Talk:Judaism's view of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as b-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Jesus work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Judaism Portal Judaism's view of Jesus is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week { Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Yom Ha'atzmaut - quite short for an article of such importance Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs, Category:Synagogue stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help. Template loop detected: Template:WikiProject Judaism
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Judaism's view of Jesus has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 Does this article really have the right title? 2 The English translation for Rambam's Epistle to Yemen seems impossible 3 Pablo Cristiani 4 Lets discuss before using revisions. 5 What is this article about? 6 Subject drift 7 "The neutrality of this article is disputed." 7.1 Link to Early Christianity 8 Poll regarding the 'Jesus' article 9 remove paragraph 10 Madmen 11 messainic phrophesy 12 removed sentence 13 Jesus as Jew 14 merger 15 question on respect 16 DaVinci Code article 17 Karaite Judaism? 18 New image 19 Anti-Chistian Slant? 20 removed section

[edit] Does this article really have the right title?

I really don't wish to stir the pot any further; I can see there is a lot of passionate disagreement here, and I believe I actually may understand "both" sides (and there are at *least* two...). Not that I expect anyone to take my word for it that I understand. People have a lot invested in their own religious views, of *course*. BUT: Does anyone agree with me that something is not quite right when an article entitled "Judaism's view of Jesus" begins with the statement, "Judaism has no special or particular view of Jesus"? What I think I see going on here is that some folks, observant Jews no doubt, possibly even the originator(s) of the article, felt the need -- with considerable justification which really, I *do* understand -- to attempt to educate others, especially those Christians who attempt to evangelize Jews, as to the reasons why this activity not only offends, but actually makes no sense to any Jewish person who has not completely drifted away from their Jewish roots but actually knows his or her faith. So, the purpose of this lengthy post is first of all to suggest that you reframe the discussion under the legitimate category of Jewish objections to Christian attempts to convert them. I submit to you, and intend to outline in due course as to *why*, that not understanding the legitimate historical reasons both sides have for doing what you do is going to keep you arguing forever.

It is a fact that a Jewish person who has been properly educated in his/her faith is in almost every case not going to welcome the very different views that Christians have about the relationship between G-d and man and the meaning of various prophecies or alleged prophecies found in Tanakh. It is equally difficult for most evangelizing Christians -- those who feel the need to make converts, which not all modern Christians do (and I have been both kinds... I will probably be considered apostate by the evangelizers, now that I am not one of them...) -- it's just as difficult for these Christians to fathom that traditions they have received across the millennia, which *do* in part find their historical basis, one foot so-to-speak, in long-forgotten first-century-C.E. Holy Land events, could possibly be so diametrically opposed to the normative Jewish ideas which have held *all* types of Jews together since at least the Destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.

I know I'm walking in a minefield here, but I think it's reasonable, looking at Josephus, Philo, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other sources, to propose that in late Second Temple times there really was quite a bit of diversity within Judaism, which many Jews no longer are aware of or relate to, which it is only fair to admit: I get the idea that Josephus' "four philosophies" don't really even *begin* to cover the subject. I have seen, for example, quotations from highly Hellenized Diaspora Jews like Philo of Alexandria that have assimilated a great deal of late Greek syncretistic philosophy, i.e. the "falling together" of the most popular educated Greek world-views which had taken hold as Greek philosophers had gradually grown embarrassed of and retired their polytheistic pagan stories as acknowledged myths (allegories at best): Such that in the first century of the Common Era most educated Greeks had begun to accept a blend of (1) Neo-Platonism with its transcendent High G-d, the Ruler of an Ideal Realm beyond the moon, a deity too perfect to relate directly to this imperfect, shadowy and corruptible world (Hence Plato had "punted", by suggesting our world of faulty "copies" had been created by a lesser divine mediator figure called the Demiurge; not much of a solution, but it got him over the hump...), *that* philosophy merged together with (2) the Stoic philosophy founded by Zeno, which denied the world actually had anything wrong with it, but insisted instead that we mortals were simply not able to see a big enough picture to understand that in reality, *this* world, rather than some other realm, was ideal just as it is, perfectly ordered by a force known as the Lógos Spermatikós. Philo, an important Hellenized Jewish philosopher, writes a passage sometime just before 50 C.E. (the time when missionaries like Paul were also very active) which describes the G-d of the Jews in these Greek terms, complete with a secondary creator/mediator-figure known not as the (Platonic) Demiurge but as the (Stoic) Lógos; the work really does sound a great deal like the opening of the Gospel of John (often considered by secular scholars to be "the least Jewish"), which begins, "In the beginning was the Lógos, and the Lógos was with G-d, and" [the translation is somewhat flexible here... you could say either:] "the Lógos *was* G-d", [or] "the Lógos was divine" (John 1:1 in the Christian New Testament). I don't believe for one minute that Philo was ever a Christian, but I *would* say that his now-extinct brand of Hellenistic Judaism was definitely one source for the ideas which Rabbinic Judaism now finds so abhorrent.

Similarly, there is a pre- or non-Rabbinic Jewish basis for the sort of liberties which, I am sure my Jewish friends will believe, Christians have taken with the words of Tanakh, as if to "twist" them to fit their own needs. We have in the Dead Sea Scrolls certain sectarian (I assume Essene) documents -- commentaries on Tanakh such as the Habakkuk "Pesher" -- which show clearly that one of the "four [major] philosophies" described by Josephus as existing in Judaea before the First War against the Romans (66-73 C.E.) was very much like Christian fundamentalists in *many* ways (e.g., belief in a fiery hell...), but most importantly including their tendency to interpret statements in the Prophets as having been fulfilled by events which had occurred in their own community: Seeing themselves as the exclusive true remnant of Israel (another point of view adopted on a "spiritual" level by some Christians), the "Sons of Light", as opposed to gentiles as well as "disobedient" Jews whom they considered "Sons of Darkness", naturally all prophecy concerning the End of Days, which they believed was imminent, would be about *them*.

Forgive my wordiness, but after all the verbiage that has been spilled on this Talk page, I am hoping -- since I *do* have a purpose -- that this will not be too much more to deal with.

One point I wish to make is, I think it is fairly easy to see that the "Nazarene" sect (Gk. "Nazaraíos", Aramaic NaSorayya), which was shocked by the crucifixion of the man they believed to be the Messiah, under the extreme stress of cognitive dissonance -- he was not supposed to die, he was expected to become King and usher in all the things that Judaism expects of its Messiah -- these non-Rabbinic Jews had to "regroup". I will not try to explain their experience of a resurrected Jesus, but I will not call them liars either -- i.e., I think something unusual may well have happened to them, for whatever reason (You fill in the blank). But thereupon, this belief in a crucified and resurrected Messiah (or as you'll know, Christós in the Greek LXX translation of Tanakh) was diligently searched for and successfully retrieved from various "new readings" of the Hebrew Scriptures, much in the fashion that the Essenes had also customized *their* interpretation of the Prophets: They simply projected back to make prophecies fit their experience; it's not that hard to do (and as the Essenes have demonstrated, not necessarily foreign to *all* forms of Judaism for all time). They then, believing that a glorious return of Jesus was near (with, finally, the fulfillment of all the Messianic prophecies), set out to redeem the nations from their idols; and under the influence especially of imaginative Hellenistic thinkers like Saul of Tarsus (Paul), the story of Jesus was spread to many G-d fearing gentiles who had already been attached to synagogues in Greek-speaking cities around the Empire; and quite naturally, their very special version of Messianology quickly blended with the ideas of Hellenistic Jewish philosophers like Philo, creating a new, primarily-gentile Diaspora religion; although the only intention by the first Christians had been to turn the gentiles from their idols, and toward the G-d of Israel. This was to be accomplished without any necessary conversion to Judaism, in preparation for their Messiah's return: Even as they were creating a new religion which ultimately would become incompatible with Rabbinic Judaism, they did not realize that that was what they were doing. Until the Temple's Destruction in 70 C.E., an "original" group of Jewish "Nazaraíoi" (Notzrîm, possibly the plural of Notzer ‘keepers’ or ‘guardians’ [of Torah]?? -- They *did*, in Jerusalem, as Jews continue to keep the Torah, as the New Testament book of Acts attests...), such a group persisted in Jerusalem and was considered by all types of very early Christians far away, no matter how different their religion had become, to be their "Mother Church" (so that, across the great geographical and cultural gulf, the Messianology of the Jewish sect in the Judaean homeland morphed into the Christology of the gentiles abroad...). After the Destruction, with no kind of oversight anymore from a Jerusalem "Church" (Gk. ekklesía, another term found throughout the LXX for qāhāl ‘congregation’) -- and with the matter having already been settled that to fulfill prophecy for what they had believed to be the impending End of Days, they need not convert the nations to Judaism, but only turn them away from idols and to G-d, and basically require of them only the Laws of Noah -- As even after the War they continued rallying together to wait for their Messiah's return -- With the loss of Jewish oversight from Jerusalem, it was only a few years to a few generations before this religion, born in a once-genuine Messianic movement in Israel, became something sufficiently different from Judaism to cause a great deal of misunderstanding and ultimately, hostility. Alas. (And forgive me if you already know this story -- It's just that what I have seen here, on this talk page, is an argument without end, between groups of people who use some overlapping vocabulary but are living in two different worlds and speaking essentially different languages. It really is a tragedy.)

The problem we now have is that most evangelizing Christians are not ready to accept the "accidental-sounding" aspects of this story of how the "Church" diverged from its non-Hellenistic Jewish origin (Actually, there is no reason to assume these events were accidental -- I appeal to the Stoic view: Perhaps there is a purpose in all of this, if only we can gain enough perspective). In fact, evangelizing Christians are not ready to believe that Jews will not gladly accept "the Messiah" when "the facts" and the Scriptures are appropriately "explained" to them (as offensive as the vast majority of properly-trained modern Rabbinic Jews will find this notion). And this also may be hard for Jewish people to swallow, but many modern Christians -- especially the type who evangelize -- are either unaware of the tremendous suffering of the Jews at the hands of Christians throughout these nearly two millennia, or at least they refuse to identify with those persecutors, and set them apart as not being "real" Christians, and really don't understand *how* you could see their attempt to assimilate you to pose anything like a threat to Jewish existence.

If you are one of the Defenders of the Jewish Faith who have been undergoing this prolonged argument, you may not believe me, but my version of how some native (but non-Rabbinic) Judaean elements and some Diaspora Hellenistic Jewish elements (and sure, other elements too...) converged to create a vast gentile entity that sees itself as the fulfillment of *your* Scriptures, this story will be offensive to many Christians in that it would at least appear to deny the Divine Inspiration of their movement. (Actually, I don't know for sure *what* I think about that; G-d does move in mysterious ways.) So here I am, poking my nose in in sort of a no-man's land; but on the other hand I believe that until people whose paths have become so "star-crossed" take the time to understand where their irreconcilable differences have come from, it's going to be very hard for them to live side by side in peace.

My understanding of this article is that it constitutes an attempt, in a well-intentioned fashion, to ward off Christian evangelistic intrusions. I think only a persistent effort to maintain an open mind and set hostilities aside, only considerable learning and (everybody's favorite word...) dialogue by both parties to this well-intentioned conflict will ever get you anywhere. As a first step, I would suggest re-casting this article not as being about Judaism's (non) view of Jesus, but as a frank discussion of a huge but very natural gap in understanding, and for the Christian reader, how it could possibly be that so many Jews are feeling harassed by Christian missionaries (who after all are only trying to complete a course which was charted from Judaean soil).

So I don't know *what* to call it: "Judaism's response to Christian evangelism"? -- Anyway, *something* else. It's *not* about Jesus, just as the opening sentence pretty much gives away. (And sorry, once more, for the long post -- call my disclaimers gentile guilt. :~} ) DThrax (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There is already an article about Christianity and Judaism. This article has a much narrower scope. Jon513 (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi DThrax, I have to agree with Jon, I have always seen this article as answering the narrower question of "what is the "official" view of Jesus in Judaism" (answer: view of who?). Since the depth of your historical references far exceeds my own knowledge, I regret I can't reply in greater detail, but if you can find reliable secondary sources to support your views there may be a place somewhere for "the view of Jesus among the Essenes" or something like that. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jon513 and Kaisershatner,

I should have known better than to post at 5:00 in the morning, my time. (I should have known better than to post.) And when will I ever learn that "less is more"...? -- Probably never.

I see that we, too, are already talking past each other, when e.g. my reference to the Essenes, not as a historical source for a Jewish view of Jesus (The the entire sectarian Dead Sea corpus of the Essenes mentions by name possibly only one historical person, "King Jonathan", i.e. probably the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus (Yannai), King of Judea from 103 BCE to 76 BCE; to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that the Essenes ever said anything about Jesus, or anybody else, at least by name). I brought up the Essenes only as an example of a faction of Second Temple Jewish culture which did in fact practice the very kind of self-absorbed interpretation of the Prophets that Rabbinic Judaism sees today as coming only from the outside, e.g. from Christians or maybe Muslims. Personally, I doubt the Essenes have left us even a veiled reference to Jesus; he simply wasn't that important in his time. I wanted only to make the point that, while it has indeed long been considered illegitimate by most of post-Destruction Judaism to use or "twist" the Prophets in this way, "the first Christians", so-called, who never thought of themselves as anything but Jews, probably adopted this quasi-fundamentalistic approach to biblical interpretation from other Jews around them in late Second Temple times; that while the kind of (Pharisaic/House-of-Hillel) Judaism, which was salvaged by the Rabbis at Yavneh, would never interpret Tanakh in any fashion resembling the kinds of readings Christians insist on finding in it, still it is not quite correct to say that no Jews at any time in history would have done this sort of thing. Likewise my purpose in mentioning Hellenists like Philo: he had no view of Jesus either, as far as anyone knows; but he does provide an example of a strain of Second-Temple-period Diaspora Judaism that was not as strict about G-d having no sort of "partner" whatsoever, as Rabbinic Judaism is today, and has been for so long. Similarly, "Son of G-d" has at least two apparent uses in Tanakh, including a Messianic one which would of course only apply figuratively, to any anointed King of Israel.

I agree 100% with the spirit of Jewish self-defense that I see underlying this article; it is a reasonable motive for writing an article, I believe. But as it is currently written, it goes too far in systematically denying, as I read it, everywhere and for all time, the "Jewishness" of a whole series of ideas which have, in fact, come and gone in the long history of your Faith, which it would be fair and I think sufficient to say, were never prominent or dominant, and are certainly no longer acceptable to post-Destruction, Pharisaic, Rabbinic Judaism. Unless I am really missing your point (though I have a nagging doubt about it -- Perhaps you hear the nagging? :~0 ... since repeatedly, this article explicitly rejects later Christian doctrines that were probably never even the actual views of this small-time operator named Joshua [or of any of his immediate disciples, either...], who was never an important figure in Judaism in his short life -- never "made the papers" as it were, except possibly for one brief moment, when when he posed an irritation to Roman Authority near the time of a single Pesach); unless you really insist on denying that the purpose of this article is to clarify that [Judaism] rejects not so much *Jesus* (In fact, there is even something of a movement afoot -- okay, among some Israelis maybe, not *Judaism* per se, to reclaim him, as I am told by an Israeli friend living in Jerusalem, as a Jewish person, from the Palestinians...) {...[Judaism] rejects not so much *Jesus*} as it rejects later Christian (or even Muslim) dogmas about this Jewish man who they may correctly believe existed, but was unimportant in his own time, and never impacted the Jewish Faith as we know it, nor certainly could ever have made the "Christological" claims that are now made on his behalf -- {...unless you really insist on denying this...}, I would enthusiastically encourage you to modify the article to reflect the fact that your claims are correct of Judaism as it has existed now for over 1900 years -- but not necessarily always or everywhere before that time -- and that Christian missionaries or others who try to argue that their views about this man are just as "Jewish" as yours in any sense that is relevant today (or for that matter could possibly have been embraced by him or his Galilean and Judaean followers) are fundamentally missing the mark, and must come to terms with the reality of nearly two millennia of near-monolithic Jewish development, as regards these sorts of doctrines.

At any rate, I now see the article you refer to and will read it. But it's an article, and as such, it is a fundamentally different thing from my (ill-fated?) post, which was not intended to serve as substitute text for the present article: Rather I was just asserting (and I hope you will either confirm or substantively correct me on this, by way of an explanation as to what the article *is* really about...) that the real subject of this article, for those who seem to be most interested in it and have invested the most effort into it, is something more like "Why Jewish people would like Christian missionaries to stop trying to convert them, and why it is misguided and pointless to try, given their (Christian) belief system that is essentially alien to at least 1900 years of Judaism." Obviously that would not make a good title, but still it strikes me as the essence of the subtext, and while others may disagree with the following, I think if presented in the right way, such a topic would be legitimate for a Wikipedia article. So why not say it, instead of making overgeneralized claims that historical research can falsify?

"Then Again, I May Be Totally Wrong" (i.e. maybe for reasons of completeness or symmetry, someone was tasked with developing this vacuous topic as it is currently framed; in which case, sorry for wasting your time. But it still seems to me that this article's title should *not* be "Judaism's view of Jesus" when its primary assertion is that there *is* no such thing. (It strikes me a lot like writing an article about "the present King of France".) Please clarify for me (I can be annoyingly slow): Is this article not actually more of a response to the missionaries than anything else? Jewish friends over the years -- whom I have *never* tried to convert -- have adequately demonstrated that they are, I think out of understandable discomfort, not even interested in how the present evangelizing situation -- which they *are* interested in, in that typically they wish as a matter of self-preservation to confront it and deflect it -- came to be in the first place. Hence it is probably another waste of time on my part to to suggest the works of "secular" scholars like Paula Fredriksen, among them (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Origins-Testament-Images/dp/0300084579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210622509&sr=1-1) "From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ", Yale University Press; 2nd edition (July 11, 2000). ISBN: 0300084579. I'm sure the title alone is very off-putting, but this is a secular author who does not take sides; she offers most of the references to primary sources that you would need in order to verify my claims about Second Temple Judaism's surprising diversity and the later consolidation of the Faith, in parallel to events in the Diaspora that set the stage for the accidental creation of a gentile religion that was no longer in a position to focus its attention on Israel, the Temple, and finally even on the End of Days, as it had done at the first.

(Continuing to operate on my stubborn assumption that what you really want to do is at least to have a chance to disabuse modern Christian missionaries of their many mistaken assumptions about Judaism, I will recommend, this one last time, that you look into this [really very interesting] literature; *because* I think it will increase your ability to communicate to readers of this article just how and why Christian claims pertaining to your faith are ill-informed. -- Alright, now I am shutting up; I hope I have not irritated you too much: I really just want to help you convey what I perceive to be your central message. [Respectfully however, I must acknowledge that you do not say that this is your central message... I don't want to contradict you, but assuming that you genuinely do not think the article is about what I say it's about... I would only say, this is nonetheless *profoundly* the way it strikes *me*, hence all my protestations and suggestions. No disrespect or harm intended, and now I prepare to Shut Up! :~D ] But one last word: Try it, this other approach? -- It might just enlighten a few people who, I think at present, are going to keep insisting that you are simply being too narrow in your definition of what is "Jewish". -- Remember that, eh? -- I just wanted to help. And now I'm outta here. :~/ :~\ :~] )

DThrax (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that this article has to be seen in contrast to Christian theology, otherwise this article would be only a few words ("Judaism has no special or particular view of Jesus." the end.) - In your words about as much as you can say about the current king of France. I am not sure whether you agree with this or disagree, or what you think should be changed in the article. Jon513 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to keep this going, as my honest perception has been that no one was very interested in it (which is fine, I guess...); but effectively, it seems I've been asked a couple questions, so now I figure it would be rude not to try to answer them.

About "the present King of France": I didn't mean to be a wiseacre, that's just an old device used by philosophers of language to illustrate the use of an apparently-referential expression that applies vacuously in the real world, in that it has no actual referent. The article's title, I meant to say, implies an "article about nothing", which obviously this article is *not*.

About the article, I wish I knew a concise way to express my conviction that it does not adequately distinguish for the reader just *which* Jesus is being talked about. Many modern, usually considered "secular", scholars (some of them Jewish or Jewish-born ["Footnote" 1: See just below this paragraph]) would be quick to reinforce strong distinctions that have been drawn between what they term the enigmatic "Jesus of History" vs. the "Christ of Faith". (Obviously, there is no *one* version of either of these.) I see this present article as a, probably necessarily abridged, response to the latter, the post-mid-first-century religious figure, around whom all sorts of stories & beliefs have grown up, many of them having been projected back on him, essentially putting words in the historical man's mouth, during the several iterations of composition that produced the present Christian canonical Gospels. Some very erudite people have spent their lifetimes formulating critical methods by which to *separate* the various portraits of the historical man (extrapolated from careful readings of the Gospels, to make the case that there *was* this historical Jewish teacher of notably good character -- however unimportant he may have been to his fellow Jews in his own time...), to *separate* the historical Jew from the increasingly theologically-freighted layers of the Christian religious image, as he is iteratively altered by various contributors to these documents, who gradually built up these still-fairly-early composite works designed for very early religious indoctrination (i.e. religious biographies that have not "kept up" with the further theological developments of the 2nd-to-5th-century Christian Church which dominate the Christian religion today): So, serious scholars employing modern literary-critical and historical methods, justify a *third* distinction (sandwiched between the first two, such I should actually say a new *second* distinction... Sorry if that's confusing...), namely that of these still-fairly-primitive "Gospel Jesuses" ["Footnote" 2: See just below ["Footnote" 1]], among whom many glimpses are still visible of a non-heretical practicing Jew -- not so very different halakhically from the Pharisees, and in fact, clearly on good terms with many of them -- a man who is, these scholars show by reasonable arguments, likely to have made few if any controversial claims about himself: Instead he was simply an apocalyptic preacher and (by no means unique in his day...) healer, whose primary focus was on the belief, popular among the Jewish People in his own time, that the End of Days was near and the Kingdom of G-d was already dawning. This third distinction, between the layered "Gospel Jesuses" and the later undeniable object of worship, subject of the "High Christology" esp. as it developed, after Jerusalem and the Temple had been destroyed, in the absence of any further non-hellenized Jewish influence. The present article, if you will forgive my saying so, is not really up-to-date in that it responds only to this *third*, two-millienia's-traditional, exalted Christ of the Christian faith.

["Footnote" 1: Three prominent examples: (1) Oxford Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies Géza Vermes; (2) Shaye J. D. Cohen, Harvard Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy, Jewish Theological Seminary Professor of Jewish History, *and* an ordained Rabbi as well; and (3) Princeton, Clare Hall (Cambridge), and currently also Bard College Professor (and also JTS-ordained Rabbi, and author/editor of over 900 books!) Jacob Neusner.]

["Footnote" 2: Especially in the first three Gospels -- not so much the fourth, i.e., John; but even to some extent in the perceptible earlier strata of that highly-composite, finally very hellenized book, as well.]

I fear I am wasting your time, as I do not wish to change the article myself; but for clarity and accuracy's sake I think it needs to reflect that it is a clear statement of the incompatibility that exists between Judaism on the one hand, and on the other hand not the *first* of these three classes of individual -- the historical "Jewish Jesus" that so many modern scholars, including important Jewish ones, have worked to uncover and reclaim from the earlier layers of the Gospels and other sources; nor even so very much the *second* type -- the various late-first-to-early-second century C.E. theologizing and agenda-driven composite depictions of Jesus in the Gospels -- but mainly or only this *third* type of Jesus, the thoroughly-transformed, "High Christology" exalted Christ of the Christian faith. I am not making this stuff up -- Look at Paula Fredriksen's book From Jesus to Christ as I have suggested, or have a gander at a tiny sample of the immense body of work by the three Jewish scholars that I've named above, and I'm confident you'll see that *some* sort of declaration needs to be made to distinguish especially the *first* type -- the historical Jewish man as he is variously presented by many scholars -- and the *third* type, the fully-deified "Second Person of the Trinity" as presented by roughly 1800 years' worth of institutional embellishment. Perhaps someone could spend a little time investigating this three-way distinction and simply make clear that "Judaism's view" as it is here presented does not treat of the first type -- a little-known yet very-likely historical, "normative" First Century C.E. Jewish teacher -- but rather of somewhat the second, and *mainly* the *third* of these "types-of-Jesus" that have been set out -- the exalted "Christ of Faith" of the Christian religion, whose existence you may feel much more justified in denying.

You must excuse me for all this overflow, or anyway I *hope* you will. I have spent a lot time, in my own life, sorting these matters out for myself, and feel strongly that what *other* people throughout history have done with this man's name and image, which Judaism is fully justified in rejecting, is a kind of historical smear against a good and faithful Israelite -- perhaps nobody of any particular significance to the Jewish religion, but nevertheless not only a real person, but one who was committed to Judaism and broadly inclusive of his fellow Jews, rather than *exclusive* of them or in any way *rejecting* Torah or Halakhah other aspects of Jewish faith as it existed ca 30 C.E. DThrax (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you realize that this is only your personal POV, right? I mean, my personal POV is that the character of Jesus never actually existed, but was created based on a number of different false messianic characters. And that whether he existed or not, the character depicted in Christian scriptures is far from a "good and faithful Israelite", but rather a heretic who misled many. Of course, I wouldn't put that into the article, because that's my personal POV. Neither yours nor mine belongs in a Wikipedia article. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh LisaLiel, you have made me see the terrible error of my ways! How could I have been so thoughtless? I don't know how to thank you.

Of course, LisaLiel, you realize that the POV language you are referring to here on the Talk page is *also* here on this same Talk page, with your POV insults, right? -- NOT in the article. So your remark is irrelevant. I have to take exception, too, to your claim that this article does not express the views of specifically Rabbinic Judaism: If you were offended because you thought that my saying so would exclude Reform or Reconstructionist or even Conservative Judaism, you must be using some kind of Haredi dictionary. The Wikipedia article on Rabbinic Judaism, states plainly:

Although there are now profound differences among Jewish denominations of Rabbinic Judaism with respect to the binding force of halakha and the willingness to challenge preceding interpretations, all identify themselves as coming from the tradition of the oral law and the Rabbinic method of analysis. It is this which distinguishes them as Rabbinic Jews, in comparison to the Karaite movement.

Who did you want to be sure to include? The Karaites? The Jews for Jesus? Various defunct Second Temple period movements, like Sadduceeism or Essenism? How about Hellenistic diaspora Judaism, which is probably largely responsible for the existence of Christianity in the first place? Do you even *know* anything about these movements? Or do you just go around making snap judgments and treating Wikipedia articles like they're your personal property? -- I waited at least three days, after talking to several people, and being *invited* by someone to go ahead and make a change, to make one little clarification about *which* of the *many* Jesuses this article addresses -- and indeed, that Jesus is a theological construct of some other people's religion!. I didn't include anything POV in my two measly lines, which I added in good faith and for a good reason (but which I knew would not be good enough for *some* reactionary person, who would come along and say, "Don't mess with MY, or worse, OUR, property"! as all too often happens on Wikipedia). Actually, your action of removing my good-faith attempt at a needed clarification is the most POV thing I have seen here. -- Imagine if anybody would tolerate an article about "Jesus' view of Judaism", or "Christianity's view of Torah" -- I've been to enough churches to know that some Christians indeed believe that Judaism basically amounts to Torah worship, and is in fact a heretical sect in rebellion against the "true Spiritual Israel", the Church. That's not what *I* think, but tell me, would you tolerate such an article? There is a legitimate basis for describing Christian and other views of Jewish religious ideas. There *must* be, if *this* article can take on Christian religious ideas. What's the difference? Your status as a Victim? (Many Christians still look back to the persecution the first Jesus-movement endured, under probably the now-defunct Sadducees, but also a little later, under modern Judaism's founders, the Pharisees, who put them out of the synagogues and instituted the "Birkhat HaMinim" in the synagogal liturgy as a way of forcing "Nazarenes" in attendance to curse themselves.) -- It would be very easy (though it would not express my *own* POV) to claim justification for an article that says it is "the view of Christianity" that Torah, Written or Oral, is an oppressive system by which the ancients re-enslaved the Israelites upon their exodus from Egypt. Further, it could well be documented as a "view of Christianity" that the entry into the Promised Land under Joshua consisted of the genocides of several entire peoples - men, women, children, babies - who already lived there, "by order of G-d", which made it "alright". -- Again, very inflammatory, ¿no? - That's the point that nobody seems to get here - and these ideas are *not* at *all* representative of my POV, but certainly quite arguably a view of, in this case perhaps, a certain liberal form of "Christianity", or just as easily, organized atheists, or Jewish apostates. (There are books on this wretched subject of course, and their main source for the charge of genocide is the Bible itself.) Would you like to see someone create such articles? If "Judaism" can speak in condemnation of the beliefs of other faiths, why not?

I am not the type of Christian who is offended when he sees a Wikipedia article which on behalf of Judaism denounces and rejects Jesus. I don't believe that these various dogmas openly deifying Jesus and making him the Creator and "son of G-d" in some non-Hebrew sense, who got himself crucified in order to serve as the final Jewish sacrifice, putting an end once and for all to the need for the Jewish Law (as if that would somehow work...); but if I *did*, as many people do, I would be *highly* offended that apparently some Jewish people took it upon themselves to trash my religion. All I wanted to do -- but it was not good enough for you -- was to state for the record that this article addresses the standard "orthodox" Christian Jesus, a theological construct bearing implications which may tend to affect Judaism; and that therefore this article was more justifiable than it appears to be, to many Christians who see it and get upset about it. But that wasn't good enough for you. Maybe you want Christians to be offended? Maybe you resent that I'm not a member the club who you think should have a right to edit this article? -- I'm not saying either of those are your motives; but something is up with you to make this thinly-veiled attack on me, and something is up with the discourse all over this Talk page. People *do* have their personal axes to grind -- It is very clear -- they just don't want to admit it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go start an article on the non-historicity of Moses -- since there already *is* one about Jesus -- Maybe you wrote it? (You seem to have enough of a personal animus to have done so... I'll bet you haven't even *read* the gospels or availed yourself of any tools to get behind the surface text...) -- and since there's plenty of literature which makes a case that there never was any Moses, or Miriam, or Aaron or Joshua or Samson or Deborah or David or Solomon; and *certainly* some of this same literature will dispel as pure myth any Covenant giving the Holy Land to the children of Abraham ... That literature doesn't express *my* POV at all; but they're certainly reasonable topics -- aren't they, LisaLiel? -- and it only seems right to me, if you can have articles questioning the historicity of somebody else's religious figure or the legitimacy of their beliefs about him, that they should have every right to do the same for any of yours, including G-d Himself, ברוך יהיה שמו עד עולם Barukh yihyeh Shemo ad olam. Congratulations on your personal achievement, in setting it out for me in high relief that I need to go and write all these articles; your Nobel Peace Prize is in the mail.

(To be fair, I should say this not just a response to LisaLiel; nor am I as angry as this probably sounds. My apologies to anyone whose blood pressure didn't need this. I have simply had it with politically correct "reverse" bigotry -- There is actually no such thing of course, bigotry is bigotry; but some people seem to feel they are more entitled to practice it. And it is what I smell here. Not from everybody though, there are kind people here too, Wolf2191 being a fine example, for inviting me to make a change instead of obsessively staking out and protecting and controlling perceived turf. He's probably sorry now that he did -- and I to him :~/ -- but it was nice of him anyway. May more people be like him.) DThrax (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

user:Dthrax Have you seen the Yeshu article that discusses the talmudical view of the historical. Other [[Jesus] articles focus on the other aspects that you mention. This article is more or less focusing on the Jeiwsh view of the "theological" Jesus. If you feel that the articles need to be clearer about their objectives or perhaps that some more cross referencing is in order then you are more then welcome to make the changes. Best Wolf2191 (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

DThrax, I agree with lisa's removal of your addition. I think that title is clear enough for most people to understand the scope of the article without any disclaimers. There is a Jesus sidebar for anyone who wants a different topic related to Jesus. Jon513 (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of this Talk page would seem to indicate that what you are saying is incorrect. In fact I think it is manifestly so, but when it comes to matters of religion people will have their way (in other words POV is OK if it's the *right* POV). Also I would ask this Lisa what is POV about "Rabbinic"? Does she want to include Karaites or maybe Jews for Jesus? I worked very hard to make a needed and fair & respectful clarification. *One* person comes along who has not even been part of a lengthy conversation and without finding out what's going on, decides she doesn't like it (and so it's out). DThrax (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Note, I was posting this much nicer message when I saw the sophomoric moral snobbery above, and left this here, and had to come back and finish it later. DThrax (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep cool, Thrax, WP:NPA. I would be happy to opine about the proposed addition, but the truth is I haven't been able to crack more than two paras of your argument at a time. Maybe my attention span or level of knowledge isn't enough to permit me to contribute here, but I know it would be helpful if you could summarize your argument in 1-2 sentences. I recognize you have provided lots of supporting arguments, but what is the main point: this article doesn't have the right title because:........." Kaisershatner (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (Alternately you guys could just continue tearing into each other without my help).

(Phew.) Yeah, Kaisershatner, I apologize to everybody, especially LisaLiel who probably did not actually intend to censor, insult, or discriminate against me (at least I owe her the benefit of the doubt). I logged in today expecting to have been ganged up on and kicked off Wikipedia for flaming out in the middle of the night with hot-button examples that don't even reflect my views. No way should I have done that. And don't worry, I have no intention of continuing such an exchange.

Wow. Well, I didn't read that whole opus, because it seemed to be going on and on and on and on and... well, you get the idea.

When Christians qualify Judaism as "Rabbinic" Judaism, it's usually for the purpose of implying that what we call Judaism is no more "original Judaism" than Christianity is. That's why I objected to the POV modifier. It wasn't the primary reason I removed the disclaimer; I would have removed it even had you not put in the insulting modifier. I say insulting, because it's really no different than me writing "the possibly historical character of Jesus of Nazareth". There's nothing technically wrong with that phrase, but I guarantee you that every Christian here would have an aneurysm if I were to put that in as an edit in an article.

I removed your disclaimer, not as a form of censorship, but because it was clear that you'd added it merely because you were offended by the article. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me try once more to answer the question (Bear with me, it's hard to make it short without wording it very densely (no puns, please :~| )):

This article doesn't have the right combination of title and content, because it does not point out, as it needs to do, that this self-described commentary "by Judaism" on (apparently) the central figure of another religion -- a commentary that will be seen by many Christians as overwhelmingly negative and condemnatory -- is in fact justifiable, only because Judaism has a right to respond, to what that *other* religion has said about this highly theologized figure's alleged "rightful role" in Judaism. If it were not a response, by Judaism, to material claims about Judaism by another religion, it would not belong on Wikipedia.

"Judaism's view of Jesus" is not enough; it does not properly motivate the article's existence, and so it invites a counter-"attack". But this is Judaism's *defense* against Christian claims, only as they affect Judaism -- *not* an "unprovoked attack" on one religion by another, as it will be seen to be, if this is not made clear.

The real-or-not-real historical person, "Jesus of Nazareth", has nothing to do with it: Who would blame a man, said to have died ca. 30 C.E., for a later religious institution's claims which were in some sense laid on Judaism, putatively regarding this person, but by people who did not know him, officially for the first time and with some dissent (mostly killed off by now, or driven deeply underground in submission), only about 300 years later? -- Hence the added complication, of specifying that this response is to claims about a religion's theological construct. Reread what I wrote -- two lines. I even placed the name “Jesus Christ” in quotation marks, in a secondary, parenthetical identification, to show that this is not what Jews call him, or he ever called himself, but rather what Christianity calls him:

(Btw, the Nicene Creed is the 325 C.E. document which *defined* and still defines *all* "orthodox" Christianity worldwide.)

[This article addresses Rabbinic Judaism's response to views expressed by the Christian theology of, e.g., the Nicene Creed, regarding Jesus of Nazareth (or “Jesus Christ”), as those views may impinge upon Judaism. For other purposes, see Historical Jesus or Jesus (disambiguation).]

So: Tell me what was wrong with this, that it deserved to be summarily ripped from the page as soon as it landed? Otherwise, tweak it if needs tweaking, but don't refuse to identify the actual subject of the article. --Best regards (and I never meant any harm, but only to help), DThrax (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There actually are some Karaite discussions of Chritianity (for instance Aaron of Troki's Chizzuk Emunah is online) but the article doesn't discuss them. At it stands, the article is exactly what User:Dthrax describes. I'll leave a message at the talk pages of people who are more knowledgeable then I on WP policy to double check.Wolf2191 (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wolf asked me if I'd comment here. Firstly, I want to say I think this is an outstandingly good article. It is full of reliable, sourced information written from the NPOV. The sources go right back to the best, i.e. the primary ones. This is dealt with responsibly in the light of the best analysis of these sources. I think the article is an example of the very best Wiki achieves -- matters that are of deep personal feeling, from genuinely clashing perspectives, have been documented in a fair way.

I feel the sense of DThrax' challenge to the first sentence of the lead. If Judaism has no view on Jesus, no article is possible. However, the whole article demonstrates what is hardly controversial, indeed some of the best, most reliable and even ancient Jewish sources do express views regarding Jesus. The four main comments—regarding: the uniqueness of God, the nature of the Messiah, the relevance of prophecy and the concept of salvation—are a brilliant choice of summary and accurately expressed to my understanding of Judaism (in which I must, however, defer to any Jewish source). I can say, however, they are very fair indeed to Christianity, that is self-consciously aware of disagreeing with Abraham's descendents on these matters.

I think the communication problem underlying current lack of consensus comes down to this.

• Judaism is in absolutely no way defined by its views on Jesus. Judaism existed long before Jesus. It continues to this day in an unbroken tradition of many millenia. That a heretical sect of Judaism has ultimately become extremely numerous, in no way justifies an encyclopedia leaving an impression of Judaism dependent on a "democracy" of POV. Much literature does indeed look at Judaism this way, and it often takes Jews to point it out. This should not be. Objective scholarship (like that of documenting an encyclopedia) should be crystal clear that Judaism has no fundamental view against Christianity or Islam for the obvious reason that it preceded both of them. It should be expected the other religions do have views regarding Judaism, since they depend foundationally on how they interpret the Tanakh.
• On the other hand, true as all the above is, it is essentially a caveat tangential to the topic. In no way does the article actually seek to suggest that Jewish views regarding Jesus are foundational or characteristic of the faith. To address this issue is really to import significant issues, but ones non-essential to materially addressing the questions underlying the topic title.
• On balance, I think suggesting that Jesus is a matter of profound indifferance and irrelevance to Jews is really overstating the case. Catholicism does not consider Martin Luther a matter of profound indifference, but nor does Catholicism consist only of reaction against Luther, very, very far from it. So, in conclusion, while some brief caveat may have some small place in this article, the current one is overstated, and caveats cannot be placed on all Wiki articles to deflect every possible misinterpretation. It horrifies me to think some Jewish writings were censored to avoid upsetting Christians and inciting anti-semitism. I am a Christian, but I like to imagine I'd give my life to allow Jews to say about him what their honest reading of their scriptures leads them to conclude. Silence such faithful scholarship (and I deliberately pun on faithful), and the world is a poorer place. Diversity of opinion is not an end, but an essential means. Grasping truth often involves comprehending and dismissing error. That which is true will defend itself, that which is false will prove itself to be false. But there are no short cuts for the human mind.

Apologies for the philosophy with which I conclude. I appeal to those who feel Judaism is poorly reflected by this article to observe that Christian answers to the Jewish challenges are not included in this article, and nor should they be imo. Diversity of view in this article means diversity of view among Jews. Judaism is pretty united on this topic in my limited knowledge, and that is accurately reflected by the current revision. Please consider this and find peace. With all my heart, shalom. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC) PS Wolf has politely pointed out I haven't expressed an opinion regarding the actual proposal. (I replied above without identifying this specific matter.) I think the wording of the protasis is very good indeed. I think it would serve as a good lead sentence. I'm less clear about the value of the redirect. I am not against it though. It is certainly true that historically the Jewish leaders confronted Jesus personally, and that documenting this is a matter of addressing a different, but closely related, question. I think this may be a good thing to express the reality of the mutual respect held by editors debating the current issue. A real issue, and a real, practical manner of accomodating it would, thereby, be acknowledged. Good for the article, but, I think, even better for our community. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the content of the disclaimer, I have a problem with the existence of the a disclaimer (I think they look ugly, and is against the style guidelines). I have moved most of the content of the disclaimer into the first sentence (diff), and I hope everyone can agree to it. Jon513 (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The English translation for Rambam's Epistle to Yemen seems impossible

I suspect the current English translation for Rambam's Episle to Yemen, is inaccurate. I have a translation of it in Hebrew, and the English one in the article deviates wildly from it. For example, the incendiary curse ('may his bones be ground to dust') doesnt exist in the Hebrew. Probably the English translator interpolated his own opinion about Jesus - in contradiction to the original words and tone of Rambam himself. Everywhere else Rambam is a rational, cautious, tolerant, and nuanced writer. He typically doesnt use inflammatory language like this. I would rather find another English translation that is more trustworthy. Unfortunately, Rambam originally wrote the Epistle to Yemen in Arabic. Only later was it translated to the Hebrew version that I have (even tho it is an authoritative version). Does anyone know where I can get the Epistle to Yemen, online in the original Arabic? Rambam's Epistle is an extremely important historical document because it is one of the few comments ever made about Jesus by an authoritative Rabbi. If someone here has access to the original Arabic from a book, it is worth the time to transcribe it here, so we can all look at it. --Haldrik (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pablo Cristiani

What did he say in the debate? Can someone put that in here in the relevant section, or in the article about him? KittyHawker 05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't really say anything that interesting. Throughout the debate Nachmanides was on the defense, forcing him to explain different aspects of Judaism. Christiani, on the other hand, was only asking questions (mostly along the lines of "doesn't this obscure passage from the Talmud prove that the Talmudic Rabbis really believe in Jesus!"). So he never really had to explain, or defend his belief in Christianity. Whenever Nachmanidies answered him, he just moved along to the next question. Jon513 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Maybe you could mention that in the article? KittyHawker 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets discuss before using revisions.

Dbratton has made a revision that seems to be in bad faith. Can we discuss the changes here, rather than just use heavy handed revisions to remove anything you don't like. We need to imporve this page together. Some questions: 1) I added information that there have been competing views of Messiah within Judaism. What was wrong with this? 2) Some Jews are Christians. Why have their POV been removed? 3) Which words specifically did you find weasely? 4) Why do you presume writings by Paul of Tarsis or Matthew the Evangelist are not Jewish works? I think they do have something to say about the range of positions on Jesus within Judaism. 5) I'm not sure what you meant by "justifications" can you explain?--Just nigel 13:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in any revision, but I think this is about the views of Judaism not the views of Jews as an ethnicity/culture. The views of Jewish people who are Christians, Muslim, or Buddhist are not relevant I'd think. Likewise people who are not ethnically Jewish, but converted to Judaism, could be relevant if they were important to Judaism. Although I think there might be more variety within Judaism than this article has indicated. The view of Jesus I read in the Jewish Encyclopedia[1] was far less hostile. It was clear that its position was that no one can be God and that Jesus wasn't a Messiah, but it indicated he had some positive ideas and that most of their problems was with people after Jesus. This would be a bit wrong, but basically what I got from it was the view that Jesus's main faults was being a bit ignorant and insufficiently supportive of Jewish nationalism. The idea of him as bad or Christianity as bad is not quite so intense as in this even though it was also written in a non-ecumenical era.--T. Anthony 08:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nigel,

To address your questions, first I would suggest reading through the talk archives of this article, as well as examining the history of the article itself; you're by far not the first editor to make changes to the article to inaccurately put Jesus in a more sympathetic light, and by now most (all?) such changes tend to be reverted without discussion, simply because they happen so often. If it's discussion you're seeking, I would suggest bringing up your fairly major points on the talk page prior to integrating them into the article.

Anthony is pretty much right on the mark for most of your inquiries - this article is about the views of Judaism on Jesus, not those of individual Jews. There certainly are Jews who follow christianity, as well as Jewish works which state belief in Jesus as Messiah, but that is wholly outside of the religion of Judaism. In fact, the title of the article was previously changed from Jewish views to Judaism's views precisely because of this quite common misunderstanding.

Your edits included a few attempts to soften the statements that are made in the article. "These discrepancies were noted by Jewish scholars" is a completely accurate, straightforward sentence; "Such apparent discrepancies were debated among Jewish scholars" recasts the statement from a simple declaration into a suggestion of contention within the religion that is not present.

Finally, your use of the christian New Testament is completely inappropriate for this article. According to the views of Judaism (which are the subject of the article), the NT is a blasphemous work which contradicts the core of the religion. Using it here is an attempt to insert christian beliefs and teachings into an article which has nothing to do with them whatsoever.

I understand that you're trying to improve the article to reflect ideas that are important to you, but it's important to realize that this article has been carefully written by editors very knowledgeable about Judaism to accurately reflect the position of the religion (I'm not including myself here, since most of it came about prior to my arrival). Christian teachings have no place in the article the same way that Hindu, Islamic, and atheist teachings have no place - they're not inaccurate as descriptions, but they're wholly irrelevant to the views of Judaism.

Hope this helps! I promise that any controversial edits you might want to make which you bring up in talk beforehand to be discussed and tuned to the article won't be reverted. :) Dbratton 11:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In my case my concern is that this might be reflecting a view of a portion Orthodox Jews who may or may not be representative of Jews in Jesus's day or today. As they're likely to be the most interested and well-versed in Judaism the lack of valid argument might not mean there is no valid debate. For example if Russian Orthodox Wikipedians said that the Eastern Orthodox Church view of Muhammad is that he was an Antichrist, based on statements by Medieval theologians, few may be able to argue with them. However this may nevertheless be inaccurate. Also in Jesus's time Rabbinic Judaism, on which I believe this is based as I don't think it mentions Karaite Judaism, was not as dominant as it is now. In addition Judaism does not, as far as I know, have any body to create a standard view on Jesus or any other personage not clearly mentioned in the Talmud. Still as a non-Jewish person I'm also hesitant to say these things as I could be completely wrong, but the comparative dearth of names from the post-Medieval age makes me wonder nonetheless.--T. Anthony 13:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not misunderstanding the difference between (ethinc) Jewishnes and (religious) Judaism. I content that Jesus and Paul etc were Jews religiously not just Jewish - ethnically, culturally, nationally. Paul famously self identified this way in his line "I am a Pharisee of Pharisees." The assumption in the article seems to be that Christianity and Judaism are two separate things. It is true that this assumption is held by many - but it is not without its own bias and it would not be NPOV to exclude less black and white interpretations. Today they are usually differences between the two religions (I will mention later exceptions to this) but not so at the inception of Christianity. Around the time of Jesus there were competing views within Judaism about its relationship to nationalism, the necessity of a temple for its observance, the role of the Messiah, who the messiah was or wasn't and so on. There are Jewish people besides Jesus of Nazareth who have either claimed themselves or have had claimed about them that they are the messiah. Its not just about "justifying" Christianity. It is about accurately describing the history and range of Judaism's views of Jesus.

A few times the information that is in the article should be tempered with adjectives like "contemporary Judaism" or "Orthodox Judaism" because while they are true, they do not tell the full story. Even today there are people who call themselves Jews - in the sense of religious Jews - and see their Jewish messianic hopes fullfilled in Jesus. Just because thier view is not the majority or it is covered in more detial on a page about "Messianic Jews" it does not mean it should be completely excluded from this article. My changes to the sentence "These discrepancies were noted by Jewish scholars" were appropriate, because it is not NPOV to call these things discrepancies. Only some people think there are discrepancies. Not all Jewish scholars noted them. Only some noted them. This is an example of a sentence that needs recasting from a simple exageration to a more nuanced sentence that describes more of what is going on than you seem willing to read here.

PS It it true that I have not read the history of comments. But then I did not try and remove information. I was trying to add information.--Just nigel 04:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The text says The Christians were just one, apparently usual, sect with which the authors contended (others included Sadducees, Samaritans, and Gnostics). This is a list of Jewish sects. Christianity was a Jewish sect. It is the most successful Jewish sect. The issue of what is "a Jewish view" or what is Judaism (in terms of what the article intends to cover) should be directly addressed by the article and not just on the talk page. Is the article defining "What is Judaism" by the points of view expressed in the article so that the views of Jews who differ and the views of Jewish sects that differ are defined not to be really Judaism? Is the article saying that if a Jew accepts Jesus as Messiah then by definition his beliefs are not Judaism beliefs? WAS 4.250 12:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Religions routinely go through schisms, reformations, etc. Even Catholics, Protestants & Eastern Orthodox don't get along well. After the historical schism of almost 2 millennia ago, Christianity made a complete breach from Judaism. It is a totally different belief system and is not a Jewish sect any more than Islam is. There is no need to address "What is Judaism" in this article because across all denominations of Judaism, there is a quite common view on Jesus: they reject both his divinity & messiahship. As for the Messianics, it would be a severe POV to identify them as a part of Judaism. For all practical purposes, they do not belong in this discussion. WAS 4.250, the answer to your question may be found here: Jews_for_Jesus#_note-incompat. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The pre-cursor to Christianity was a Jewish sect; Christianity split from Judaism 2,000 years ago, and they've been completely different faiths for that entire time. Christianity is not Judaism, and this article discusses Judaism's view of Jesus, not Christianity's view of Jesus. There are plenty of articles that discuss Christianity's view of Jesus, feel free to add this material in those articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is going poorly. I guess I communicated poorly. I'll start over. WAS 4.250 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There are very few Jewish sources that directly mention Jesus, I doubt you can find any Karaite sources talking about him, but if you do it would be great if that could be added. The sources quoted are from before the split of Orthodox, conservative and reform and reflects all of them. If you want to add modern sources from each movement stating as much I will not object. The reason Christianity and Messianic Judaism is not reflected in the article is because they are not recognized as a Jewish sect by any of the major denominations. Just because a group says that it represents Judaism does not mean it is representing Judaism. Jon513 19:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"There are very few Jewish sources that directly mention Jesus" so therefore let us not engage in original research. WAS 4.250 05:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"it would be great if that could be added" but I am interested in the subject and questioning the sourcing rather than saying I can add data. I know enough to help make the article more neutral, maybe; I am asking questions to try to help. If I knew enough to add; I would add. WAS 4.250 05:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"The reason Christianity and Messianic Judaism is not reflected in the article is because they are not recognized as a Jewish sect by any of the major denominations." - I think this and any other such criteria need to mentioned in the article and not just on the talk pages. I would do so myself, if I felt I could do so in a way that is appropriate (I know' there are many others that can phrase this subsection better than me.) WAS 4.250 05:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Just because a group says that it represents Judaism does not mean it is representing Judaism." Yes. For sure. And the article needs to reflect and deal with this and it does not. Again, this is something I wish to learn about and am not in a position to teach about. WAS 4.250 05:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The article does not contain original research, and accurately quotes the authoritative texts of Judaism that do mention Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be ok to begin the article by defining its content/subject as "authoritative texts of Judaism that are broadly accepted among Jews as mentioning the Jesus refered to in the New Testament"? WAS 4.250 02:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Another try at a formulation: "This article is about authoritative texts of Judaism that mention the Christ Jesus refered to in the New Testament according to modern Jewish experts on Judaism." That's still not quite right. WAS 4.250 02:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"This article is about what modern Jewish experts on Judaism say about what they consider to be authoritative texts of Judaism that mention the Christ Jesus refered to in the New Testament." Well, that says accurately what I think should be said, but I can't say much for its elegance. WAS 4.250 02:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Judaism has to mean something, and that's basically whatever its authoritative texts and religious leaders say it means. Judaism is not Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Animism, Mormonism, Shintoism, Baha'ism etc. While Judaism is far from monolithic, the only opinions that matter in Judaism are the opinions of Judaism; the views of or about various leaders/prophets/gods of Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, etc. are simply not relevant to Judaism. The fact that Judaism considers Amos to have been a prophet is not relevant to Shintoism. The fact that Islam considers Muhammad to be the last and greatest prophet is not relevant to Christianity. The fact that Mormonism considers Joseph Smith to have been a prophet is not relevant to Islam. The fact that the Unification Church considers Sun Myung Moon to be "humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent" is not relevant to Christianity or Islam or Judaism. And the fact that Christianity considers Jesus to be the Messiah is not relevant to Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Humas, you assert "Christianity made a complete breach from Judaism. It is a totally different belief system and is not a Jewish sect." That is a common opinion, but you already seem aware that others such as Messianic Jews discagree and believe they can following Jesus within their Jewish faith. How do you think this article can best describe that difference? I can't see the sense in just leaving it out because you, and others who think like you on this issue, disagree with them.

Jon, I had not realised the sources all came from before the split of Orthodox, conservative and reform denominations. Thanks for explaining that to me.

You also say Christianity and Messianic Judaism are not reflected in this article because they are not recognised as Jewish sects by any of the three "major" Jewish denominations. By your own words this is not a neutral point of view but the subjective point of view of these "major" denominations. Sure, these denominations are free to make judgements about what they consider Jewish and such judgements can be accurately described here. But by the same liberty Messianic Jews make a different judgement about themselves that should also be accurately described in an encyclopedia. Part of that accuracy could be to ensure it is clear how this view varies from that of the majority. To do otherwise would be to have wikipedia take sides in theological disputes.

Appeals to "majority" are relevent in balancing the promanence in the article of different views. But to say that a "minority" view is not worthy of inclusion just becuase the "majority" disagree with it is not being encyclopedic - it is being dogmatic. I feel strongly about the opression of religious minorities - including through exclusion - by "majority" religious groups.--Just nigel 17:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Christianity is not a "minority view" in Judaism, it is a different faith. This article is about Judaism's view of Jesus, not Christianity's view. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Just nigel, this case is not about "opression of religious minorities" but about WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Humus I do understand the importance of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. That is why I said: "Appeals to 'majority' are relevent in balancing the promanence in the article of different views." I propose this article would be more accurate if it said somthing like:

"Today the majority of Jews including all the three largest denominations of Judaism (orthodox, conservative and liberal/reform) belive this... " These views would be spelt out in detail. It would including the fact that they really don't beleive much about Jesus becuase they don't feel the need to talk about him; and what they do beleive about God that they find contradicted or compromised by what mainstream Christians believe about Jesus. Then haven given due weight to this majority view two other relevant areas (which I find missing from this article at the moment) need to be mentioned...

"The historical emergence of Christianity from within Judaisim meant (particularly at its inception) more ambiguity about Judaism's beliefs about Jesus. And that today a minority of Jews continue in this tradtion and see in Jesus a Messiah who never left Judaism". I fail to see how adding these two points is a threat to the integrity of this article. I think they would improve it. --Just nigel 00:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid weasel word claims about what "the majority of Jews" believe or don't believe. This is an article about the tenets of Judaism, not about what individual Jews believe. The split between Judaism and Christianty came precisely because of Christianity's beliefs about Jesus. The elements that introduced the new belief of Jesus as deity etc., and spread that belief among gentiles, became Christianity. There is no "ambiguity" about Judaism's view of Jesus; that issue was decided 1900 years ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

By your words then Jay, the ambiguity ended 1900 years ago. So do you think the ambiguity of the first 100 years is worthly of being acurately described in one sentence in 190?--Just nigel 01:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't describe the views of Baha'i regarding prophethood in the article on Islam precisely because Baha'i broke from Islam over that issue - similarly, there is no "ambiguity" in Judaism over Jesus. 2000 years ago a small number of Jews believed Jesus to be the messiah, and Paul in particular convinced a larger number of gentiles to believe it as well. Christianity evolved in a new direction, and broke away from Judaism over this and related beliefs, eventually deifying Jesus. Religions evolve, and James' view of Jesus was markedly different from that codified in the Nicene Creed. Trying to impose modern Christian views of Jesus on ancient Judaism is at best an anachronism, and trying to impose them in an article about Judaism's view is at best insulting. The Christian view of Jesus is well described in articles about Christianity, and these views aren't relevant to Judaism's views. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jay, on the Islam page the Baha'i faith does rate a sentence - even though Baha'i consider their faith to be "a distinct tradition with its own scriptures, teachings, laws, and history". How much more relavent to this discussion would be people who see Messianic faith in Jesus as being perfectly consitent with the tradition, scriptures, teaching, laws and history of Judaism? Don't you reckon they are worth ... They should get at least two sentences :p. An encyclopedia - to be encyclopedic - should include not just the mainstream or majority view.--Just nigel 10:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Islam page briefly mentions that Baha'i emerged from Islam; it doesn't described Baha'i's belief which diverge from Islam's, or insist they are one valid (minority) set of beliefs in Islam. The Judaism article give much greater play to Christianity and its beliefs, and mentions Islam and Baha'i as well. And, again, the article discusses Judaism's views, not the views of what "Jews" or "people" believe, because "people" believe 6 billion different things. Christian views are not a "minority" view in Judaism, even if some Jews have converted to Christianity; rather, they are a majority view in Christianity, where those views are discussed. Jews who have converted to Islam consider Abraham to be the first Muslim, and Islam to be the original faith of the Jews before they corrupted it. But you know what? That isn't mentioned in articles about Judaism, because those are the views of Islam, not the views of Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

To say that the Messianics are a minority would imply that they belong to Judaism. This would be an extreme POV. Please take your activism elsewhere. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a subjective point of view to say that Messianics belong to Judaism. It happens to be their view. Just as it is a subjective point of view for anyone (even a majority of Judaism) to say that they do not belong to Judaism. It is not the role of Wikipedia to take sides in such religious controversies. It is the role of Wikipedia to accurately describe them.

Please do not tell me to "take your activism elsewhere". I find that offensive. It does not presume good faith on my part, it suggests you have more right to be here than I do (which you don't we can both be here), and worse it seeks to end dialogue. I am here because I am happy to have dialogue with people who disagree with me. If the issue is you are uncomfortable with this conversation you have the choice to withdraw for a while. You would still be welcome to rejoin the conversation later. --Just nigel 11:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

They can't have eat their cake and have it too, much as they'd like to. Once you convert to another faith, your beliefs are not part of Judaism any more, no matter how much you kick and scream and insist that Blue is really Red. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Once you convert to another faith, your beliefs are not part of Judaism any more" that is not a neutral point of view that is a subjective point of view. Messianic Jews have a different subjective point of view. That is why neither point of view should be the basis for editorial revisions. The most accurate thing for wikipedia to do is accurqately describe both - giving due weigth to the domimant view.--Just nigel 15:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "subjective point of view", it's a simple logical truth. And, again, we're not interested in what various groups of Jews think, we're talking about what the authoritative texts in Judaism say. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jay, your statement "it's simple logical truth" sounds dogmatic to me. Repeating your point of view - as valid as your point of view is, or as widely supported as it is - doesn't prove or disprove that your point of view is still subjective. If you wanted to demonstrate your point of view was not subjective you would need to point to objective evidence for it. And while looking into that you could ask yourself 'why if this POV is not subjective am I able to quote other subjects who have another point of view?'

Also, when you say "Were not interested in what various groups of Jews think" (emphasis added), on whose behalf were you speaking? You were not speaking for me. If by "we" you meant the editors of this article I am concerned by the implied sectarianism of making sweeping statements that exclude me. It sounds like you are perceiving this as "Us/We" versus "Them/You". By your comments and revision, removing information from the article I can see that you are not to be interested in what various groups of Jews think. Once again this is a subjective POV and not the basis for a good encyclopedia article.--Just nigel 00:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be helpful to return to that example given of the mention of the Baha'i faith on the Islam page? I had two points about this:

1) The Baha'i faith is mentioned (in one sentnece I think) on the Islam page. It is an informative and accurate sentence but it is appropriate that not much more is said there, because...

2) Members of the Baha'i faith do not self-identify as Muslims. As I quoted above, they consider themselves to be a separate religion. No one is insisting they are a "valid (minority) set of beliefs in Islam".

I see a better annalogy for the dispute over this article presenting alternative views from within Judaism, in the range of information about the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints (Mormons) included on pages about Christianity. Latter-day Saints self-identify as Christian. The majority of the world's Christians including the large denominations of orthodox, catholic and protestant christianity do not agree with the Latter-day Saints on many issus of beleif and practice, and consider them heretical. The feelings are mutual - Latter-day saints call most of these churches apostate. Yet call up the Christianity page, or the Trinity page and you will see that their view is given space. It is encyclopedic to include it.

It is not the job of wikipedia editors to take sides with subjective POV on such disputes about what constitutes orthodoxy or heresy. Our role is to accurately describe. And I object to the constant editing of this article to remove factual and referrenced information about vies with which some editors happen to personally disagree.--Just nigel 11:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is this article about?

What is this article about? "Judaism's view of Jesus", obviously. But what is meant by "Judaism" and what is meant by "Jesus"? I think the article is unclear and would benefit from greater clarity in identifying what is and is not covered by the article. One example to show what I mean : "some Jews doubt the historical existence of Jesus". Is the article meant to cover official Judaism or what "some jews" think? Does "Jesus" refer to the mythalogical Jesus of the New Testament who comes back in power and glory in the second coming thus fullfulling prophesy or the historical Jesus whose existence is as uncertain as that of King Arthur? (There were several healers with the right name and lived at the right time and place and so could have inspired the stories of Jesus; just as there are several people whose real lives could have been inspirations for the King Arthur myths.) WAS 4.250 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is complication and summary of many of the view expressed by Judaism as a religion about Jesus. The reason the "some Jews..." line is important is because it reflects a view expressed by the Talmud and multiple non-trivial later sources, I will change it to make that clear. While the article does not concern itself directly with the issue of what is meant by "Jesus", Judaism view on any definition of Jesus should be clear from the article. 19:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

opps, thought you were referring to the next line "Based on a Talmudic tradition...", anyway I changed both sentences. Jon513 11:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You say "Judaism view on any definition of Jesus should be clear from the article" and I agree with should. But it is not clear to me. Please help make it clear. WAS 4.250 06:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus is not part of the Jewish faith and Judaism does not impose any particular beliefs about Jesus. If an idea of Jesus doesn't contradict any fundamental of faith it is compatible with Judaism. This article tries to outline what beliefs about Jesus are incompatible with Judaism and leaves it to reader to understand that anything else is fine. I have tried to make the article a bit more readable by removing all refers to "Jews" and replacing it with "Judaism". Jon513 11:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The statment "Jesus is not part of the Jewish faith" sounds very subjective to me. If this article is edited on that assumption we would need verifiable soruces that show it is the case. It would also seem relavant to address New Testament sources where both Jesus describes himself and is described by others as part of the Jewish faith.--Just nigel 16:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Just nigel: What makes Judaism a different religion to Chrisatinity is that it (Judaism) rejects Jesus, all of his claims and claims about him by Christians and Christianity, and every word of the New Testament 101% -- that is Judaism 101. IZAK 18:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

IZAK, repeating a statement does not make it better sourced. Restating a point of view with more emphatic puncutation does not make it more neutral. It seems to me that you want to silence disent, not find the best way to accurately describe it. It is important to me that contributors follow wikipedia conventions on things like WP:NPOV--Just nigel 19:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by "Jesus is not part of the Jewish faith" is not that Jesus wasn't Jewish, but that we don't care. I meant to says "the belief in Jesus, or any other beliefs about Jesus is not required by Judaism at all". The only way Jesus comes up in Jewish Theology is what beliefs Judaism proscribes. There are many things that Judaism forbids one to believe in about Jesus (i.e. not God, not son of God, not messiah, etc), nothing that Judaism requires one to believe about Jesus. According to Judaism one may believe almost anything about Jesus (including that he was Jewish, or a rabbi, or a racer or whatever else you want to say) so long as it does not contradict any fundamental of faith. Just like Judaism does not impose any beliefs about most historical figure. For example, according to Judaism believing that napoleon was king of china is stupid not heretical. Jon513 12:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Just nigel: Ok, this is very simple and you seem to not realize this. Here are some readily available online sources with lots of proofs about Judaism's views about Jesus. Take a look at all the points and citations at:

• The Jewish Concept of Messiah and the Jewish Response to Christian Claims (jewsforjudaism.org)
• Why Don't Jews believe in Jesus? (simpletoremember.com)
• Jesus, The Crucifixion, Pontius Pilate and the New Testament (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)
• Is belief in Jesus-as-G-d compatible with any Jewish movements? (shamash.org/lists/scj-faq)
• Why Don't Jews Believe in Jesus as the Messiah? (shamash.org/lists/scj-faq)
• Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus (aish.com)
• Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus (ohr.edu)
• Can a Jew believe in Jesus? (chabad.org)
• What About Jesus? (mechon-mamre.org)
• Looking for Jesus? (jewfaq.org)

All these sources explain the view of Judaism about Jesus. Please read all the sources before responding. Do you want the details from each and every one of them in the article? I will be glad to include them. IZAK 20:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to cite that Siddhartha Gautama (aka Buddha) is not the Jewish Lord and Savior, who suffered, died, and achieved Nirvana (and then came back to tell everyone about how awesome it was) too? Sure, maybe he was a decent guy (perhaps even a great guy, just for some cognitive dissonance), but he's not part of the Jewish religion. I find it hilarious that this point is even being disputed, it's plainly obvious to anyone with even a vague understanding of Judaism. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 23:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

IZAK, I have have not reread all those sources since you posted them here in the discussion, but I have looked at some of them as they are referenced within the article. Of the ones I have read I see them sharing and supporting your opinion that "Judaism rejects Jesus, all of his claims and claims about him by Christians and Christianity, and every word of the New Testament 101%" - even if they do not employ the exagerated rehtoric.

What I haven't seen yet is accurate description of (minority) views that disagree with your opinions. Could you direct me to where any of these sources address that point?--Just nigel 00:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Karimarie, in good faith, this article is about opinions on Jesus from within Judaism. I don't think views on Siddhartha Gautama (aka Buddha) would be relavent. I do wonder if you were using sarcasm, and were you asking why we should care to write about Jewish views on Jesus, if Judaism doesn't as a dogma recognise the man as relavent to their faith?

My answer to that would be that ellements of Judaism have through history felt opressed by dominant forms of Christianity and find a need to articulate to themselves or others what they believe - especially where this differs from Christianity. I think this is a shame. Members of Judaism should be free to express what they do beleive without the need to always defend it in this way.

By way of example, since I have tried to include some of the more ambiguis ellements of Judaism's relationship with Christianity (particularly at its inception) and mention the existsence of Jews who beleive Jesus is their Messiah, the style of the article has become more defensive and argumentative. This sentence in the opening paragraph reads more like a polemic than an encycopedia:

"In Jewish eschatology the idea of the Messiah is so different from the Christian Christ that the slightest possibility that Jesus fulfilled any Messianic prophecies to embody the criteria for a Messiah has always been rejected." (emphasis added).

I thnk it would be better and simpler to say something like:

"In mainstream Jewish eschatology, the idea of the Messiah differs significantly from mainstream Christian Christology. The majority of Judaism have always rejected claims that Jesus was the Messiah."--Just nigel 00:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

and Jon, your clarifcation makes sense to me. I had misunderstood you.--Just nigel 00:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Mainstream" is a weasel word; what other "Jewish eschatology" would you be referring to? And why would the fact that some Jews believe Jesus is the Messiah be relevant? Some Jews believe Sun Myung Moon is the Messiah; does that belong in an article about Judaism's views? Some Jews believe Muhammad was the last prophet; does that belong in an article about Judaism's views? Some Jews believe that Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí was the last prophet; should that be in an article about Judaism's views? This is an article about Judaism's views, not what "some Jews" believe, because "some Jews" believe everything you can imagine. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Judaism's view of Jesus maintains that the notion of Jesus being a God, part of a Trinity, a Messiah, or a even a prophet, to be heresy. This view is shared by all Jewish denominations unequivocally. In Jewish eschatology the idea of the Messiah is so different from the Christian Christ that the slightest possibility that Jesus fulfilled any Messianic prophecies to embody the criteria for a Messiah has always been rejected.[1] These statements and the rabbinic views derived therefrom present a specific picture of the indivisible Jewish steadfastness in rejecting Jesus as a God, Divine Being, an intermediary between humans and God, Messiah or saint.

This opening seems a little overly emphatic as I believe Just nigel pointed out above, but also it seems to contradict somethings which I've heard from a jewish friend. She said that many Jews believe that Jesus could have been holy, or sent by god (i.e. prophet) but not the son of god. Chooserr 00:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This encyclopedia reflects reliable and verifiable sources. BTW, my friend says your friend is wrong. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well, but by stopping at the point before Conservative and Reform Judaism existed I think this could be giving a skewed view. It explains Medieval tension between Christians and Jews, which as I said was apparently more mutual than I had assumed (Don't misunderstand, Jewish people obviously suffered more from such tension), but says almost nothing about the modern age. I think the views of Messianic Judaism, Hebrew Christians, Judaeo-Muslims, etc can indeed be ignored. However I think this is ignoring a good deal of writers within Judaism itself and giving undue focus on people battling against Messianic Judaism. (The alternative is that Judaism truly has done nothing on inter-religious dialogue since the sixteenth century, but I find that to be rather unlikely)--T. Anthony 00:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

But this article isn't about inter-religious dialogue, it's about Judaism's view of Jesus, which is ancient, and ranges from negative to very, very negative. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

First that's not precisely right. This relates to how one religion views the founder of another, so interreligious issues are going to come to play whether you want them to or not. Second that was only one small part of my difficulty anyway. If it's true that Judaism has not had any consideration on this matter worth mentioning since 1300, and still views Christians exactly as they did during the Inquisition, than I find this remarkable and worthy of an explanation. Because every other religion I know of has tried to modify its view of the founders of other religions. (Excepting maybe Islam) If Judaism's view of other founders of religions has remained frozen in the fourteenth century it'd be interesting to know why. Plus I do have concerns in the wider world and you'll just have to accept that. Because if the article's point is that Judaism truly is inherently Anti-Christian and hostile to Christ than the article may have real world consequences it's not considering. It's nice to think you're living in a vacuum where no one will be influenced or incited by what they read, but it's not reality. (If Judaism really is inherently hostile to my religion I would still be sympathetic to the reasons why and accept that, but I'm saying many in the world would not go that way)--T. Anthony 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus has not been mentioned all that much in Jewish thought, but every so often some authoritative source in Judaism will mention him, and the thinking is pretty much the same. Given that the modern, liberal Reform movement fairly recently came out with a ruling that differed little from the rulings of centuries ago, it's clear that not much has changed as regards this. As for Judaism being "anti-Christian", that's a leap. Naturally Judaism disputes the fundamental claims of Christianity, since they essentially (and literally) claim to supersede Judaism - if anything, the "inherently hostile" view is of Christianity towards Judaism, and one needs only to read the New Testament to understand that. However, saying that worship of Jesus is fundamentally opposed to the beliefs of Judaism is not the same as being "anti-Christian" or "inherently hostile" to Christianity. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confused as to what I'm responding to. I'll try this one last time, but then I give up. This really does give a worse view of Christianity than anything in mainstream Christian denominations today do to Judaism. I've never seen a mainstream church indicate that Judaism is the most warlike religion, that it's founders were wicked, and that exists only as a stumbling block. I think you may feel I'm being unfair, but that's pretty clearly in it. The impression left is that most everything useful to be said on the subject ends at 1300. Therefore Judaism believes that Christianity is proven false, that Jesus was a wicked man warned of in prophecy, that Judaism killed Jesus rather than Romans doing so, and that Christianity itself is a force of only misery. All these things make sense in the context of Medieval European religious hostility, but then it stops. If this truly is the view of Judaism up to today then this is indeed intensely peculiar. It is also, sorry, more intolerant than Christianity in the developed world. However this is Wikipedia so I try to be intensely skeptical of every religion article here. Also I warn people to never use this place on those subjects. (After all Wikipedia practically indicates Catholicism is based on Anti-Semitism and invented Fascism. On religion issues it's the biggest source of half-truths and misinformation going)--T. Anthony 04:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there just aren't a lot of authoritative sources on Jesus in modern Judaism. You're right, the statement of the Reform movement should be there, and any by the modern Conservative movement (I haven't found any by that movement referring to Jesus as all), and any by significant Orthodox groups. But again, keep in mind, while they might have made statements about "Jews for Jesus" or other "Hebrew Christian" groups, they rarely, if ever, comment about Jesus. We're not left with a huge amount of stuff. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, to include "My friend says Jesus was an honorable bloke" would be unencyclopedic. One of my concern with the article as it stands is that some glaring reliable and verifiable sources have been edited out of the article, because some of the editors have a point of view oposing them. Can we include more sources or is there a dogmatic objection among this article's editors?--Just nigel 09:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that point of contention is as follows: Most editor believe that Messianic Judaism is not a form of Judaism. Not a minority view, not an unpopular view, but completely unrelated to Judaism, and therefore is outside the scope of this article. This is not to say that these editors believe on way of another about their own faith, but they have a view about which religion Messianic Judaism is part of. Just nigel, on the other hand, seems (correct me if I am wrong) to believe that Messianic Judaism is a minority view in Judaism.

Just nigel has said that the fact that the three major denominations of Judaism reject Messianic Judaism doesn't not mean to him that it is not Jewish because that is just three opinions. I am sure that he would be equally unimpressed with the Israeli Supreme court that rule the same. In fact, any sources that could be shown to contradict him will alway just be the majority opinion.

As there is no way mathematically possible to resolve this dispute it seems to me that it is time to end it and follow the opinion of the majority of the editors. I does not make sense to me to put a POV tag on the article when there is no way possible for it ever to be removed. Jon513 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

At issue is not whether I judge them to be part of judaism. At issue is acuratley describing that they beleive they are part of Judaism. So I have added one sentence:

Some alternative forms of Judaism differ from these views, most notably those often called Messianic Jews who believe Jesus to be the Messiah.

It is a statement of fact and refferenced. I hope people who read this article find this extra information adds to their understanding of the topic.--Just nigel 23:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-identification is a ridiculous argument. Not everyone who wakes up thinking he is a reincarnation of Buddha is one, or even is a Buddhist. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why Humus wants to ridicule the argument of self-identification. Whatever your reasons, it is a standard definition of religion used in sociology. As the first sentnce on the Wikipedia page on religious identity states:

"Religious identity is a matter of self–identification and self–declaration of those, who only believe in, or also follow the doctrines of a particular religion."

It is the definition I have always used in such forums and I am not aware of any other NPOV that is available to us. Are you?--Just nigel 11:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying; I think you are wrong. I believe that to include messianic Judaism as a minority view despite the fact that is rejected as part of Judaism by the overwhelming majority of the Jewish people would be POV. Also religious identity is an article not policy. Jon513 12:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

By this logic, wouldn't we then have to include the view of Mormons about Jesus? According to that article, they consider themselves to be part of the Jewish nation, even if Jews don't see it that way.Kaisershatner 14:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jon, if you think it is wrong to apply the principle of religious self-identification as a basis for NPOV, what do you suggest instead. (I am not convinced by earlier suggestions on this discussion that wikipedia should be bound by decisions of the Israeli court system.)

Kaisershatner, if you were you seriously suggesting it and you know about it I would not try to stop you being bold and editing away. I don't know so much about it myself, but I suspect Latter-day saints notions of being 'in the house of Israel' may not be exactly the same as being Jewish. Also as the article notes "Mormons' claim to membership in the House of Israel has led to some complex relationships with Judaism. The concept of non-Jews claiming membership in the House of Israel produces various cultural and interfaith problems." and it would be tricky to cover complexities in brief here.

I thought Messianic Jews were particularly relevant to this articel becasue they are people who identify themselves as Jewish and hold a peculiar view of Jesus that differs from mainstream Judasim, and (I suspect) this difference is the major cause for the emotional dispute about their jewish legitamacy.--Just nigel 14:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subject drift

The article's title is itself putting the cart before the horse. There is no "Buddhism's view of Jesus," because no-one really expects Buddhism to take notice of Christianity's beliefs and respond to them. Similarly, Judaism has not changed its core views of the Messiah or its view of God, both of which predate the era of Jesus by hundreds/thousands of years. A difference between Buddhism and Judaism here though is that Christianity purports to supersede Judaism, while Buddhism does not, and therefore, it may make sense to have an article explaining the Jewish view of Christianity or of Jesus (as there are articles about Isa or the Muslim view of Jesus, and others). As hard as it may be to believe, however, Judaism doesn't have a position on Jesus per se, any more than it has a position on Alexander the Great, Joseph Smith, User:Kaisershatner, or anyone else in particular, because none of these people, whatever they may claim or whatever others may claim about them, have fulfilled the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible. I think stating that there exists "Judaism's view of Jesus" is conceding the major point that Judaism doesn't think the Messiah has arrived. Finally, most of the rest of the introduction deals with Jewish eschatology and core priniciples of faith- it should be trimmed back to focus more on the article's subject - this isn't a forum to argue about the differences between Judaism and Christianity overall. Kaisershatner 16:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and would support either rename or a merge. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The neutrality of this article is disputed."

Once again some editors are reverting any information I add and at the same time removing POV tags from this article. My additions are not spam. They are in good faith, factual and refferenced. I don't understand how they can dispute my inclusions, and then say there is no dispute?? In seeking to discuss on this page I have been told by some to leave/go elsewhere and that 'we' are not interested. What is going on here?? A majority-held faith position does not give those who hold that position a right to silence any dissent on wikipedia. I feel censored and am strugling to understand why I am being treated this way. I wonder if this article is being governed by a dogmatism? Is that an accurate assesment? Maybe those who are removing my contributions - or someone else reading this who thinks they understand - could try and shed light on the motives at work here.--Just nigel 14:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just coming back to this discussion after a few months, and started re-editing the article last week. Am I correct that the basic conflict is you want to add the views of Messianic Judaism as a minority Jewish viewpoint, and most of the editors don't want to include MJ views of Jesus in an article about Judaism because they contend that MJ is not Judaism? Kaisershatner 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes that was one of the conflicts. The other was that I thought the article should cover that at the time of Jesus, Jewish views about him were actually contencious with some following Jesus and others not - leading to some formal splits between the two religions.--Just nigel 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm just starting to think about this one, but I'd like to hear what other editors think about a section titled "Messianic Judaism" and Jesus, stating, "Messianic Judaism," a movement that encompasses such groups as Jews for Jesus et al., does venerate Jesus as God, however, is not considered to be a Jewish movement by any Jewish denomination. That is AFAIK an accurate statement of the facts. Is that a bad idea? Kaisershatner 15:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi K,

I definitely see where your suggestion is coming from, and it different circumstances it would be a good option. The deeper problem here is that the belief that Messianic Judaism is a part of Judaism is completely untenable and unsupported by both the Jewish and Christian religions and their associated platforms - this is not just a Jewish holding, but a Christian one as well (see the Messianic Judaism article for details). Self-identification, the only possible approach for the Messianic groups, does not apply for Judaism, given the strict guidelines identifying practitioners of the religion - it is more akin to regulated citizenship than the looser requirements of other religions, Christianity in particular.

For these reasons, introducing a section about Messianic Judaism's views of Jesus "because MJ is a Jewish sect" would be as pointless as including a section on Christianity's views of Jesus "since Christianity is a Jewish sect," as some have said - neither is a sect of Judaism; both are a completely different religion. I've mentioned previously on this talk page that a possible solution would be a separate article with the views of the separate belief system of Messianic Judaism on Jesus - this might be particularly timely now, what with the ongoing call for the Messianic Judaism project to create articles outlining their notably different beliefs and practices rather than pre-empting those on Judaism and Christianity. Dbratton 16:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbratton, to merely state that "neither (so called Messianic Judaism or Christianity) is a sect of Judaism; both are a completely different religion" is unhelpful in formulating a NPOV for this article. It is this very issue that is in dispute. My understadning of Messianic Judaism is that they reject this dichotomy. At the inception of Christianity this dichotomy was very much in dipsute as well.

The fact that you, I, others or the majority of Judaism may accept this dichotomy does not mean we can't describe Messianic Judaism's view accurately and with due wieght.

--- or maybe for some reason it does stop you. I'm not sure why this is the case but if it is, that is OK, it does not mean the rest of us can't describe Messianic Judaism's view accurately and with due wieght. Now if you would please be so kind as to agree not to impose your religious assumptoins on wikipedia I will go ahead and edit the article once more.--Just nigel 21:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nigel, I'm not interested in trying to talk to you about this. The fact that you've ignored every single one of the editors who's tried to explain why the teachings and beliefs of Messianic Judaism are unrelated to Judaism, all of whom have a great deal of knowledge and experience with the subject, indicates that you're not interested in improving your knowledge. All I can recommend is that you do the requisite research to understand why MJ is not Judaism - the information is quite abundant online. Please look into this and realize that no one is pushing a POV against you. Dbratton 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets take a step back, how do we ever decide what is considered majority view, minority view, and non-existent view. For example, the majority view is that the earth is round, and that is what is said in the article Earth, the Flat Earth is a minority so it barely gets mentioned, that the earth is on the back of a turtle is such a tiny view that is not notable at all. Now, what if the Flat Earth people "self-identify" themselves as the majority view (really everyone agrees with us, they just are too embarrassed to say). Or an nonexistent view (one that isn't notable at all, but has some published writings) claims that it is a notable minority view. We don't simply count the amount of published opinions and do a poll. Perhaps one side is more prolific (the more extreme side would tend to be since they have to defend their opinion) that the other. Instead we look at the consensus of what is considered the majority view, minority view, and non-notable views, even though there are a minority that disagrees with this consensus (they think that a minority is the majority view, or that a minor view is notable, etc). Now, that consensus is not the same as the majority view. In fact, most of the time the minority view agrees that they are the minority view, and the the non-notable view agrees that they are a tiny fringe. While it is common to have a dispute on a topic, it is very rare for there to be a dispute of who is the majority and who is the minority.

In this case, there is a clear consensus by most of the world (all the denomination of Judaism, and the mainstream Christian view, the Israeli supreme court, everyone else in the world besides Messianic Jews) that Messianic Judaism is not part of Judaism, and therefore not a minority view, but outside the scope of this article. This is also why the Mormon view is not considered, since the vast majority of people reject their claim as being Jewish (Note:I'm not sure what the mormons believe). This is also why many editors have tried to show you sources that demonstrate that the general consensus is that Messianic Judaism is outside the scope of this article (they were not just restating the majority point of view as you seemed to have understood it). I understand that there are those that disagree with this consensus, but just as we don't change the earth article if the Flat Earth people "self-identify" themselves as the majority view, so to here we don't include views that the vast majority of people consider outside of its scope.Jon513 22:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jon thank you for engaging in this discussion. I wonder if you are misunderstanding the conecpt of 'self-identification'. You may well understand it but you have applied it here in a different way to the way I was using it above. I am not suggesting that MJ identifies it self as a majority (I'm not aware that they do). Besides even if a minority group did view itself as a majority such quantifiable concepts as 'majority' and 'minority' can be objectivley measured. It would be easy to articulate from a NPOV what view was in the majority. We could even acurately report that a smaller group considered itself to be a majority - if this was significant. I was aplying the principle of self-identification because relgious identity is subjective.--Just nigel 00:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is, does this article cover Judaism's views on (for example) the church, or just on jesus? If it covers bodies, groups and institutions in jesus' name, then MJ would be one of those. If it's just J's view on Jesus then that's questionable. And yet, even so, a simple statement that MJ is not considered a part of Judiasm or Christianity, and is condemned or shunned by most forms of Judaism, might not be out of place. My $0.02. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The article on MJ deals with the Jewish view of MJ; it's not for this article, which is about the Jewish (non)view of Jesus(,divinity and existence of). After reading Dbratton's answer above ("Self-identification, the only possible approach for the Messianic groups, does not apply for Judaism, given the strict guidelines identifying practitioners of the religion,") I think I am inclined to agree. Nigel, your point about objective majority/minority status is correct, however, "self-identification" as the only, or even the main, criteria for defining Jewish denominations is suspect. I can identify myself as a Roman Catholic, a Martian, and a superhero, but I am not any of these by any objective measure. I think (and many above editors with far more knowledge than I) that there is more to qualifying as a Jewish denomination than stating "we are a Jewish denomination," especially when all other Jewish denominations, which agree on little else, seem to agree that MJ is not one. In fact, using that criterion would allow basically any group to claim anything about any religion (imagine: "We're Catholic only we believe in the Holy Duality and that eating cheese is the only way to salvation." I don't think it would get a lot of agreement). Also, in the case of MJ my silly cheese analogy is inadequate. Adherents of MJ apparently believe certain things, such as the divinity of Jesus, that are fundamentally incompatible with the Jewish worldview. ("We're Catholics who believe in the nondivinity of Jesus.") Finally, and separately, you mentioned that the article needs more about early conflicts at the time of Christianity's inception - if you point me to some sources I'd be happy to read up on it. Kaisershatner 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

FT2, this article is about Judaism and Jesus. There is a separate article about Judaism and Christianity. the reason we are discussing Messianic Judaism, is because information about their view of Jesus that I include on this page is regularly edited out.

The quote Self-identification, the only possible approach for the Messianic groups, does not apply for Judaism, given the strict guidelines identifying practitioners of the religion contains a tautology or logic loop that is relavant to this disucssion. Consdier whose "guidelines" are these? It is not a suprise that these "guidelines" that exlude MJ from Judiasm are the guidelines of those who do not consider MJ as members of Judaism. No doubt, Messianic Judaism have guidelines for defining Judaism that does include themselves. This is relavant because this is my point: "authoriative texts" or "strict guidlines" are not objective judgements they are all the subjective judgements of those who hold those texts to be authorative or those who hold those guidelines strictly. I am not suggesting that people should not have authoritavie texts, or follow guidelines. I am stating the fact that they are not NPOV. And although particular denominations of Judaism or even the Isreal Supreme Court have ways of judging claims of religious identity, wikipedia doesn't.

Let the religious minorities have their voice - to do otherwise is to engage in religious persecution.--Just nigel 10:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, speaking of tautologies, as you do above, it seems like the position you are taking is equally tautological - Judaism includes anyone who says they are Jewish therefore MJ is Judaism. You're assuming the truth of the former proposition to prove the second. Kaisershatner 17:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware that "anyone who claims to be a Jew can be counted as one". The fact that there are (limited) grey areas regarding who is (individually) a Jew, does not in fact inform the debate whether some religious group or belief, is considered (communally) to be Judaism. The consensus of credible Jewish organisations appears overwhelmingly against this for MJ. This is probably verifiable, I just haven't looked formally into it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

At issue is that these Jewish organisations' consensus is not a neutral point of view but based on their subjective view of what makes an orthodox Jew. The people who they are deciding are not real Jews obviously have a different definition of Judaism if they include themselves in it. So we are left with two differnt opinions a majority one and a minority one. To say that the majority is "creidible" and the minority is not, is POV.--Just nigel 08:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Judaism is a classic ancient belief system, defined by its authoritative texts and core principles. It is perfectly OK for some group to follow a religion incompatible with Judaism, but it is not OK for that group to use deceptive names (such as blah blah Judaism) and insist that they are a part of another religion whose principles they chose to violate. Therefore it would be a severe POV to insist that MJ are a minority within Judaism. Just nigel, you seem to keep repeating the same arguments. Please stop, and stop your attempts to elbow in your extremist POV into the article. It won't stick. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Early Christianity

Kaisershatner, conserning the cotested views of Jesus at the origins of Christianity: The article is now linked to Early Christianity which is a start. We don't want to repeat all of that information here. What I thought was relevant to this article was the fact that when Jesus - a member of Judaism - taught about his faith, and claimed to be the Messiah (or it was claimed about him by his followers) some in Judaism thought he was right and followed him, others thought he was wrong and persecuted him and his followers and others thought he was wrong or never heard of him and ignored him. Jewish followers of Jesus participated in the life of the Temple and then Synagogues until the introduction of "strict guidelines" to exclude them and stop this. There are other sources but one of the best is the New Testament gospels and to a lesser extent other sections of the New Testament. Most texts can be read not only as evidence of what their authors (and presumed audiance) beleived but conversely who they were arguing with or reacting against. For example the New Testament reports that the Jewish Temple authorities judged Jesus to be a blasphemer and that Pharisee Paul of Tarsus set out to persecute the followers of Jesus' way. It also reports that some (to start with small numbers but then growing) of Jews thought Jesus was the Messiah and trusted what he taught. I think to breifly describe this would actually help provide historic context for controversy today over the claims of religious identity by people called Messianic Jews, who want to both worship in Synagagoue as Jews and trust in Jesus' way in a way simlar to those called Christians.--Just nigel 10:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll regarding the 'Jesus' article

In the 'Jesus' discussion page there has been some discussion regarding whether that page should be more neutral rather than being slanted primarily toward Christianity. I in fact just set up a poll to gauge opinion as to how the topic should be introduced in that article. If anybody monitoring this discussion wishes to register an opinion in that poll please do so. --Mcorazao 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] remove paragraph

I removed the second paragraph of the intro:

Because there are Christian denominations who target Jews for conversion to Christianity organizations have been formed to educate Jews on the Jewish teachings regarding the messiah. Three websites for counter-missionary organizations include Messiah Truth, Jews for Judaism, and Outreach Judaism.

because it doesn't add anything to the article. The statement is more fit for Judaism and Christianity. In any event I did not remove the links in the external links section. Jon513 19:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madmen

In regards to the Epistle to Yemen, Darth Sidious added ("the Madman") after Muhammad in the article. It is accurate that the Epistle of Yemen uses the word "Madman", however I thought it was not clear why we were calling Muhammad "the Madman", so I added "who is referred to as". We cannot simply call Muhammad a Madman for NPOV reasons, so I wanted to make sure that readers knew it was the text that used the term. However, I was reverted with no reason given. Any comments?-Andrew c 18:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that it should be clarified that this is what the text says. In addition to the subtle NPOV issue, without your edit it actually looks a bit like vandalism. ;) Dbratton 18:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] messainic phrophesy

I have added the POV tag because my edits have again been changed to say "the coming of the Messiah will be associated with a specific series of events that have not yet occurred," This is not NPOV. There are plenty of others who beleive they have been or are being. interpreting prophecy is notoriously subjective. What is at issue in this article is not whether these prophecies have been fulfilled, but what Judaism views has been fulfilled.--Just nigel 08:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say "the coming of the Messiah...etc", it says "Jewish eschatology holds that the coming of the Messiah...etc". Not only does the sentence directly attribute it to Judaism's view, but the whole article is about Judaism's view. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed sentence

I have removed

Jews generally consider Jesus to have been an ordinary Jew, like all the other Jews of his day and age, albeit one that has become quite famous posthumously

from the background section. it was added by user:Rickyrab [2]. (1)The sentence does not belong the the background section. (2)there are many jews who doubt the historical existence of Jesus. (3) "ordinary Jew" in undefined. I don't think that any false messiah is an ordinary Jew. If it mean "not God like everyone else" it is stated explicitly latter (4)the sentence adds nothing to the flow or style of the section.

I also removed "(as of the Middle Ages)" in the section about Maimonides, as his view is not dated as is still very mainstream. Jon513 17:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The part about Islam being a mistake is mainstream or the whole section is mainstream? Is it really mainstream in modern Judaism that "the sages of blessed memory" punished Jesus rather than the Romans doing it and that Jesus was an evil man whose bones should be ground to dust? If so I think this would make Christian/Jewish relations more complicated than they already are. (To me it'd be like if the mainstream view in Christianity remained as "Muhammad was a polygamous heretic who is presumably in Hell at present")--T. Anthony 04:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

yes. As Judaism believes Jesus is not God, the Messiah or anything in between he was a liar who mislead hundreds (who mislead thousands, who mislead millions) of people in a path away from truth, as such he is not a respected figure in Judaism. Maimonides is actually a liberal view in that while he does not view Jesus positively, he views Christianity as a step away from paganism (while still considering it paganism). As to whether it was the Sages or the romans who killed Jesus, "I don't know and I don't care" was and still is the mainstream viewpoint. Judaism (and religions in general) rarely concern themselves with historical facts unrelated to their religion. There was little historical evidence at Maimonides' time either way, and there is no more now. Maimonides never intended to decide historical fact but rather to paint a picture what he thinks might have happened. Jon513 11:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I shouldn't have asked. I really would rather not believe Judaism has such a negative view of the founder of another religion because I'd rather think that different religions can get along. If you pretty much dislike and hate each other's founders that's not too doable. (Granted I dislike Martin Luther, but Lutherans are Christians and ultimately deem Christ their founder) So even if the answer is "yes it does" I'm going to go with ignoring that for the sake of good relations. I guess what I was really asking was just your answer, or the answer of Wikipedians, and I got that. If I really want Judaism's answer I should just check Jewish sources on my own. Thanks anyway and this was a good reminder why I should never return here.--T. Anthony 03:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what I know, what's above is not factually incorrect, but I think it could be emphasized more diplomatically. Judaism has a non-view on the founder of another religion. Whatever Jesus may or may not have done or said, since he didn't fulfill the requirements of the Jewish Messiah as per the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible, he is not considered religiously significant to Judaism. I would say this makes Jesus irrelevant to Judaism more than "disliked" or "hated," much as the details of Jewish observance are irrelevant to Christians. Whatever is going on in Christianity in general just has no bearing on the Jewish worldview and religion, making questions about Jesus a little bit beside the point. It shouldn't be offensive to point this out - to Christians, Jesus is the central figure of their belief system - to Jews, he wasn't the Messiah, and therefore...next question. It's like asking Christians what they think about keeping kosher - "not relevant to salvation" might be the answer. I hope that people can read this to learn about Judaism's view of Jesus without expecting Judaism to validate or recognize their faith, much as Jews can read about Christianity without expecting the religion to validate or reward their belief in Judaism. (This is a subject that may inflame delicate sensitivites, and smarter people than I have treated it; at least, I hope I have been politic about it and please keep this in mind if you reply.)Kaisershatner 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The stuff about why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah I found quite interesting and even challenging. Maybe moreso than I'd like, but that's not something to be avoided in an article like this. It might even be good in that it got me reading and reflecting more on the Bible. There was just a few of the other things I thought came out a bit too aggressive and one-sided. Judaism has no Pope or even Ecumenical Council, so far as I know, so I'd have thought Rabbinical scholars were a bit more varied than I got out of this article. Or at least that over the centuries certain concepts have been explained in different ways. If thirteenth century Jewish phraseology/views remain completely intact and unchanging to present that's truly intriguing. I'm not even sure the Copts have managed that.--T. Anthony 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Maimonides' view remains mostly unchallenged not because it is cannon but because there is little interest in it. There are other legitimate Jewish views (such that Jesus did not exist) but Maimonides remains one of the very few Jewish scholars that talked about Jesus at all, and therefore is a very prominent view on the topic. To say that Judaism is not varied in view point based on this article is like judging wikipedia based on a few abandoned article. For the most part this is an abandoned topic of Judaism because, beside the fundamental of faith which no one disputes, Jew don't care about who Jesus was. Jon513 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus as Jew

A number of Jewish scholars have written works which establish Jesus within Judaism. To provide information on this movement, I posted an article "Jesus as Jew". This was redirected, without my content, to this page. I added my content to this page and it was deleted. Here is the content:

There have been a number of works written by Jewish scholars emphasizing the Jewishness of Jesus:

• Constantin Brunner / Our Christ, 1921.
• Joseph Klausner / Jesus of Nazareth, 1922.
• Leo Baeck / The Gospel as a Document of Jewish Religious History, 1938.

The rationale for deletion was that these scholars are not representative of Judaism itself, and that no one argues that Jesus was not a Jew. On the first point, I think it is clear that there is a movement to reclaim Jesus as an authentic voice for Judaism. On the second point, those who argue that Jesus is mythical certainly do argue that he was not a Jew. So where should this content go? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barrett Pashak (talk • contribs).

Hi Barrett, I believe it might be more appropriate in one of the articles in the Jesus and history series, probably more specifically at Historical Jesus#Jesus' Jewish background or at Quest_for_the_Historical_Jesus#The_Third_Quest. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Very helpful. Thanks also for signing me in.Barrett Pashak 04:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried out your suggestions and Jayjg shot me right down. Any other ideas?Barrett Pashak 19:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't have any ideas offhand, but I'll think on it a bit and in the meantime, I recommend you ask User:Slrubenstein if he has any suggestions. He edits frequently on topics on academic/historical aspects of Jesus. And you might also simply ask Jayjg where/how he suggests this material should be presented. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

MPerel, there is something strange going on here. Jayjg certainly did not object to anyone emphasizing Jesus' Jewishness, he objected to the suggestion that Jesus has had a significant influence on contemporary Jewish thought. If the point is simply acknowledging Jesus as Jewish, I think that the three scholars listed above are irrelevant. Only one, Baeck, was a major thinker. Why pick the other two. The fact is, I think virtually all Jews who believe that there was a historical Jesus agree he was jewish. Rambam said as much. The claim that "Jews think Jesus was jewish" is so unexceptional it needs no mention beyon what is already in articles - I see no reason to single out three specific Jews if the point is simply to say "they acknowledge jesus was jewish." It is important only if a bigger claim is being made and that is what jayjg is objecting to. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, I think I initially misunderstood Barrett to be simply saying that there were Jewish scholars asserting the Jewishness of Jesus. Now I see on the talk page of Historical Jesus that Barrett meant to claim there is a movement of Jewish scholars who "perceive Jesus as a pivotal figure within Judaism." I think that's something quite altogether different and a bit of a stretch for which evidence is lacking. I'm skeptical that these three found him a "pivotal figure" and even if they did, they certainly don't constitute a movement and would be a very tiny-minority viewpoint that might only merit mention in their individual biographical articles. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merger

I have removed the proposed merger with Yeshu by User:82.6.114.172 since s/he didn't write any argument for it on the talk page. I for one strongly oppose a merger since the name "Yeshu" cannot be defiantly identified with Jesus. Therefore there are aspect of the reference "Yeshu" that do not refer to Jesus. Furthermore Jewish views of Jesus are not based on any supposed talmudic reference to him. Jon513 10:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question on respect

Some jewish people refuse to even spell the names : Christian or Jesus and I find it childish to do so. Can not one be respect of another faith and not be little another. Some jews are not alone the catholic and born again christian feel their way or high way. To say Jesus had no part of judaism is a lie, but i understand to jews he not messiah. I respect disagree, but I understand if they can not call Christ, but Jesus was a jew. both side of early rabbical and christain faiths were fighting and divlde each other to such we can not see we are cousins. Can anyone else share with me these thoughts ? (Irishmonk)

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.; not as a forum for their personal views. If you feel that any part of the article needs to be changed, either change it yourself or comment about it here. Jon513 15:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is what Irishmonk was doing (albeit it in a roundabout way), and I also noticed some of the same issues and made mention of them further down the page.Eno-Etile 08:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DaVinci Code article

Why is the point of view expressed in this well-researched article from Jews for Judaism not allowed in this article; viz, that the historical Jesus and his initial followers practiced within normative Judaism? http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/web/j4jlibrary/DaVinciCodeBook.pdf 64.180.176.230 08:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The document that you reference from JfJ is wholly unrelated to the subject, being an examination of the truthfulness of the novel "The DaVinci Code" within Christianity and Judaism. I was able to find one instance in the document where the point of view you mention is noted, in a secondary quote from Rabbi Jacob Emden. If you want to put this forward as being a notable viewpoint within Judaism you'll need to find better sources than a single unrelated article quoting an 18th century talmudist. Daniel^C/_T+ 11:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the purpose of the document was to show that, contrary to the position of Christianity, the historical Jesus and his first followers were practicers of normative Judaism and, consequently, Christian claims about Jesus cannot be true. More than half of the document is devoted to this point. It used "The Da Vinci Code" only as a hook to draw interest. You will find that Rabbi Skobac quotes not only Rabbi Emden, but also modern authors such as Rabbi Gil Student, Rabbi Harvey Falk, Dr. James Tabor, Dr. Bart Ehrman, Dr. E.P. Sanders, and others. The footnotes are extensive, as anyone can see. Jews for Judaism is certainly not a "fringe" organization within Judaism, and its opinion and adoption of secular scholarship on the matter is at least notable, whether widely accepted or not. 64.180.176.230 20:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Jews for Judaism is not a group within Judaism at at all. Jews for Judaism is categorically rejected by all of the branches of Judaism. As such it does not belong in an article about Judaism view. Jon513 19:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC) see my comments below. Jon513 09:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Jews for Judaism is widely respected by all branches of the Jewish community for its work in retrieving Jews from cults and non-Jewish movements. As such, its opinion is relevant to an article about Judaism's view. 64.180.176.230 22:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm, this really doesn't come close to approaching a dispute needing mediation, seeing as it's been under discussion for just two days, one of which was shabbos. I'm perfectly happy to accept this viewpoint and totally agree that it's valid - all you need is a suitable reference from a scholarly source. JfJudaism is a reputable organization that is quite acceptable for citing on subjects pertaining to their mission of countering christian missionaries, but this document really doesn't directly relate to this subject and would confuse anyone who visited it looking for support of the statement without time to read the entire 18 pages in depth. For your purposes, even a simple quote of the Rabbi Emden statement would probably be sufficient. Daniel^C/_T+ 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, the IP user didn't even make the mediation request, it was done by User:Wlmh65, who isn't involved in the discussion, and as far as I can tell has never even contributed to the article or talk page. What was the reason for that? Daniel^C/_T+ 23:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That said, it appears likely that the IP user is in fact User:Wlmh65, seeing as the notice was added to this page by the IP user at 22:48 and Wlmh65 created the mediation request at 22:51, although Wlmh65 refers to the IP user in 3rd person. I'm not too sure what's going on here, but either way, a mediation request is extremely premature. Daniel^C/_T+ 01:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your position is. On the one hand, the quote from R' Emden is sufficient, and on the other it's not. Also, the booklet is brimming with citations backing up the point--just because people might be too lazy to read it isn't reason not to use it as a source regarding Jews for Judaism's viewpoint. People are probably too lazy to read the tax code--doesn't mean it shouldn't be cited. I will remove the mediation request--I probably did put it up too hastily, but I was concerned that my position would not get a fair shake with someone saying Jews for Judaism is not a Jewish organization--which is absolute nonsense. I think the article presents an interesting, notable viewpoint for a Jewish organization to take on this issue, and I think it can and should be referenced. Wlmh65 21:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We pretty much agree on this - my only reservation about the source is that it's quite indirect and could both throw off someone who wanted to look into the issue further, and possibly be removed at some point in the future when we're not around by a well-meaning editor who didn't read it in depth. If just the Emden (e.g.) is quoted, it's concise and indisputable. I don't mind putting it in myself, but since you did the work finding the information it's yours to contribute - I just offer input. :)

As for the JfJudaism issue, I think Jon513 just misinterpreted when I referred them as JfJ, since that's usually used in reference to Jews for Jesus. It's easy to do, and I've done it myself repeatedly. I doubt that he meant to disparage the counter-missionary organization. Daniel^C/_T+ 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right, I read Jews for Jesus. Sorry for the confusion. I have no comment on the article, as I have not read it. Jon513 09:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karaite Judaism?

Some Karaites, specifically Jacob Qirqisani, apparently believed that Jesus was Jewish, but that Christianity become non-Jewish because of Paul the Apostle.Jewish Encyclopedia He criticized Christianity a fair amount, but I take it he criticized Jesus less so. Is this worth mentioning?--T. Anthony 11:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the current article that directly contradicts Qirqisani's view. Jon513 14:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops hadn't read it for a time. I remember awhile back someone asked about Karaites. Sorry.--T. Anthony 14:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Qirqisani works should be added to the "texts of Judaism that mention Jesus" sections. However the Jewish encyclopedia does not have enough information to really have a section. If someone could find the actual text (preferably online) and summarize it, it would make a great addition to the article. Jon513 16:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New image

Kriplozoik (talk · contribs) added the picture to the right to the article. I removed it because I don't think it adds anything to the article. The hebrew (as best I can make out) is the word Kadosh (holy) on both sides of the cross as well as on top and the word on the front left seems to be the word tzevaot or sabaoth ("hosts" or "armies", Hebrew: צבאות). I can't make out the words on the front right. The fact the the words "kadosh" on the sides are the opposite orientation as the words on the front make it very hard to read. In any event the picture does not seem to be "Jewish" in any way and certainly doesn't not illustrate anything with Judaism's view of Jesus (which does not view Jesus as "holy" or anything to do with hosts or armies). The picture itself is on the commons and can stay there (so long as the copyright is valid) even if it is unused in any article. Jon513 18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I hesitated to remove it when it was first added because I couldn't make out the words for translation apart from the top Kadosh, but based on your translation I can't really see a place for it within the article. Maybe the editor simply associated the presence of Hebrew with Judaism, although the lack of a caption makes it hard to know what the intent was. Daniel^C/_T+ 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, to say, I'm absolutely not an expert to this theme, I just made this photo and wanted to expose it somewhere where it would be suitable. You are welcome to attach it anywhere else, where it would fit best (not only connecting to the Judaism). Kriplozoik 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks most like a piece of Messianic artwork, though the upside-down "kadosh" words are very confusing. Also, the aleph in "tzevaot" is upside-down. I have a nasty feeling that the word in the lower-right is supposed to be the Tetragrammaton. The combination of the crucifixion and one of the verses of kedushah is very disturbing and offensive to Jews, and I think you would need a very good reason to use this picture or one like it at any article. --Eliyak T·C 22:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent catch; I didn't recognize the Kedushah in there, but now that you point it out that's obviously what the text is. I agree, this image isn't appropriate for any Judaism or Christianity articles - it may work in an MJ article, but they'd probably have a problem with the crucifix (though I still don't entirely understand why). Daniel^C/_T+ 23:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, where was the photo taken? I haven't seen this imagery before - Christianity doesn't usually touch Hebrew, and MJ doesn't often go for crosses. Daniel^C/_T+ 23:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this is a photo of a statue on the Charles Bridge in Prague. In fact, the placement of the Hebrew text (from Isaiah) has a disturbing history in its own right - see this. As an example of (unforced) Jewish views of Jesus (rather than an example of official antisemitism), it's a pretty poor one. I believe the removal of the vav and part of the hei of the Tetragrammaton is a matter of vandalism - or whatever you'd call vigilante third-commandment enforcers. Harpo Hermes (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right - it is from the charles bridge, but it seems to be the List_of_statues_on_Charles_Bridge#The_Crucifix_and_Calvary not "the statue of the Lamenting Christ" see the image image:St Calvary at Charles Bridge.jpg. Jon513 (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Chistian Slant?

I don't want to accuse anyone of anything but the article seems to have a strong anti-Christian slant. The article mis-represents basic Christian beliefs in a way that forces them to be incompatible with Jewish doctrine. A good example is where it says it says that Jesus as God is heretical which would be true if the typical interpretation of the Holy Trinity is that it is made up of 3 separate entities instead of the more common interpretation (to my knowledge) that it is made up of aspects of one being. There are several ways to interpret both religions so making definitive statements about compatibility and representing them as absolute fact is highly POV IMO. Eno-Etile 08:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Both the idea that God has three separate entities, and the idea that God is made up of different aspect are both heretical. It think that this is explained in the section "Indivisibility of God". The intro says:

...Jewish principles of faith is the belief in one God and one God only with no partnership of any kind,[1] and belief in Jesus as deity, son of God, or Christ, is incompatible with Judaism.

I changed it to:

...Jewish principles of faith is the belief in one God and one God only with no partnership of any kind,[1] and belief in Jesus as deity, part of a deity, son of God, or Christ, is incompatible with Judaism.

Does that work for you? I don't think that this article needs to deal with any particulars of christain theology and to try as much as possible to focus on the Jewish theology. Jon513 11:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No because it is still BS. I don't see anywhere in the Old Testament (And I doubt it appears in any Jewish religious text) where it says that God cannot have parts nor manifest himself in different ways. If you go by that logic then the burning bush that God used to speak to Moses is a heretical idea.The majority Christian view is that Jesus is not a separate entity or part of God Jesus is God manifest as a man. And stating it it as factually heretical is not only unsupported but insulting to Christianity. If you want so say that many Jews or the current Jewish doctrine or something along those lines considers it heretical thats all well and good. Also did you noticed how we both capitalized words like God., Jewish, and Judaism, but you fail to capitalize Christian; it speaks of great deal of disrespect IMO.Eno-Etile 07:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't state anything as "factually heretical", it gives sourced statements about Judaism's view of Jesus, such as the view that Jesus being a deity is incompatible with Judaism. Your suggested version actually sounds more harsh. Compare the existing "one of the most important Jewish principles of faith is...and belief in Jesus as deity...is incompatible with Judaism", to your suggestion, "Jewish doctrine...considers it heretical". Btw, you said you didn't see anywhere in the "Old Testament" etc, but there are plenty of places such as Numbers 23:19 that say things like God is not a man nor a son of man. In Judaism, anthropomorphisms are figures of speech, a means of making God's actions more comprehensible to human beings. --MPerel 08:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You said "I don't see anywhere in the Old Testament (And I doubt it appears in any Jewish religious text) where it says that God cannot have parts nor manifest himself in different ways" - this does appear in many Jewish religious texts many of which are quoted in the article. Please read the article. Jon513 11:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the references and they're dubious at best. And Jesus as a part of God or as God manifest as flesh can be interpreted as heretical, but thats not the only interpretation. Also the Numbers reference is a bad example since its in the present tense and Jesus wasn't alive at the time of the writing. I'm not saying that the article needs to be Christianized or Christian positive but there are bits that are disrespectful to the views of others. There are also several instances where the article is worded in such a way so as to be offensive instead of informative. Also I'd like to clarify what I meant by Jewish religious text. What I meant was the basic principles of the religion found in the Tanakh (I was unaware at the time of my last post that the Tanakh is essentially the same thing as the Old Testament and that the Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim were just parts of it).Eno-Etile 02:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, there is nowhere in Tanakh that says "Jesus is not God". There are many verses that are interpreted by Jewish scholars to preclude such ideas. You can dispute whether Deuteronomy (6:4) precludes any duality or trinity in God - you cannot dispute that this was interpreted as such by many Jewish scholars for generations. There are many authoritative Jewish sources that state explicitly that it is impossible for a man to be God, or for God to have a plurality whatsoever, or any physicality at all. I do not understand how you can say that the sources are dubious. Nahmanides' Disputation of Barcelona is a great source. The Mishneh Torah is the basis of modern Jewish Law. Aryeh Kaplan's various works on the subject are great contemporary sources. Jon513 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may add, Eno-Etile, please assume the good faith of the contributors here. To assert "There are also several instances where the article is worded in such a way so as to be offensive instead of informative," suggests deliberately motivated insults. I am sure none of the regular contributors here has that in mind. If you could bring down the rhetoric a few levels and point out some precise examples, I for one would be willing to work with you on neutralizing the language. Kaisershatner 14:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And speaking of good faith, I just browsed your contrib history, here and noticed the most recent 98% of your edits are exclusively to the talk pages of fairly controversial subjects. Interesting niche you've got there. Kaisershatner 14:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhg, OK I'll admit I took my argument overboard. It was due to a complete lack of any consideration that I might have been correct. Also I am more familiar with Christianity , and probably know less about Judaism than I should. For instance, in Christianity no one minister or priest is likely to present doctrine that represents the beliefs of everyone or even majority. Also I shy away from considering most internet sources to be definitive. So basically I'm saying I was wrong. But I do think the article could use more neutrality.Eno-Etile 10:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Now about Kaisershatner's implication that I post for teh sake of controversy. Yes, most of my edits do tend to be on the talk pages of controversial subjects. This isn't because I seek to antagonize anyone or even engage in debate its because my interests happen to coincide with the controversial. The reasons that I make very few edits to actual articles are: I'm a lazy researcher, I don't know how to cite sources (using wikipedia) and I'm too lazy to look up how, and because I try for a consensus before making edits ( due to the topics a consensus is rarely reached)Eno-Etile 10:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no harm done as far as I'm concerned. And if you prefer to edit talk pages, go for it. It's a free wiki, right? We have done lots of work here to make the article inoffensive (you should have seen it when the section titles were "Jesus: NOT THE MESSIAH" etc. Wow. I'll give it another read-through now and see if I can find some places that need work. If you want to suggest some, I'm listening. Kaisershatner 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have specific complaints or suggestions (mostly because I'm too lazy to re-read the article) just some of the wording could stand to be more neutral. On a side note did anyone on this page vandalize my talk page calling me a racist? Eno-Etile 06:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed section

I removed the follow section (entitle "The notes of the Masoretes"):

The Masoretic notes often cite mnemoic devices as an aid to remember specific word forms. The mnemoic device cited to help recall the three verses containng the word Ha'Almah העלמה (Gen. 24,43 Ex. 2,8 and Isaiah 7,14) (available |here) is the following cryptic statement:

"The young woman "went out" was called mother and gave birth to a son, and it's sign is in the "order of the day".

R' Solomon Judah Leib Rappaport in his letters (Igrot Shir- available on google books} understands this as a polemic of the Tiberian Masoretes against Christianity. The term "went out" was a euphemism for a harlot (cf. the Targumim on the word Zonah). The Tiberian Masoretes, who lived in 7th century Roman Palestine dominated by Christians most likely had to hear as a "proof" to Christianity the verse in Isaiah 7,14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, an virgin shall conceive" (Standard American translation) as referring to the "virgin" birth of Jesus. Almah is translated by Christians as "a virgin", whereas Jews translate it as a young woman (cf. Proverbs 30,19). Thus the Masoretes took this opportunity to say what they really belived about the virgin birth by translating and arranging the content of these three verses to say that "a young woman (i.e. Mary), went out (i.e. committed adultery), was called mother (the mother Mary) and gave birth to a son (i.e. Jesus)." It's sign is in the order of the day (i.e. everyday life) is referring to the debates that the Christians would incite on this subject.

It doesn't cite any sources ("Igrot Shir- available on google books" - is not a source), but even if that were cleaned up it should be moved to Yeshu - the main article on the topic of references to Jesus in the Talmud. Jon513 13:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with your removal. (It doesn't really fit the intent of the aricle. I skimmed the article when I added it and I thought it was more general.) The link for the source is here [3]. I will move it to Yeshu (though I'm not sure if it fits there either.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf2191 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It could probably be merged with either Virgin birth or Isaiah 7:14.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Its mostly importants as one of the few (and possibly the only) source of Christian-Jewish tensions during the 7th century - 11th century. The statement itself is a fairly standard polemic.Wolf2191 14:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)