get a little irritated when we claim that most scholars view the NT as historically inaccurate. I don't know how one would establish that. I can name a half-dozen voices that consider it basically accurate, although a bunch would discount the miraculous and would ascribe to his disciples many of the theological statements... --CTSWyneken 19:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive my rather narrow focus on the second paragraph of the main article. My objection is not to calling folks who advocate higher criticism as Critical scholars (all senses of the word are true from my POV! 8-) ), but the set we were assembling in the 2nd paragraph. These had a much larger range of schools. If you are doing an article on those who buy the presuppositions and methods of the Higher Critical school, it is fine to call them such. I'll be sure not to add Paul Maier, N. T. Wright and Donald Carson to the set. ;-) --CTSWyneken 20:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure. The best I've seen is the term: "Historical Grammatical" but that's more an exegetical term than a historical term. I'll ask about, if I remember.

By the way, Humus Sapiens is up for an adminship. Thought you'd like to know. --CTSWyneken 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, thank you for returning some sanity to the Jesus page. I've been considering taking a wikibreak--or at the very least removing the Jesus and Christianity articles from my watchlist. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 13:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Would You Drop by Martin Luther?

SlimVirgin and Doright have opened an edit war to place Luther in both the catagory of antisemitism and antisemitic people. You know how this is likely to inflame passions. Could you add a voice of reason to this discussion. Maybe two of us can settle it. --CTSWyneken 01:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yes, I think your voice would be helpful. My objection is not to classing Luther as an antisemite -- some scholars do see him that way -- or as a part of the history of antisemitism -- which, willingly or not, he is. The only observation I have about the former is that a fair number of Luther scholars class him as anti-Judaic because his attack was not on a biological but religious basis. Since the field is divided on this, I think it better to class him with the history of anti-semitism. Of course, others immediately see this as a sign that I'm antisemitic (ironic in that a family we're close to have had us at their son's Bar Mitzvah and their first daughter's Bat Mizvah). They will take no disagreement with them as legitimate.

So, my objection is not to class him in one or the other. I object to putting him in both. It is both redundant and misleading. That is why I was satisfied when Doright deleted the other catagory.

We do, however, have the matter of which catagory is better.

I really wish that folks would avoid setting off my partisans. I have hours in calming them down that was wholly unnecessary.

So, yes, your voice is helpful, as a Jew. I will post it. --CTSWyneken 19:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you help us in a vote on the cat? Talk:Martin Luther. Drboisclair 00:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Marcosantezana

I'm starting to work on the Marcosantezana arbitration request. How would you describe the situation? Fred Bauder 13:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear SLR, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

List of British Jews and Jewish Year Book

Please see the dialogue I am having with Grace Note re use of the Jewish Year Book as a valid source. I am sure that when you voted for the current policy on the List of British Jews, you intended to ensure that it was a list of people who were undoubtedly Jewish. Did you want to give carte blanche for quibbles that would allow the deletion of perfectly valid entries? Please read the talk page. Elkie Brooks was a good example, where the evidence adduced would convince any reasonable person that she is Jewish (and indeed Jayjg was convinced) but she was still deleted. (I have since found a quotation from the Jewish Chronicle and restored her.)

The persistent querying of the Jewish Year Book is another example. I don't know if you would support the deletion of the whole list, but whatever your view, given that the list exists it cannot make sense to delete several eminent undoubted Jews on dubious grounds. Please make your views known. - Newport 10:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sedition and Jesus

Codex Sinaiticus is challenging the crime of sedition in the second paragraph of the Jesus article. Since you helped to compile the sources, I thought that I would let you know. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Natural selection II

There is a lot of stuff in hat article that needs to go.... It gets worse and worse and more unreadable with every edit... KimvdLinde 14:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'll try to take a look at it tonight. I'm at a conference today (and my statistics students grades are due in today (yesterday? tomorrow?) and... but the chances are good that I'll have a some amount of insomnia time to spend on this soon. --Cheers, Pete.Hurd 14:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just taken a quick look - yes I think it's bad, some major errors have appeared, some almost totally incomprehensible writing and still no V RS and logical coherence. Can't do much now - in exam period here. If there were enough bricks laid down then I know enough to help build, but I don't have the time to do anything constructive with what is there just now. Gleng 16:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we just have to wait till the ArbCom case is over, because this only will result in edit warring. Unless we want to push him over WP:3RR, which I think is not appropriate. KimvdLinde 16:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a look at this again, and can't see a quick fix. It's a major rethink and rewrite that's needed. There are 3 classes of problems that I see with the article, 1) specific errors To take just one example, "Population and evolutionary geneticists agree that most new mutations are deleterious." Well no, this is not true unless you're talking only about changes in protein coding regions, and most mutations aren't in these regions. Most mutations are not overtly deleterious or advantageous, but are "neutral". But they may affect the timing or degree of protein expression, or exactly where it is expressed, or exactly how its expression is regulated. Now my point here might seem pedantic, but it's not - the accumulation of neutral mutations over time, each of which has little overt consequences, can provide the raw material for rapid evolutionary change through natural selection when changing environmental conditions give significance to previously minor, unimportant differences.

2) the article is Darwin-centric. Now I think that Darwin was one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. But to elevate him to the status of guru is dangerous - it makes natural selection and evolution look as dogmatic and religious as the alternatives, and it traps the article into following his mistakes and blind alleys too. I'd rather see Darwin stripped from this article almost completely.

3)the writing uses jargon to give a false authority to dogmatic statements - it's obscure where it most needs to be clean precise and logical. It needs to be built up carefully with clear explanation, a logical structure, and careful referencing. I think it is so important to draw as clear a contrast as possible between how scientists argue their cases and how pseudoscientists do, for this article almost more than any other.

I think that this is what Kim wants to try to achieve, and I'll be pleased to help when I can find time, and maybe the sandbox that Kim has set up is a place to develop and eventually seek consensus to replace the whole article. It could be a frustrating diversion to try to fix this article without a fully developed alternative.Gleng 12:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I was already planning on a major writing drive this weekend on the sandbox version I am writing. Maybe it is time to get that one to an acceptable version. I want to make some graphics to explian the issue in simple terms. So, lets work together at that page this weekend, and see if we have a reasonable version by the end of it. We can than continue to work on the sandbox version, and replace whenever here is a substantial better version. KimvdLinde 14:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you do me a small favor before you are gone, and move User:KimvdLinde/Modern usage of natural selection to User:KimvdLinde/Natural selection which due to editing, I can not do. (Some admin right would be so handly at times) KimvdLinde 15:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not done yet as far as I am concerned. But it is getting there. Of course, Marcos will want to have his say about it. KimvdLinde 14:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I will work on it again this evening ( ia m now at work). The evolution by means of natural selection needs work, and there needs to be a section on directional, stabalizing etc. Aspects as mutation accumulation and mutation-selection balance needs to be addressed, and the Genetic variation page needs to become a real page because genetic variation is more than mutations. KimvdLinde 15:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you found the new version by now. I am sure it can be improved (I aim at getting this to a GA). Let me know what you think. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Kim's new page

Thumbs up from me. If it comes to a vote, please include my comment (I really won't be around after today). Guettarda 23:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Live bee

Not my line - I stole it from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Graft 15:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'd still like to hear what you think of my last reply on that "Misconceptions" section on Evolution. Graft 15:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Natural Selection

I'm quite busy at the mo. I'll try to take a look at the new Marcos edits! I'll comment on Kim's page in discussion — Axel147 19:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Gone live!

I just copied the newly developed version of the natural selection page to the main space after it was clear that most editors supported the new version over the current version. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if that happens, I will let you know. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Geza Vermes

The Trinity - a Muslim Perspective A lecture by English convert to Islam, Abdal-Hakim Murad, given to a group of Christians in Oxford, 1996

I have to confess I am not a Biblical scholar, armed with the dazzling array of philological qualifications deployed by so many others. But it does seem to me that a consensus has been emerging among serious historians, pre-eminent among whom are figures such as Professor Geza Vermes of Oxford, that Jesus of Nazareth himself never believed, or taught, that he was the second person of a divine trinity.

- Abdal-Hakim Murad[1]

I know you have studied Vermes; was this your conclusion as well? Drogo Underburrow 23:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, its valuable to get a confirmation of this POV. Drogo Underburrow 11:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Race edit

I noticed the edit - I was quite hurt that you didn't include my name ;) I was going to have a look at it, but for the moment I am still trying to catch up after being away from the computer/work for two weeks (one week camping in the Great Smoky Mountains, one week at a field station on the North Carolina side). Guettarda 15:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I am back from the trip. And they were amazingly cold - there was a good bit of snow on Clingmans Dome on May 20, and near-freezing temperatures many nights. I had a good time, but it's good to be home. Guettarda 12:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

For my own information...

I asked Guettarda this question and he responded but suggested that you may be able to give a more thoughtful answer. As I stated earlier, my knowledge on this time period is limited. Or at least,in this particular region of the world and the cultures therein during this period. Well, my question to Guettarda regarded the distinction between Hebrew and Jewish culture. There seems to be none made in the way the terms are used popularly but does one exist? Is "Hebrewness" a merely an ethnic identity or is it a cultural one as well? I know all the contemporary distinctions between Zionism and Judaism and Israel but I am not aware of that one. And to take that question further, my understanding of Jesus and the Jewish faith was that he was somewhat of a rebel against it, at least in practice if not in intention. So would Jesus's cultural/ethnic identity be more Hebrew than Judaic? This is something which has crossed my mind before but I haven't had time to research it and often forget to do so. --Strothra 15:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

BCE/CE Debate

Thank you, SI, for asking me to look in to this debate. I as a "conservative" Christian scholar am not offended by the use of Before the Common Era/Common Era, but being a scholastic individual I might tend to have less hangups. I will also respond to the article in question. I think that remembering that there are other persons in the world who are not Christian we need to express ourselves about our date and time in a way that is more inclusive. Christians can be happy that it is the birth of Jesus of Nazareth that is the meridian that separates the eras. Kindness and understanding are building blocks to a happier community in which diversity is not considered a threat. As a Christian I am embarrassed that my fellow Christians would treat you in a way other than in seeking consensus. Shalom, --Drboisclair 18:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, etc.

I fully agree with you that looking at Jesus in context of Judaism is perfectly appropriate, and so on and so forth. I fully appreciate the significance of the work of Sanders, Fredriksen, et al, and if you'll look at my broader contributions to Jesus-related subjects, you'll see that this view of the historical Jesus is the one I'm most sympathetic to, and find most convincing. That being said, one mustn't lose sight of the basic fact that the only reason Jesus is significant is because of his connection to Christianity. If Jesus were just a Jewish teacher who was executed by Pontius Pilate for sedition, we wouldn't have an article called Cultural and historical background of Jesus, any more than we have articles on the Cultural and historical background of "the Egyptian", or whatever other minor Jewish figures from the first century who are briefly mentioned in Josephus.

That being said, I'm not convinced that we should have an article called Cultural and historical background of Jesus at all. The Historical Jesus article needs to be seriously improved with discussions of the various scholarly reconstructions of the historical Jesus. This would clearly include references to the way scholars like Sanders, et al, have interpreted Jesus' relationship to his Jewish context, as well as the way scholars like Crossan have, more or less, divorced him from his Jewish context (I don't find Crossan, et al's, views very convincing, but they are nevertheless significant and ought to be discussed). But Cultural and historical background of Jesus is a totally weird article. As I mentioned on the talk page, I can't think of a single other wikipedia article that is anything like it. It seems to me that the article should probably be deconstructed and its contents moved elsewhere. Material relating specifically to Jesus belongs in Historical Jesus (which is desperately in need of a total rewrite), while most of the article, i.e., material relating only to the broader context of late Second Temple Judaism in which Jesus arose, ought to be moved to its own article that doesn't pretend the subject only relates to Jesus. I'm sure you'll agree that most of the material in Cultural and historical background of Jesus is of much broader significance than simply its relationship to Jesus and Christianity. It is also of the utmost importance for understanding the origins of rabbinic Judaism, as well. As such, the current location seems inappropriate, and the article should be in a neutral location which allows it to be equally seen as a part of the background to both Christianity and modern Judaism. Once this is done, I see no reason to object to the placement of the Judaism template on the article. john k 15:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reply. We seem to be largely on the same page. To be honest, I'm not sure that actually merging the cultural and historical background article with Historical Jesus is the best way to go. Unless we already have an article on late Second Temple Judaism (or whatever), I think most of the material belongs there. I think that the Historical Jesus article probably can, however, be expanded with briefer discussions of many of the issues discussed in the "background" article. But it requires a wholesale rewrite. In terms of my own interest, "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," I suppose - I'm generally not very good about following through with things. I'm also in France for the next six months (dissertation research), and thus don't really have any access to books. I'd definitely like to work on this issue, but I don't know that I'd be able to do that much direct research and so forth. If you're willing to take the lead, I can definitely work on editing, discussing the best way to go about things, and so forth, and I'd be more than happy to do that. john k 18:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I think that the ideal would be for the Historical Jesus article to have brief discussions of the historical context issues, but I think that the current "Cultural and historical background article", with some editing, would still be good as its own article on a purely Jewish theme. Does this make sense? john k 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that a page on Late Second Temple Judaism (or what have you) which discusses the ways the history of this period led to the emergence of both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism would be a good way to go. As to what is needed in Historical Jesus, I'm not really sure. The article as it stands is of the suck - it's an FAQ with answers to such questions as "What language did Jesus speak" and "Was Jesus literate". I'm not sure how the material on background should fit into this page because we don't yet have a real "Historical Jesus" article for it to fit into. john k 13:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that the current Cultural and historical background of Jesus article, with minor editing, would work fairly well as a general article dealing with both - it already does this to a fair extent. And I fully agree that the content of "Cultural and historical background" is much better than that of Historical Jesus. My problem with the cultural and historical background article is that its existence as an article on that particular subject is wonky and it doesn't really resemble any other wikipedia articles that I'm familiar with. A fair amount of the material in the article should probably be moved into Historical Jesus. In addition, in my view the historical Jesus article ought to pretty much remove all its current content and instead take a more historiographical perspective. The "quest for the historical Jesus" of the 19th century ought to be discussed, and Schweitzer and all that, as well as the views of various recent scholars. john k 14:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to work on it, but two issues commend themselves 1) the aforementioned fact that I don't have any books available to me, and likely will not for the next 5.5 months. 2) I'm currently on a dial-up connection that gives me limited hours, which I don't particularly want to spend on hardcore wikipedia editing (I've mostly just been mucking about talk pages for the last few weeks). Tomorrow, however, I should be getting a broadband connection, and hopefully will have more time to devote to this. Why don't we return to the subject tomorrow? john k 14:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)