Primacy of Peter[edit]

The intro of this article claims "Peter, on whom Jesus conferred primacy", and doesn't have a citation. In trying to track this down, I came across Primacy of Peter#Matthew 16:18. Am I reading that correctly that for example, Catholics interpret this as putting Peter in charge of the Church, and most Protestants don't? There's also the question of whether secular scholars find this passage to be reliable; Primacy of Peter#Primacy of Peter among the Apostles says most scholars agree Peter was the first leader of the Apostles, but it doesn't say they agree that's because Jesus put him in charge. Should we re-word the intro here to avoid this question entirely, or explain the different interpretations? If the claim stays in, it should get a citation since primacy isn't explained in the body. -- Beland (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know that much either about the primacy of Peter, but I do know that Peter played a prominent role in the early Jewish-Christian community. His vison of the risen Jesus may have been the pivotal event around which the post-crucifixion understanding of Jesus developed. Yet, Peter's role seems to have been taken over pretty soon by James. Matthew wasw ritten, of course, decades after the events it describes, and incorporates later understandongs. That's how far my knowledge goes, regarding this topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This claim has since been removed from the intro. -- Beland (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portraits of Jesus[edit]

Regarding this removal, edit-summary

Scholars involved in the third quest for the historical Jesus or in the 20th century-- not the 1st century

The topic is Jesus. Wikipedia summarizes what the relevant scholarsbip has to say about a topic. You don't expect us to throw-out any source which is not from the 1st century, do you? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rework tahc chat 15:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whole article needs attention from a secular expert[edit]

As someone who personally leans towards a mythicist account of the origins of Jesus, and has read enough material on other wikipedia pages and in books and other sources to have a sense that there is a great deal that is simply unknown about 1st century Christianity, but am not a scholar and am not equipped to rewrite this page with more rigorous treatment of the relevant claims and more serious citations, I just want to call attention to the issue that this page appears to largely represent a traditional Christian account of the subject, and not a modern critical one. I came here to learn more about what is known and what is not, but I find very little clear separation here between history and tradition. It may be justified to tag the whole page as having multiple issues: neutrality, needing attention from an expert, not a worldwide view of the subject, etc (though perhaps one of these could stand for all of them, for now), but I am not very experienced at Wikipedia editing and don't want to just do a drive by tagging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.246.116 (talk • contribs)

@24.56.246.116: – perhaps you could provide specific examples of where there is very little clear separation here between history and tradition so that the issues can be addressed – looking at the dates of the books in the "Sources" section, nearly all are after 1960 and many after 2000, so the scholarship of the article is fairly current – according to the edit history, beginning about February 2019 right up to the present, the article has undergone a major review by some very competent editors – some other articles that covered the same time period were merged with this one – Epinoia (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with our contributor here. The article seems to lack in major areas of difference between non-Jewish Christians and the Jewish following of Jesus of Nazareth. As is well-known to historians who specialise in this area, the Jewish following of Jesus of Nazareth (particularly the Ebionites) saw Jesus as having a human father and mother, i.e. no immaculate conception. To them, he was called the "son of God" only because of what they saw in him to be charismatic qualities. Remember, too, that these Jewish followers of Jesus kept the Law of Moses, read only from the Gospel of the Hebrews, and they repudiated the writings of the Apostle Paul. There is, therefore, much to be added in this article to give it more its critical flair. A good source for this information is Klijn's "Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects," published by Brill, in Leiden.Davidbena (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplicate phrase[edit]

The following phrase is duplicated twice in different sections: "The Didache and Shepherd of Hermas are usually placed among the writings of the Apostolic Fathers although their authors are unknown."

Should one of the occasions be deleted? Dimadick (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sourced?[edit]

@Joshua Jonathan: Please articulate your objections to my edits. That the text is "sourced" is not in itself a justification for preserving it. ImTheIP (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ImTheIP:
  • diff, edit-summary "uncontroversial? no need for the quotes," changed

Christianity "emerged as a sect of Judaism in Roman Palestine"

into

Christianity began as a Jewish sect

"emerged" points to 'arising' out of a Jewish context, whereas "began" reifies Chrsitianity somewhat as an independent entity. "Roman Palestine" provides essential information about location and context; no need to remove this.
  • diff, edit-summary " this seem very tangential to the topic," removed

A central concern in 1st century Judaism was the covenant with God, and the status of the Jews as the chosen people of God. (Ehrman 2012, p.272) Many Jews believed that this covenant would be renewed with the coming of the Messiah. Jews believed the Law was given by God to guide them in their worship of the Lord and in their interactions with each other, "the greatest gift God had given his people." [Ehrman 2012, p.273]

The status of chosen people was central to Pauline theology: how could Non-Jews enter the Jewish convenant? According to the Law, only circimsized males could enter the covenant. That's not "tangential" to the topic, but essential. [
  • diff, edit-summary "not a fair take of what the source says," removed

A process of cognitive dissonance may have led to intensive missionary activity, convincing others of the developing beliefs to reduce cognitive dissonance, explaining why the early group of followers grew larger despite the failing expectations. (Bart Ehrmann (June 4, 2016), Were Jesus’ Followers Crazy? Was He?)

Not a fair take? It's what Ehrman argues. But I've attributed it; maybe that helps?
Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. I believe the semantic difference between "began as a Jewish sect" and "emerged as a sect of Judaism" is slight, to say the least. The former is shorter and that's why I changed it. But alright, here is a number of sources that claim that "Christianity began as a Jewish sect":

Since only your source uses your wording "emerged as a sect of Judaism," the one I propose is preferable.

2. Alright, I can let that one slide. Though the connection to 1st century Christianity is far from obvious.

3. That claim is repeated in the section "Growth of early Christianity." What is the reason for duplicating it? Ehrman writes that this is John Gager's take, adding that "I’m not saying I completely agree with this theory." So it can't be attributed to Bart Ehrman. Furthermore, it is clear that it is idle speculation, i.e WP:FRINGE, and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia at all. ImTheIP (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ad 1: don't forget "Roman Palestine." That issue has already been a topic of debate some time some place; consensus was to include it.
ad 3: okay, no attribution. It's not "clear" at all that it is "idle speculation," even less that it is "fringe." Ehrman on John Gager:

John Gager was for many years a professor of Religious Studies at Princeton University. He was there the whole time I was doing my graduate work across the street at Princeton Theological Seminary, but, idiot that I was, I never took any classes with him. I did meet him though, and came to know him a bit later after I was at Chapel Hill. One of his most important books is called Kingdom and Community. It deals with just this question. Why didn’t Jesus’ followers disband when they realized that his predictions of the imminent appearance of the kingdom of God simply were not true?

Doesn't sound like a fringe author, does it? Kingdom and community has 606 cites at Google Scholar. Cognitive dissonance is a reputed psychological theory. Paula Fredriksen, another reputed scholar, also refers to conitive dissonance; Fredriksen is not fringe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. I'm not bothered by the "Roman Palestine" ending. My only contention is merely that my version is better English.
3. No, John Gager is not a fringe author, but his hypothesis is, afaict, fringe (even renowned authorities engage in speculation from time to time). If the theory is mainstream then couldn't a more up-to-date source be found than his 1975 book? ImTheIP (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. See Fredriksen. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories