Talk:Jewish views on Jesus/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

What and then how

Maybe we can work on what we agree on before we work on how to express it.

1. Judaism does not have a positive theology of Jesus. Since Jesus does not play a role in Judaism, this is the only case possible. It is akin to the Christian view of Mohammed. There is no positive theology of Mohammed in Christianity since he is not a part of the Christian religion.
2. Judaism does have a positive theology of the Messiah and the Messianic age.
3. Those who do not fit the role of Messiah are rejected as the Messiah. This includes Jesus and a number of other figures.
4. Judaism does have a reactive theology of Jesus (as other failed Messianic candidates).

I think we do agree on these elements, and you'll note that I included the word "reactive" to contrast with "positive".

I don't think any of us disagree on the substance of these elements. We're only discussing how to word them in the article. Because of this general agreement, I've pretty much limited my concern to seeming contradictions (not actual ones, but wordings that could be perceived as contradictory).

And that leaves us to a question of emphasis. Lisa's use of the word "peripheral" is outstanding, in my opinion. It includes both my first and final points in the list above -- both a lack of a positive theology and the presence of a "reactive" one without a seeming contradiction in the wording.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tim, that is good! I certainly agree with those points. The basic argument about the lede is whether to emphasize the lack of importance of Jesus in the Jewish religion or the emphatic rejection of Jesus and the claims about him that exist in later Jewish theology, right? My preference has been toward your and Jon's construction, however Lisa's additions would improve the old version, which probably underestimated the mentioning of, and reaction to Jesus. I remain happy to rewrite until we get there. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'm happy to rewrite as well. Since shabbat is rolling in and I don't have dinner worked out it will have to wait until Sunday :-).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone planing on changing the lead? I am unhappy with the current version and would like to see it improved. Jon513 (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you say what in particular is making you unhappy with it? -Lisa (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I had been waiting for an outside view from User talk:Shirulashem. Kaisershatner (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

At the very least this article should mention Messianic Judaism in passing as a self-titled Judaist group which views Jesus as divine and as the Messiah. It would be worth noting that this group's view of Jesus is the reason the group is not held to be Judaist by mainstream Judaism. Thoughts? JosiahHenderson (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism is a Christian denomination or movement. It has no more bearing on Judaism's view of Jesus than would a Baptist group.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What Tim said. -Lisa (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with both of the above comments - so called Messianic Judaism is a Christian group (note, not a single denomination), which has a strong Jewish flavouring, or at least more acknowledgement of the members Jewish heritage.

It may part company with Judaism on certain issues, such as the Trinity (most of the time), but it is also in agreement with it in others. As such it could be seen as either a Christian form of Judaism, a Jewish form of Christianity, or a heresy of Judaism.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC) p.s. It's also worth pointing out that thousands of Jews over the centuries have converted to Christianity (and Islam) without coercion as well as those who were forced.

From a purely Christian perspective the Messianic Jews are Judaizing heretics and hence are no more Christian than they are Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.217.78.220 (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

MacRusgail is correct that Messianic Judaism is a movement with a variety of approaches. Most of the 600 identifyable congregations are independent but affiliated with one or more agency groups (which are sometimes referred to as denominations - like MJAA, AMC, etc.). The style of worship of MJs is different than most Jews that belong to Christian churches. However, I also agree with SkyWriter that Messianic Judaism should not be given more than a passing mention in this article, which obviously referrs to mainstream Judaism.--DeknMike (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Jesus

A number of books have come out in recent years, such as The Jewish Jesus and Our Father Abraham discussing the Jewish heritage of Christianity... in fact, many of them go as far to say that Christianity's problem was that it became de-Judaised, i.e. losing many of its Jewish attributes, and that Jesus himself has been misunderstood because of this. One theory that has been doing the rounds for years is that James proposed a Jewish Christianity, but that Pauline Christianity has removed or ignored many Jewish aspects.

I've just done a search through the Gospels for "rabbi", and was amazed to see how many times it appears in reference to Jesus. In some of the cases, it's used by Judas, but it's also used by Peter, and by other disciples. This doesn't come out in all the translations, but in the Greek it's obvious, because it's not a proper Greek word.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please help me as I am confused. I understand that the Jewish faith does not consider Jesus as the son of God. What I do not understand is why the Jewish leaders at the time of Christ plotted against him. Please help understand. I like to think I have an open mind and any feedback would be of great help. Thank you Andy1111 (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Andy, the plots against Jesus were not so much spiritual as political. Jesus upset the delicate balance of power with the Romans. Also, the religious leaders enjoyed a privilege status above common Jews, which happens in most religions over time (such as Catholic heriarchy in the middle ages and some Islamic clerics today).--DeknMike (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions

The statement that "since the messiah does not take center stage in Judaism, the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity in Judaism has never been a central issue for Judaism" contradicts Messiah#Judaism and Jewish messianism. Does anyone have a source for this? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 02:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That phrase bothers me as well. One source I read says a person can become a practicing Buddhist and remain a Jew (JewBu). A Jew can become totally agnostic - even athiestic - and remain a Jew. But if that Jew begins to heed the teachings of a 1st Century CE rabbi from Galilee, the orthodox among them strip Jewish status from the person. Not sure what the phychological interpretation would be....--DeknMike (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

DeknMike—what sort of "teachings" do you have in mind? You refer to the "teachings of a 1st Century CE rabbi from Galilee." You say, "But if that Jew begins to heed the teachings of a 1st Century CE rabbi from Galilee, the orthodox among them strip Jewish status from the person." When you refer to "teachings," what "teachings" are you referring to? Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

See Matthew 3:13 and then chapter 6 & 7, especially 7:28-29 --DeknMike (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If 'Judaism's view of Jesus is a very peripheral one' (the lead sentence), why is there so much effort spent trying to prove acceptance of Jesus' teachings are anathema to Judaism? According to Rabbi Kertzner ('What is a Jew?") Jesus is the key difference between Judaism and Christianity.--DeknMike (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There isn't so much effort spent on it. The non-messiah-ness of Jesus is a very peripheral issue in Judaism. Just like the non-blackness of white. It's only when people start trying to say that black is white and Jesus was a messiah that any Jews feel any need to deal with the subject. Otherwise, it's boring and irrelevant to us. I.e., "very peripheral".

You have a skewed picture of how interested we are in the subject for the simple reason that you are on a warpath, trying to force Jesus into Judaism the way you might try to force a foot into a shoe 3 sizes too small. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Lisa. DeknMike, because you are an evangelical Christian, it seems you have a hard time understanding that Jesus can be entirely unimportant to a large group of people, and so you really need to watch your POV in your edits. Your POV has caused 3 of your edits to this article in the past 2 weeks to be reverted, and I wanted to give you some insight here:

If you were to look at the body of Jewish canonical literature, you would find Jesus is never mentioned at all, not even once. Even the Talmud content on "Yeshu" is not a reference to Jesus, but instead uses "Yeshu" as a literary device to personify different theological aspects of Christianity, and refute them. Judaism is not a religion that defines itself in negative comparison to Christianity. To the contrary -- Judaism was started (by religious reckoning) many centuries before Christianity.

For Jews, "Jesus" (either by name, or by Christian understanding) is absolutely nowhere to be found in Torah, or Nevi'im, or Ketuvium, or Siddur, or daily prayers, or major festivals, or minor festivals, or day-to-day practice... There simply is no statement made about him, and therefore, Judaism's view of Jesus can at best be described as 'peripheral.' The topic only comes up when it is brought up by OUTSIDERS to Judaism, such as Christians. If it weren't for such outside interference, it would never come up at all. How much time do you spend thinking about Mohammed? Or Vishnu? Or Zeus? Probably next to none at all, UNLESS you're engaging someone in debate about them. This is why your edit that Jesus "offers insight into the core of the faith" was reverted -- it's Christian POV, because that's a statement only an Evangelical Christian would make about Judaism. No Muslim or Buddhist or atheist would make such a statement. Would you say that the Christian view of Joseph Smith provides defining insight into the core of Christianity? Of course not.

I hope this helps you gain perspective on why your edits here are being reverted, and hopefully will help you find more efficient use of your editing time.Zad68 (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"Softer words"

DeknMike's edit ([1]) carried the comment "softer words". But the edit actually reversed the meaning of the sentence. Are we going to have to go through one editor's PR efforts on behalf of "Messianic Judaism" on this article as well? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Then tell me, if it's "peripheral" how is it "most influential" and "damaging"? It's not PR, it's scholarship.--DeknMike (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

DeknMike—Jesus is considered to be "influential" on non-Jews, but "peripheral" to Judaism. These are the relevant sentences: "Judaism's view of Jesus is a very peripheral one. Jews have traditionally seen Jesus as one of a number of false messiahs who have appeared throughout history. Jesus is viewed as having been the most influential, and consequently the most damaging of all false messiahs." Jesus is therefore considered by Judaism to be "damaging" because Judaism views Jesus as a "false messiah" hence someone who leads people astray. Bus stop (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Whatever you think about the Jewish perspective on Jesus, "softer words" are motivated by political cringe, not the impulse to relate the truth. BillMasen (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with Bus Stop - it still sounds like an internal contradiction - but I understand his reasoning now. BillMasen on the other had is simply lobbing an unfounded attack.--DeknMike (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was intended to avoid giving offence. While this may be laudable, we can't do that at the expense of reality. That's the point. BillMasen (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-exclusive path

For my own understanding, I'd like to hear how the phrase "Judaism does not purport to offer the exclusive path to salvation" reconciles with "Shema Yisrael, Adonai Elohim, Adonai echad." If there is only one God, then there should be only one path to salvation, a holy and righteous life lived according to the law of Moses, amplified by the writings and the prophets. Again, this is not to poke a stick at anyone, but it goes to a distinction between mainstream Judaism and followers of Jesus.--DeknMike (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Salvation is not really a Jewish belief the way it is in Christianity. There is no concept of original sin requiring salvation; rather, people when born are pristine and free from sin—Jew and Gentile alike. There is the requirement to live one's life in accordance with the laws; which differ for Jew (Halakha) and Gentile (Seven Laws of Noah or Ger toshav - depending on the governmental and demographic status of the Eretz Yisrael {theocracy, sanhedrin, etc.}), which, ipso facto, means that there must be more than one path to heaven - which is a different concept than salvation. -- Avi (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DeknMike, thanks for your interest in Jewish theology. As User:Avraham alludes to, Judaism doesn't have the same view of "salvation" as Christianity, and the religious commandments of Judaism are for Jews to follow, rather than dictates that all humanity must follow. The Shema prayer is thus a reminder to Jews of the centrality of monotheism to their religious practice. Also, this is a discussion page about Judaism's view of Jesus, as you know, not really a general forum for interfaith dialog. :) Best wishes, Kaisershatner (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DeknMike - Is Toyota limited to making only one kind of car? There is nothing in the declaration that God is One that excludes multiple paths to God. And actually, you have the question backwards. You should be asking yourself: If God only wants ONE path to worship Him, why does He give separate sets of laws to different groups of people? He gives Noachide laws to the world, but the Torah laws are given ONLY to the 'children of Israel.' Torah indicates over and over that most of the laws are for the 'children of Israel.' Nowhere does God indicate the laws for the children of Israel must be followed by those who are not in that group.Zad68 (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

'Contemporary Jewish scholars on Jesus of Nazareth' (from User Franz weber)

I think it's fair to say that the current version of this article overlooks the vast contemporary literature, having been written by world-class Jewish scholars in the tradition of David Flusser, Pinchas Lapide, and Shalom Ben-Chorin. The current edition of the Enyclopedia Judaica, in an an article written by David Flusser, late professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, states:

"Jesus and the Jewish Background

The tension between the Church and the Synagogue often caused the Gospels, by means of new interpretations and later emendations, to evoke the impression that there was a necessary rift between Jesus and the Jewish way of life under the law. The first three Gospels, however, portray Jesus as a Jew who was faithful to the current practice of the law. On the matter of washing hands (Mark 7:5) and plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23ff.), it was the disciples, not the master, who were less strict in their observance of the law. According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus did not heal by physical means on the Sabbath but only by words, healing through speech having always been permitted on the Sabbath, even when the illness was not dangerous. The Gospels provide sufficient evidence to the effect that Jesus did not oppose any prescription of the Written or Oral Mosaic Law, and that he even performed Jewish religious commandments. On all of the foregoing points the less historical John differs from the first three Gospels.

The wording of the Gospels exaggerates the clashes between Jesus and the *Pharisees . This becomes evident after an analysis of Jesus' sayings which are a more faithful preservation than are the tendentious descriptions of the situation in which the sayings were uttered. Jesus' major polemical sayings against the Pharisees describe them as hypocrites, an accusation occurring not only in the Essene Dead Sea Scrolls and, indirectly, in a saying of the Sadducean king, Alexander Yannai, but also in rabbinic literature, which is an expression of true Pharisaism. In general, Jesus' polemical sayings against the Pharisees were far meeker than the Essene attacks and not sharper than similar utterances in the talmudic sources. Jesus was sufficiently Pharisaic in general outlook to consider the Pharisees as true heirs and successors of Moses. Although Jesus would probably not have defined himself as a Pharisee, his beliefs, especially his moral beliefs, are similar to the Pharisaic school of Hillel which stresses the love of God and neighbor. Jesus, however, pushed this precept much further than did the Jews of his time and taught that a man must love even hisenemies. Others preached mutual love and blessing one's persecutors, but the command to love one's enemies is uniquely characteristic of Jesus and he is in fact the only one to utter this commandment in the whole of the New Testament.

The liberal Pharisaic school of Hillel was not unhappy to see gentiles become Jews. In contrast, the school of Shammai made conversion as difficult as possible because it had grave reservations about proselytism, most of which Jesus shared (Matt. 23:15). As a rule he even did not heal non-Jews. It should be noted that none of the rabbinical documents says that one should not heal a non-Jew.

In beliefs and way of life, Jesus was closer to the Pharisees than to the *Essenes . He accepted, however, a part of the Essene social outlook. Although Jesus was not a social revolutionary, the social implications of his message are stronger than that of the rabbis. Like the Essenes, Jesus also regarded all possessions as a threat to true piety and held poverty, humility, purity of heart, and simplicity to be the essential religious virtues. Jesus, as did the Essenes, had an awareness of and affection for the social outcast and the oppressed. The Essene author of the *Thanksgiving Scroll (18:14–15) promises salvation to the humble, to the oppressed in spirit, and to those who mourn, while Jesus in the first three beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount promises the Kingdom of Heaven to "the poor in spirit" to "those who mourn," and to "the meek" (Matt. 5:3–5). Moreover, Jesus' rule "Do not resist one who is evil" (Matt. 5:39) has clear parallels in the Essene Dead Sea Scrolls.

Jesus as the Messiah

The early Christian Church believed Jesus to be the expected *Messiah of Israel, and he is described as such in the New Testament; but whether Jesus thought himself to be the Messiah is by no means clear. Throughout the New Testament there are indications that Jesus had seen himself as a prophet. The Ebionites and Nazarenes, *Jewish Christian sects, both ranked Jesus among the prophets and stressed his prophetic role. Jesus himself apparently never used the word "Messiah," and always spoke of the "*Son of Man " in the third person, as though he himself were not identical with that person. The "Son of Man" originally appears in the Book of Daniel (7:9–14) as the man-like judge of the Last Days. Jesus based his account of the "Son of Man" on the original biblical description of a superhuman, heavenly sublimity, who, seated upon the throne of God, will judge the whole human race. In Jewish literature of the Second Commonwealth, the "Son of Man" is frequently identified with the Messiah and it is probable that Jesus used the phrase in this way too. In his own lifetime, it is certain that Jesus became accepted by many as the Messiah. The substance of many sayings make it obvious that Jesus did not always refer to the coming "Son of Man" in the third person simply to conceal his identity, but because Jesus actually did not believe himself to be the Messiah. Yet other apparently authentic sayings of Jesus can be understood only if it is assumed that Jesus thought himself to be the "Son of Man." Thus Jesus' understanding of himself as the Messiah was probably inconsistent, or at first he was waiting for the Messiah, but at the end, he held the conviction that he himself was the Messiah.

In the faith of the Church, Jesus, the Jewish prophet from Galilee, became the object of a drama which could bring salvation to pious spectators. This drama developed from two roots: Jesus' conception of himself as being uniquely near to his Heavenly Father, his message about the coming of the "Son of Man," and other Jewish mythical and messianic doctrines; the other root was Jesus' tragic death, interpreted in terms of Jewish concepts about the expiatory power of martyrdom. If, as Christians believe, the martyr was at the same time the Messiah, then his death has a cosmic importance. Through the teachings of Jesus, as well as through other channels, the Jewish moral message entered Christianity. Thus the historical Jesus has served as a bridge between Judaism and Christianity, as well as one of the causes for their separation."

The works of Flusser, Lapide and Ben-Chorin are available in major world languages, and I provide readers of this page with a selected bibliography, based on the CLIO catalogue of Columbia University New York:

Jesus / David Flusser ; in collaboration with R. Steven Notley; Edition: 2nd ed., corrected and augmented; Published: Jerusalem : Magnes Press, 1998

Jewish sources in early Christianity / David Flusser.; Published: New York : Adama Books, c1987.

Judaism and the origins of Christianity / by David Flusser.; Published: Jerusalem : Magnes Press, 1988.

Judaism of the Second Temple period / David Flusser ; translated by Azzan Yadin.; Published: Grand Rapids, Mich. : William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. ; Jerusalem, Israel : Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2007-

Mary : images of the mother of Jesus in Jewish and Christian perspective / Jaroslav Pelikan, David Flusser, Justin Lang.; Edition: 1st pbk. ed.; Published: Minneapolis, MN : Fortress Press, 2005.

Encountering Jesus--encountering Judaism : a dialogue / Karl Rahner and Pinchas Lapide ; translated by Davis Perkins.; Published: New York : Crossroad, c1987.

Hebrew in the church : the foundations of Jewish-Christian dialogue / by Pinchas E. Lapide ; translated by Erroll F. Rhodes.; Published: Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans, c1984.

Israelis, Jews, and Jesus / Pinchas Lapide ; translated by Peter Heinegg ; foreword by Samuel Sandmel.; Edition: 1st ed.; Published: Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday, 1979.

Jewish monotheism and Christian trinitarian doctrine

a dialogue / by Pinchas Lapide and Jürgen Moltmann ; translated by Leonard Swidler.; Published: Philadelphia : Fortress Press, c1981.

Paul, rabbi and apostle / Pinchas Lapide, Peter Stuhlmacher ; translated by Lawrence W. Denef.; Published: Minneapolis : Augsburg Pub. House, c1984.

The Resurrection of Jesus : a Jewish perspective / Pinchas Lapide ; introduction by Carl E. Braaten.; Published: Minneapolis : Augsburg Pub. House, c1983.

The Sermon on the mount, Utopia or program for action? / Pinchas Lapide ; translated from the German by Arlene Swidler.; Published: Maryknoll, NY : Orbis Books, c1986.

Brother Jesus : the Nazarene through Jewish eyes / by Schalom Ben-Chorin ; translated and edited by Jared S. Klein and Max Reinhart.; Published: Athens, GA : University of Georgia Press, 2001.

Marie : un regard juif sur la mère de Jésus / Schalom Ben-Chorin ; traduit par Paul Kessler ; préface de Michel Leplay.; Published: Paris : Desclée de Brouwer, 2001.

Paul : un regard juif sur l'apôtre des gentils / Schalom Ben-Chorin ; traduction par Paul Kessler.; Published: Paris : Desclée de Brouwer, c1999.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz weber (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 

The preceding is a mess. I don't know what most of it was intended to do, other than create a ton of white space. Anyway, this article isn't about what scholars think about Jesus, even if some of those scholars happen to be Jewish. It's about Judaism's view of Jesus, and the articles you've cited have no bearing on that. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-naming article to: Jesus in Judaism

When all the other articles related to religions are called, respectively: "Jesus in Islam", "Jesus in Christianity", "Jesus in Scientology" and "Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam", then it follows as obvious and self-evident that it would be appropriate to call the page describing the role of Jesus in Judaism, "Jesus in Judaism".

Surely, this is reasonable enough.

I think editor Lisa has made the reasoning clear for not changing the title. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced. Please post link to relevant discussion, wherever it may be found.

This article is a messy, messy piece and should be subjected to a thorough review! Along with the other articles like Yeshu etc. It appears, from the extensive discussions, that clarity lacks around this subject. You must re-organize the articles and make a sensible taxonomy in the build-up of articles! ~ JJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjc (talk • contribs) 09:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"and make a sensible taxonomy in the build-up of articles" <-- why? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus in Christianity as Part of the Godhead

The Christian view holds Jesus to be the Word of God (i.e., the Logos, expressed in Hellenistic terms, as per John 1:1), a concept which existed in Judaism and in Jewish thought (the Logos, or Divine Word, the uncreated declaration of God through which God accomplished the creation, as per Philo, the Jewish theologian and philosopher, and others). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.171.249 (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that unsourced opinion, but your thoughts about "Jesus in Christianity" are irrelevant to this article's topic "Judaism's view of Jesus." Zad68 (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

unsourced content removed to Talk

• The name, which has been used as an acronym for the Hebrew expression ימח שמו וזכרו (yimah shemo vezichro – "May his name and memory be obliterated").

• The word is similar to, and may be a wordplay on, Yeshua, believed by many to be the original Aramaic or Hebrew name of Jesus. Due to this fact, along with the occurrence in several manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud of the appellation Ha-Notzri, which has been variously understood as a person from Nazareth or a person belonging to a group called Notzrim (Guardians, or watchmen) and some similarities between the stories of the two figures, some or many of the references to Yeshu have been traditionally understood to refer to the Jesus of Christianity. Conversely, others have criticized this view,

WP:OR In ictu oculi (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Judaism's view on Muhammad -> Jewish views on Muhammad

For reference, there's been a pagemove on a related page. history. FYI only. No opinion. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

I presented a number of mainstream Hasidic and Kabbalistic sources which indicate that some esoteric streams in Judaism regard some righteous individuals as manifestations of God or even equate them with God. I provided exact references to those sources. I also added a detailed section on positive views of Jesus by Jacob Emden and Elijah Benamozegh. I also provided a reasonable amount of sources and I could add more reliable academic sources on request. Instead, my additions have been completely deleted as "original research". Therefore, I claim that this article represents a non-neutral biased anti-Christian view. Laplandian (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Which of the material was based on reliable secondary sources that actually discussed or presented Judaism's view of Jesus? Very little, as far as I can tell. Perhaps you can list them? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

All material was based on reliable sources! I provided exact references to a number of well known books written by prominent and respected Hasidic and Kabbalistic authors. There is no research involved; anyone who is able to read Hebrew will see that they explicitly call some righteous individuals either "first-born son of God", or "an aspect of Divinity" or simply "God". I also provided a link to a research article on this issue written by Chabad messianists. One may disagree with their personal views (I certainly do), but their research in this case is valid (it's simply a collection of exact references to mainstream Judaic literature) and I could add more academic sources on the same subject. The theological part of this article is not about Jesus; it's about the Jewish positions on monotheism and divine nature of certain individuals. The concept of Trinity was discussed by a number of prominent rabbis and not always in negative light. I understand that some Orthodox Jews may feel uncomfortable with such views, but they are, nevertheless, opinions within Judaism expressed by some well known - definitely not marginal - Orthodox figures. I could also add more sources on request. Now, regarding Jesus, I quoted Jacob Emden and Elijah Benamozegh. Both were famous mainstream rabbis, leading Jewish thinkers in their generation, much like Maimonides was in his time. Their views on Jesus and Christianity are well known, translated into English and are well researched by academic scholars. Emden and Benamozegh are often quoted by Jewish supporters of religious pluralism and interfaith dialog, including such prominent Orthodox rabbis as Adin Steinsaltz and Shlomo Riskin. Instead of deleting my additions to this article altogether, one could simply ask for additional sources, if needed. Otherwise, I see this deletion as an unfair example of anti-Christian bias. Laplandian (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see Jayjg is editing correctly. And upholding WP:source - that encyclopedic content must be verifiable, among other WP criteria/standards. I would also observe that "an unfair example of anti-Christian bias" is odd to object in an article which per title describes a non-Christian, in this case Jewish, view. Perhaps you could back track slowly and just present (repaste) here on talk the two or three best demonstrated, best sourced statements which you think should be included. But as far as the last big edit Jayjg reversed, it was not at all well sourced. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I provided about a dozen direct references to mainstream works written by well known Orthodox philosophers and rabbis who either expressed some ideas that seem similar to Christianity (multiple personalities inside the Godhead, divine nature of Tzaddikim, putting the Tzaddikim on one level with God) or respected Jesus as a righteous individual. Those views may are, indeed, perfectly Jewish, since there are explicitly expressed in mainstream literature that may be found in virtually every Hasidic synagogue or bookstore. There is much research already written on those subjects by traditional Jewish authors and academic researchers. I am going to back track my additions slowly, as you suggested. Laplandian (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"expressed some ideas that seem similar to Christianity" = WP:NOR, unless a reliable secondary sources makes the connection. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a plenty of reliable secondary sources that make this connection, including some Orthodox rabbis and academic researchers like Yehuda Liebes and Moshe Idel. I already mentioned two sources: Elijah Benamozegh and Alessandro Guetto's research of his philosophy. But we are not there yet. Let's finish first the discussion about Jesus as a person. Laplandian (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Laplandian, I asked "Which of the material was based on reliable secondary sources that actually discussed or presented Judaism's view of Jesus? I've bolded the critical section that you may have missed before. Could you please post the sources you've used (or would like to use) that you believe meet those criteria? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayig, let's go piece by piece then. I added three sections to this articles, on three different subjects. First, let's discuss the section about positive views of Jesus. I wrote a summary of Jacob Emden's famous letter and a few words about Elijah Benamozegh. Primary sources: "Seder Olam ve-Zuta" by Jacob Emden and a Elijah Benamozegh's "Israel and Humanity", which contains positive views on Divine incarnation in the physical world from a pantheist Kabbalistic perspective, a number of discussions about Trinity as compared to the Kabbalistic decade of Sefirot, and uniquely positive views of the New Testament as a midrash, comparable to the Talmudic Aggadah. Jacob Emden's letter also contains about a dozen of respectful references to the New Testament and a novel theory about Jesus as one who saved the Noahides by teaching them the right path. I am going to past this section here with a whole bunch of additional secondary sources. If we are settled, we can go to the next section.Laplandian (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting them. First, I must say that this section was much better than the other additions, though I still don't think it belongs. The first issue is that the subject of the article is Judaism's view of Jesus, not "Jewish opinions about Jesus". This is deliberate, since there are 13 million Jews, each with their own opinion. Now, admittedly, only a few thousand will have had their views on Jesus published, but even then, deciding which are important and which are not is likely an impossible task. For that reason the article tried, for the most part, to stick to authoritative works of Judaism on the subject, or at least to extremely authoritative voices within Judaism. Thus Maimonides (and his Mishneh Torah) are quoted, as is Nahmanides (though I don't know if I would have added him).

Now, regarding your individual items, Maimonides is indeed a towering figure within Judaism, though it's doubtful he could really be considered "a forerunner of the Jewish enlightenment". However, it's very odd to claim he held 'a somewhat positive view of Jesus'. His view was essentially "God must have had some reason for allowing Jesus to lead so many people astray, this is probably why". On a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of importance in Judaism and Jewish thought, I would rate him a 10.

Next, Jacob Emden. A moderately important figure though somewhat controversial; he, for example, insisted Maimonides did not write The Guide for the Perplexed, and thought the Zohar was heresy - views that would today themselves be considered almost heretical, at least in the right-wing Orthodox world. In terms of importance in Judaism and Jewish thought, I would rate him a 3.

Next, Moses Mendelssohn. Very well-known, but more important for sociological reasons than religious. Unlike Maimonides, he is the "Moses" that actually could "be considered 'a forerunner of the Jewish enlightenment'". In terms of importance in Judaism and Jewish thought, I would rate him a 2.

Next, Elijah Benamozegh. Well-known in Italy in his day, essentially unknown today. In terms of importance in Judaism and Jewish thought, I would rate him a 1.

Next, Hyman Gerson Enelow, Constantin Brunner, Joseph Klausner. Enelow was an important leader in the early 20th-century American Reform movement, but his influence did not survive him. Brunner invented his own philosophy/theology, but had little impact on Jewish thought. Klausner was a historian/professor/writer, whose views on Jesus were more notorious (for the time) than influential. Jewish thinkers, yes, but in terms of importance in Judaism and Jewish thought, I would rate them all close to 0.

People seeking to "rehabilitate" Jesus in Jewish thought like to bring up these outlying views, but the individuals themselves have had little or no impact. The guiding rule here would generally be WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayig, I just copy/pasted the references to Hyman Gerson Enelow, Constantin Brunner, Joseph Klausner. I don't even know who they are and easily agree that their rating is close to 0. Many people in the Haredi camp believe that Maimonides did not write the Guide; I know for a fact that some Satmar schools teach today that the Guide is heretical. Regarding the Zohar, you are right about the right-wing, but we are talking about Judaism in general, which includes left-wing, Jewish Renewal etc., don't we? Many left-wing MO don't take the Zohar seriously and attribute it to Moshe De Leon, like Scholem. However, I disagree with some of your your ratings. I the Haredi/Hasidic camp, Maimonides is about 8, Emden - about 5, Benamozegh - about 1 and Mendelssohn - some negative number. Historically, however, Mendelssohn's influence on Judaism is huge. Many opinions in today's liberal Modern Orthodoxy and non-Orthodoxy are decidedly Mendelssohnian. I do agree that the section on Maimonides' "positive" attitude is questionable and may be deleted. I do know personally MO and Conservative people who read Maimonides this way though. Laplandian (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

From where did you "copy/paste the references to Hyman Gerson Enelow, Constantin Brunner, Joseph Klausner"? What is the source of all this material? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

From the history of this article. Someone else added these lines before and I thought they are relevant. Laplandian (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen WP:BURDEN and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I already agreed to delete that sentence, which was composed of sourced materials, by the way. There were a bit off topic, though. Laplandian (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sourced materials perhaps, but you can only insert material if you have seen the sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I can rely on other editors. I assumed that whoever inserted this sentence had seen the sources.Laplandian (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No you can't, not when it's challenged. Please review WP:BURDEN. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed... these look like Christian apologetics and not Jewish opinion. They read like an attempt from someone who has failed to convince a Jew to convert to Christianity, and is now trying to retrofit Jesus inside Judaism. They don't fit in the article 'Judaism's view of Jesus'. Zad68 (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Zad68 , what you just wrote proves my point that this article has a non-neutrality issue. If someone believes that Jesus, or Muhammad, or Lao Tzu, or Buddha, or, say, Carl Marx, was a righteous person who played an important role in the history - why in hell does it sound like Christian apologetics??? Do you say that Emden, Mendelssohn and Benamozegh were clandestine missionaries? Or Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who wrote that "God talks to Christians through Christianity, to Muslims through Islam, to Hindus through Hinduism". Since when did religious pluralism and acceptance of other religions from a respectful relativistic perspective became "Christian apologetics"? Laplandian (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sacks may well see some value and truth in ecumenical statements like that, but they aren't statements about Jesus, they're statements about Christianity etc. Christianity and Jesus are not the same thing. In general, and somewhat surprisingly, normative Jewish writing has had very little to say specifically about Jesus. However, and rather unsurprisingly, what little Judaism does say about Jesus tends to be negative. Searching for outlying opinions or constructing original research arguments on Jesus' behalf in an attempt to "redeem" him in Judaism does not produce WP:NPOV - on the contrary, it produces the opposite. It is far more honest for the reader if the article simply states "Judaism doesn't say much about Jesus, but what it does say is generally negative" than it is to add "however, these fairly obscure Jews also said positive stuff, so see, it isn't all bad!". This may be what Zad68 means by "these look like Christian apologetics". "Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, on what grounds do you call these sources "obscure"? Emden's and Benamozegh's views are well known to virtually every Jew who actively engages in interfaith dialog and promotes religious pluralism. Judaism is a generally non-dogmatic diverse tradition that doesn't not have an established view on most things. There are sections in Wikipedia articles about Orthodox gay rabbis, about "Ger Toshav proposal" (rabbi Steve Greenberg's theory of kosher workaround for intermarriage), about Judeo-Buddhists, etc. Frankly, these things are much more marginal than Emden's, Mendelssohn's and Benamozegh's views on Jesus, which were common in the Haskalah circles. Much of Judaism in all its diversity is composed of marginal things, from Hasidic pilgrimage to the graves of Tzaddikim, to radical anti-Zionism of Neturei Karta, to concubine/polygamy, to Chabad messianism, etc. Again, "redeeming" Jesus and portraying him as a rabbi played an important part of the Haskalah project, of which Benamozegh was a prominent representative. It's much less marginal than many other commonly known things in Judaism.Laplandian (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Emden's and Benamozegh's views are well known to virtually every Jew who actively engages in interfaith dialog and promotes religious pluralism - so, a couple of hundred individuals? Richard A. Cohen writes "[the thought] of Benamozegh, like Benamozegh himself, is almost unknown." (Religious Experience and the End of Metaphysics, Indiana University Press, 2003, p. 137). I have no objection to these views being presented in the articles on the individuals themselves, but they were being given WP:UNDUE weight here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a couple of hundred rabbis and a few hundreds curious individuals. Many important phenomena in Judaism, such as Neturei Karta, the Kabbalah Centre or the Orthodox LGBT activism, are also represented by small, but nevertheless significant, groups of people. Judaism is a decentralized network of movements and sub-movements, which value various novel opinions, regardless of their quantitative popularity in other groups. Most Hasidic sects operate this way: they value their peculiar views and often marginalize more common opinions. These individual opinions are obviously important from theological and philosophical perspective, as examples of religious pluralism and interfaith reconciliation within Jewish tradition. Similar views about Muhammad or the Buddha are equally important as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laplandian (talk • contribs) 04:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of hundred people in total is probably a stretch, I was being charitable. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know about Dabru Emet and other similar initiatives? This document was signed by about 200 rabbis - not just random individuals. They all known and support Emden's and Benamozegh's views. Or read this MO blog: http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2010/01/rabbi-riskin-on-christianity.html This stuff is being recently actively discussed by many liberal MO intellectuals. Sorry if you missed it, but it's over the MO and Conservative blogs.Laplandian (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Dabru Emet statement says nothing about Emden or Benamozegh. Do you have a source for your claim that "They all known and support Emden's and Benamozegh's views"? By the way, blogs aren't reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant this Riskin's statement, related to the Dabru Emet: http://cjcuc.com/site/. I know that blogs are not reliable sources. It's not a source. It's merely a demonstration that this stuff is being recently discussed in intellectual Haskalah-like MO circles and not just by a few fringe individuals. Laplandian (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Riskin is familiar with Emden's views on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Enlightenment and positive views of Jesus

Maimonides

In some aspects Maimonides, a rationalist philosopher who may be considered a forerunner of the Jewish enlightenment, holds a somewhat positive view of Jesus, though he considered him a false prophet who "caused the loss of Israel by sword". In his chapter concerning the Messiah, he writes that Jesus and Muhammad will help bring the true Messiah as they caused many to believe in one God.

I just read this section of Mishneh Torah and I am puzzled, to say the least, how after reading that you could come away with the idea that Maimonides expressed a "somewhat positive view of Jesus." Such a claim looks to be either misrepresenting the source or far-fetched WP:SYNTH. Zad68 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Zad68, I didn't write this section. I just copy/pasted it and didn't think much about it. I agree with you in this case, though I know some MO and Conservative rabbis who try to read Maimonides in liberal/pluralist way. Laplandian (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

From where did you "copy/paste" it? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

From the history of this article. Someone inserted this sentence between the paragraphs that I wroteLaplandian (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see, that wasn't your text? Why, then, did you re-insert it? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Because I was retrieving my texts from the history and decided to keep this addition that someone else had inserted into my additions, because it seemed relevant. Laplandian (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing this section about Maimonides. Forget about it. Laplandian (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but do not remove comments after people have responded to them. I've restored them so that the discussions make sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just tried to clean up the mess and make the discussion look clear.Laplandian (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Jacob Emden

Rabbi Jacob Emden, who had friendly relations with Moses Mendelssohn, founder of the Haskalah movement, and with a number of Christian scholars, while being one of the most prominent Talmudists and halachic authorities of the 18th century, had expressed a highly positive view of Jesus and Christianity, which can be viewed as an novel example of religious pluralism. According to Emden, Jesus was a righteous traditional Jew, who "never dreamed of destroying the Torah". Similarly, he also believed that Paul's seemingly antinomian teachings only refer to Gentiles, who are only obligated to observe the Noahide laws. Emden believed that the Nazarene (Jesus) only wished to reestablish the forgotten Noahide religion for the Gentiles and thus brought spiritual salvation to the non-Jews, but didn't attempt to undermine the authority of Judaism for the Jews. Emden praised the Apostles for spreading this Noahide message through the world.

Emden wrote: "It is therefore a habitual saying of mine (not as a hypocritical flatterer, God forbid, for I am of the faithful believers of Israel, and I know well that the remnant of Israel will not speak falsehood, nor will their mouths contain a deceitful tongue) that the Nazarene brought about a double kindness in the world. On the one hand, he strengthened the Torah of Moses majestically, as mentioned earlier, and not one of our Sages spoke out more emphatically concerning the immutability of the Torah. And on the other hand, he did much good for the Gentiles (provided they do not turn about his intent as they please, as some foolish ones have done because they did not fully understand the intent of the authors of the Gospels)."

According to Emden's view, strict ascetic Christian practices rectify the soul of the Gentiles in a way similar to the Jewish Mitzvot that rectify the souls of the Jews: "He obligated them with the Seven Commandments so that they should not be as the beasts of the field. He also bestowed upon them ethical ways, and in this respect he was much more stringent with them than the Torah of Moses, as is well-known. This in itself was most proper, as it is the correct way to acquire ethical practices, as the philosopher (Maimonides) mentioned. We have written similarly in our Siddur. However, it is not necessary to impose upon Jews such extreme ethical practices, since they have been obligated to the yoke of Torah, which weakens the strength of the (evil) inclination without it. They have taken the oath at Sinai and are already trained in proper practice and nature.".

Emden shows a good familiarity with the New Testament and quotes the Christian scripture with respect. While many well known rabbis respected and quoted Thomas Aquinas and other Christian philosophers, such openness to the Christian scripture itself is quite rare in the history of Judaism up until recent times.

I think WP:UNDUE applies here. As Jayjg already pointed out, this article is "Judaism's View of Jesus" and that must not be confused with "Views of Some Jews about Jesus". Of Emden in particular, the Jewish Encyclopedia (cited as a reference for Emden) writes: "R. Emden, in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to "Seder 'Olam" (pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law—which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath." (emphasis in bold mine). You can see the JE goes out of its way to show how Emden's opinions in these areas as unusual. Emden's rejection of the now fundamental Guide further shows him to be an iconoclast. I am not at all saying that Emden wasn't an authentic Orthodox Jew, but pointing out that his opinions in this area are in general not widely adopted by Judaism enough as a whole to qualify for a large chunk of this article. I think maybe a sentence or two mentioning Emden and others in the context of something like "However, some individual thinkers in Judaism..." etc. Zad68 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Zad68, Emden was, indeed, an iconoclast. He even insisted that the Jews should view marriage as merely an option and recommended (!) the Torah scholars to have girlfriends. And so were Mendelssohn and Benamozegh, two other great iconoclasts within the Orthodox tradition. However, his negative view of Maimonides' Guide are far from unique and are still quite common in Hasidic circles. Breslov, Komarno and some other Hasidim ban this book and regard it as outright heresy. Laplandian (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

His view that Maimonides did not write The Guide is likely more unusual than his simple dislike of it. And "Breslov, Komarno and some other Hasidim" certainly do not agree with Emden that the Zohar is heresy - quite the contrary! Jayjg ^(talk) 16:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

His view on Maimonides is common among today's Hasidim. I personally heard it many times. Emden's peculiar view on the Zohar should be understood in the context of his anti-Sabbatean campaign. It was quite common in the 18th century, still common enough among the MO and there is a whole movement of Yemeni Jews who held such views for centuries.Laplandian (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Emden's view on the Zohar was colored by his anti-Sabbatean campaign. Nevertheless, the "whole movement of Yemeni Jews" comprises a very small number of individuals, and the vast majority of Orthodox Jews hold it in extremely high regard. In any event, this is getting off topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Today - yes. But during the 17-19 centuries many rational-minded Jews rejected the Zohar, especially in Germany and Italy. Shadal is a well known example. Yeshayahu Leibowitz is another. Meanwhile, Dor Daim is a unique Jewish community with its own specific traditions, and deserves to be treated as such, regardless of its size. Laplandian (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

All topics on Wikipedia "deserve to be treated" with WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Every serious and unbiased article on Kabbalah, e.g. in Encyclopedia Judaica, includes sections about anti-Kabbalistic rabbis and controversy around the Zohar.Laplandian (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about "Judaism's view of Jesus", not Kabbalah. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. But it is you who objected Emden's view of Jesus, because of his opinions on Kabbalah.Laplandian (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. I objected to including Emden's view because his views were in no way normative, on the Zohar, the Moreh Nevukhim, and many other topics, including Jesus. He was an interesting, if highly combative, fellow, but this article is not "Interesting stuff Jews have said about Jesus, especially if its positive". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Especially if its positive"? Well, I take it as a confirmation of the POV tag. Why not to mentions interesting positive stuff that is written by a very well known rabbi in an accepted Orthodox book? BTW, Maimonides was even less normative and even more combative fellow by his time's standards. Unlike Maimonides' writings, no one burned Emden's books, as far as I know. Quite a few young folks today use Emden's opinions as a license for premarital sex. A very notable phenomenon in left-wing MO circles (special Mikvahs for unmarried girls etc.) Not everything notable is normative. Laplandian (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, the criteria for including views in the article is that they are influential or normative. It is you who are using POV criteria - specifically, searching for positive opinions, rather than normative ones. What you have shown is that the POV tag is spurious, because you attempting to introduce POV, rather than follow NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Enlightenment

Jewish enlightenment brought about a new tolerant attitude toward Christianity, especially with regard to Jesus. See Hyman Gerson Enelow (A Jewish View of Jesus, 1920), Constantin Brunner (Our Christ: The Revolt of the Mystical Genius, original in German, 1921), Joseph Klausner (Jesus of Nazareth, original in Hebrew, 1922).

Moses Mendelssohn depicted Jesus as a Torah-observant rabbi, who was loyal to traditional Judaism. Mendelssohn explicitly linked positive Jewish views of Jesus with the issues of Emancipation and Jewish-Christian reconciliation. Similar views were expressed by Rabbi Isaac Ber Levinsohn and other religious representatives of the Haskalah movement.

Elijah Benamozegh

A very positive view of Jesus and Christianity, including an attempt to explain the Christian Trinity in terms of the Kabbalistic theory of Divine emanations, was offered by Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh, a prominent Italian Orthodox Kabbalist, an academic scolar and a proponent of religious universalism. Benamozegh even considered the Gospel to be a Midrash, comparable to the Talmudic Aggadah. He quotes the Christian scripture completely freely in his writings and often mixes quotations from the Talmud with the Gospel, Quran, ancient pagan mythology and other religious sources outside Judaism.

I'm not bowled over by the sources, I can't see even one that must be included, but in fairness some of them are getting there. On a more general point the guiding parameters for e.g. articles on Christian views on Wikipedia typically are that the big churches - RC, EO, Evangelical get 70-80% of article space and "other" get 30-20%. If these liberal/Kabbalistic whatever non OJ-views are accurately and reliably sourced, and have not in any way been distorted/misrepresented by MJ or other Christian interpretation, then allowing 20% of the article for "other" wouldn't be UNDUE. However "other" views would still need not to be individual/fringe. If it's a commonish view across a type/branch of a religion, a certain school, liberal/reform then that in theory' might be WP:Notable just most of the Christianity articles have small sections for JWs/LDS etc at the bottom. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

All these views are, in fact, Orthodox, because there were expressed by well known and respected Orthodox rabbis and were repeated by a number of other Orthodox rabbis. Jacob Emden is considered perfectly Orthodox in all streams of Judaism. All the sources are very much relevant, if you check them out. As for the type/branch of religion - one such historical school is Haskalah, which attempted to "re-Judaize" Jesus. Another school - people who are busy today with interfaith dialog, Jewish-Christian reconciliation, religious pluralism and cultural relativism. That includes some MO and even a few Haredi people like Adin Steinsaltz. As for "distortion" - anyone who can read the original rabbinical texts can see that there is no distortion. In case anyone wonders, I am not a Christian, but a traditional Jew, a pantheist, anarchist and pluralist. I added similar material about Muhammad as well. Laplandian (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether Emden was "perfectly Orthodox", but rather the weight to be placed on individual opinions. Please respond to my comment above. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible solution?

I understand the difference of opinion here. The editors of this article focus on mainstream Orthodox Judaism. I focus, admittedly, on ultra-left pluralistic and anarchic ideas. In fact, I personally find Christianity fascinating primarily as a social revolutionary movement that may be compared to some radical streams in Kabbalah, from Sabbatianism to Jewish Renewal, and not the other way around.

Here is what I suggest: I will move my additions to Christian-Jewish reconciliation, maybe also to Christianity and Judaism. In this article, I will only add a short section titled "Alternative views" with a link to those articles and a warning that these views are not common in Judaism, but are supported by some traditional Jews and are worth exploring. Perhaps, I should also start a general article on Judaism and religious pluralism, which will contain similar material on Muhammad, Sufi masters, Buddha, Lao Tzu, pagan mystics etc. I seems that focusing on Jesus in particular within Jewish context almost inevitably raises suspicions. What do you think, guys? Laplandian (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not that people want to "focus on mainstream Orthodox Judaism" - it's that they want to focus on mainstream Judaism in general. Of course, before the mid-1800s there was no Reform or Conservative, but even so, the issue here is that we must represent more mainstream views, as opposed to individual eccentrics. It's fine to outline their views in the articles about them, but they don't belong here. Again, please see WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Laplandian, please do not add the material to Christian-Jewish reconciliation and/or to Christianity and Judaism, and please do not "start a general article on Judaism and religious pluralism, which will contain similar material on Muhammad, Sufi masters, Buddha, Lao Tzu, pagan mystics etc." that sort of OR/SYNTHESIS-prone material burdens the Christianity material on Wikipedia already with unsourced fringe and one-man theories, and there a good clean out with AfDs is needed. What Jayjg has said above, see WP:UNDUE, allows minority views just as non-Catholic views are allowed on Christianity pages - and modern views in this article, provided they are not non-notable eccentrics and are properly sourced. One other point - in the case of one-off views the place for one-off views is in the relevant bio article, e.g. Elijah Benamozegh, and then a brief sentence wikilinking to the various bio pages: "other views .. were held by Elijah Benamozegh, X Y Z, etc etc etc source ref." Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Than I will add this material to the respective articles about the authors who expresses those "one-man" views an will provide links to them. Regarding "non-Catholic views are allowed on Christianity pages"... it's funny, how cultural background affects Wikipedia, despite all the efforts to remain neutral. Christianity pages in the Russian Wikipedia usually represent strictly Eastern Orthodox views and consider Catholic views as "marginal", while Judaism pages usually represent Chabad views, because Chabad (often downright Messianist type) is the only branch of Orthodox Judaism well known in Russia. Laplandian (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Laplandian, please see my comment in the section above - what is the source for all this material you have been adding? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As some one not involved, I think?, I'm sorely tempted to remove the POV tag. Laplandian, please address Jayjg's question. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The main source on Jesus as a personality, as I already explained, is Haskalah revisionism. Emden was friends with Mendelssohn and could be considered a semi-Maskil. Benamozegh was a moderate Maskil as well. There is a plenty of research on it. The other section, on Trinity, is based on the academic research on Kabbalah, as well as on primary Kabbalah sources. Mystical Judaism in not as strictly monotheistic as many people think. Even mainstream prayer books contain a few prayers addressed to angels ans particular Sefirot. Many well known and respected Kabbalists view God as a hierarchy of Divine personae. Some of them were explicitly asked, how is this different from Christianity, and answered that Christianity is wrong because it's not pantheistic and acknowledges only three levels of Divinity and doesn't see the entire world as a network of God's manifestations. Again, there is much research on these Kabbalistic views by Scholem, Idel, Liebes and even by me (peer-reviewed stuff, not Wikipedia :-) ). Finally, some research about equation of Tzaddikim with God was done by Chabad Hasidim, since the Lubavitcher Rebbe himself had famously stated that "a Rebbe is God put into the body of a Tzaddik". Indeed, some critics of Lubavitch accuse this movement in quasi-Christian tendencies, but such views have long history in many branches of Hasidism. There is some academic research on this subject as well, but I primarily used materials written by radical Chabad rabbis. Laplandian (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue is one of references. If the papers aren't internet accessable it makes it harder to validate, but without a specific references, the editors can't assess the validity of the source materials. --DeknMike (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Got it. In other words, original research on your part, and almost none of the sources actually refer to Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Again: my editions to this articles were composed of three parts: on Trinity, on viewing righteous individuals a manifestations of God and on positive rabbinical views of Jesus. We are still discuss the third part only, for which I have already provided a plenty of sources: primary sources in Hebrew, academic books, academic articles and rabbinical essays. When we settle on my additions about Jesus as personality, we can move to other two additions, which are also well sourced. But let's not confuse the topics and finish with this part. The references I provided so far - except for the first two ones about Maimonides, which I already agreed to delete - actually refer to Jesus or analyze the works of those rabbis who praised Jesus as a person. Laplandian (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Per above, and reading next two responses, if no one objects then I suggest to remove the POV tag unless Laplandian provides at least 1 solid mainstream relevant modern published secondary source (with ISBN not a pdf) where source text and edit content match up and then that edit + source is then rejected by the other editors. Unless that happens then there's no cause for the POV tag. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have to provide secondary sources. Primary sources are also acceptable for Wikipedia, though secondary sources are preferable. And I already provided both: links to scanned primary Hebrew texts, modern published books and research articles. Laplandian (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but WP:NOR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. You have I suggest maybe two or three days to provide material with a reliable secondary source (I suggest you place it on Talk first) and see if the other editors obstruct it, if not I intend to remove your POV tag, another editor may well do it sooner. There's way too much OR on Jewish-Christian intersect articles, and I can understand why admins' and editors' patience is thin. Please don't take it personally, you've actually been treated pretty easily here, but you must provide WP:sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. Look up, in the reference section. I already provided easily readable primary sources in English, secondary sources (reliable peer-reviewed academic research) and a couple of tertiary sources (research and scholarly opinions). Where do you see OR? Check those sources out, please. Laplandian (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

See the new version below.Laplandian (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's OR because it cites a bunch of sources that don't mention Jesus, and aren't about him. This article is "Judaism's view of Jesus", not all the stuff you're writing about. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not OR, because Emden, Mendelssohn and Benamozegh do mention Jesus and are perfectly relevant here. And the "bunch of sources" is research about those opinions. And the section on Chabad messianism is a refutation of the theological claims of this article that don't mention Jesus either. By your logic, all the stuff about Trinity and incarnation should be removed from this article as OR.Laplandian (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH; please stop belaboring these perfectly obvious points, they've been explained more than enough times. As for other material, if the sources don't mention Jesus, then feel free to remove that material. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that I could "feel free to remove that material". It's impossible to understand the history of Judaism's view of Jesus without a background talk about Judaism's views on Messiah, monotheism etc. However, once this necessary talk had started, it's fair to mention that not everything is 100% monolithic here. Laplandian (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If "it's impossible to understand the history of Judaism's view of Jesus without a background talk about Judaism's views on Messiah, monotheism", then no doubt reliable secondary sources will have discussed Judaism and Jesus in that context. Wikipedia is uninterested in the original research of anonymous User:Laplandian on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article from Haaretz that compares Christianity with the extreme forms of Chabad Messianism and mentions Jesus:http://www.haaretz.com/news/the-lubavitcher-rebbe-as-a-god-1.212516 . And here is quotation from Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh's lecture: In the Zohar, the classic text of Kabbalah, as well as in other Jewish sources, we find that there are three manifestations of Godliness, which are considered essentially One. These are God, the Torah, and Israel (meaning, the Jewish people)... And so, the initial three—God, the Torah, and Israel—can be seen to reduce to two: God and Israel. These three canals expand into four (and thus correspond to the four letters of God’s essential Name, as described above). In such a case, the single manifestation of the nation of Israel divides into the tzadik (the righteous Messianic figure present in every generation and the Jewish People (the Congregation of Israel, called Kneset Yisrael, in Hebrew). These two are then referred to as the Almighty’s “son” and “daughter,” respectively. http://www.inner.org/nonjews/kabbalah-for-nations-monotheism.php Ginsburgh mentions Jesus implicitly as "a trinity, like the Christian model" and basically explains how the Chabad idea of incarnation is different from the Christian one. David Berger wrote a whole book on this subject, which mentions Jesus regularly. Laplandian (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice those quotes fail to mention Jesus? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Chabad messianism

And so all of this should be moved out of the article Judaism's View of Jesus. Zad68 (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I will move it to Chabad messianism and leave only a couple of sentences here. Laplandian (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Below is a shorter version:Laplandian (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

How does it deal in any way with the objections listed above? Specifically, that this is an article about "Judaism's view of Jesus", not "The individual (and often unusual) views of various Jews regarding Jesus and other assorted topics"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How does the whole discussion about Trinity and incarnation deal with Jesus? This section is a refutation of the main claim in this article that the concept of incarnation is totally foreign to Judaism. The Lubavitcher Rebbe, who is considered one of the most important figures in today's Orthodoxy, explicitly said that some righteous individuals are God incarnates. A very notable person by all standards. That fact pokes a obvious hole in the theological claims of this article. Laplandian (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

All sources here must (among other things) discuss Jesus, per WP:NOR. If material here is based on sources that don't mention Jesus, then feel free to remove it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible to understand the history of Judaism's view of Jesus without a background talk about Judaism's views on Messiah, monotheism etc. However, it should be also mentioned that Jewish theology is not 100% monolithic here.Laplandian (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If "it's impossible to understand the history of Judaism's view of Jesus without a background talk about Judaism's views on Messiah, monotheism", then no doubt reliable secondary sources will have discussed Judaism and Jesus in that context. Wikipedia is uninterested in the original research of anonymous User:Laplandian on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article from Haaretz that compares Christianity with the extreme forms of Chabad Messianism and mentions Jesus:http://www.haaretz.com/news/the-lubavitcher-rebbe-as-a-god-1.212516 . And here is quotation from Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh's lecture: In the Zohar, the classic text of Kabbalah, as well as in other Jewish sources, we find that there are three manifestations of Godliness, which are considered essentially One. These are God, the Torah, and Israel (meaning, the Jewish people)... And so, the initial three—God, the Torah, and Israel—can be seen to reduce to two: God and Israel. These three canals expand into four (and thus correspond to the four letters of God’s essential Name, as described above). In such a case, the single manifestation of the nation of Israel divides into the tzadik (the righteous Messianic figure present in every generation and the Jewish People (the Congregation of Israel, called Kneset Yisrael, in Hebrew). These two are then referred to as the Almighty’s “son” and “daughter,” respectively. http://www.inner.org/nonjews/kabbalah-for-nations-monotheism.php Ginsburgh mentions Jesus implicitly as "a trinity, like the Christian model" and basically explains how the Chabad idea of incarnation is different from the Christian one. David Berger wrote a whole book on this subject, which mentions Jesus regularly.Laplandian (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice those quotes fail to mention Jesus? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative views

Jacob Emden

Main article: Jacob Emden

Rabbi Jacob Emden, one of the most prominent Talmudists and halachic authorities of the 18th century, is noted for his uniquely positive view of Jesus and Christianity.

Emden believed that Christianity has an important role to play in God's plan for mankind. In his view, the original intention of Jesus was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah. Emden praised Jesus as a righteous Jewish teacher of the Gentiles, praised ascetic Christian practices as a non-Jewish equivalent of the Jewish Mitzvot and quoted the New Testament with respect.

Emden's thought wasn't particularly normative in Judaism. Not appropriate for an article on Judaism's view of Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What's "normative"? Is Neturei Karta normative? Is Chabad messianism normative? Is Orthodox LGBT activism normative? Is premarital sex normative? All these things flourish in certain currents within Judaism. And so do positive views of Jesus. Emden's views were recently promoted by Rabbi Sholomo Riskin. Benamozegh's views were recently quoted by Adin Steinsaltz. Both are well known normative and notable rabbis. It's also Judaism. Shmuley Boteach - a notable figure, though not exactly mainstream - is actively promoting Emden's view. If you disagree - then rename this article "Mainstream Judaism's view of Jesus". I would not argue then.Laplandian (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There are standard legal codes, classic philosophical works, standard commentaries, and the various modern movements (e.g. Conservative, Reform) have official bodies that speak on their behalf. That's normative. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Standard legal codes are only relevant for (not too modern) Orthodox Judaism. The choice of philosophical works is a matter of opinion, e.g. most Hasidim are afraid to touch Moreh Nevukhim. Jewish Renewal has no official bodies and encourages anarchy. Hasidic Judaism is highly decentralized. Some folks think that it's normative to believe that their rebbe is Messiah. Some folks think it's normative to be friends with Ahmadinejad. Some folks are opening Orthodox institutions for lesbians. And some folks like Riskin make positive statements about Jesus and build novel theologies based in this belief. Academic scholars of religion often dislike all organized religion with official dictating bodies and only value novel, interesting, original and positive stuff. You may believe that there is such a thing as "normative" in Judaism, but many very traditional Jews don't listen to any official bodies or gather a dozen of people with similar beliefs and call it "the most official and normative body". That's the reality. I really don't see how Maimonides view is more Jewish than Emden's. Not by the incidental numbers of followers, but by the personal brilliance of religious reasoning. Laplandian (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Standard legal codes are relevant for all streams of Orthodox Judaism, and the two other major Jewish religious movements (Conservative and Reform) each have their own bodies pronouncing on halakha and/or Jewish norms, which inevitably use the standard legal codes as their own starting point for decisions. There will be criteria for inclusion of views here, and they will comply with WP:UNDUE. Viewpoints will certainly not be chosen for inclusion solely because they express a specific belief, as you have been consistently (and openly admitting to) doing. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My belief in this case is anarchism. That includes rejection of all hierarchically organized religion, which I personally consider an evil invention. Yes, I openly admit that I like to poke holes in monolithic claims about (almost always illusionary) "normative" religious beliefs. I do it, because these specific opinions are highly notable for an average non-Jewish reader and because Judaism is neither monolithic nor centralized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laplandian (talk • contribs) 08:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The content of Wikipedia's articles are guided by its content policies, not anarchy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Haskalah

Main article: Haskalah

Moses Mendelssohn, a major Jewish philosopher and the founder of the Haskalah movement, criticized Christianity, but depicted Jesus as a Torah-observant rabbi, who was loyal to traditional Judaism. Similar revisionist views were expressed by Rabbi Isaac Ber Levinsohn and other traditional representatives of the Haskalah movement.

Mendelssohn's thought wasn't particularly normative in Judaism. Not appropriate for an article on Judaism's view of Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Mendelssohn's thought is critically important for Reform/Liberal Judaism and for Conservative as well, to a smaller degree. Plenty of Orthodox rabbis quote him with great respect. All Judaism today is influenced greatly by Haskalah. Even Haredim, though they would not admit it.Laplandian (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide evidence regarding this, particularly in relation to Mendelssohn's views on Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I already provided a source: Mathew Hoffman's book that explains in detail, how Mendelssohn and other Haskalah figures changed the views about Jesus in liberal Jewish circles. Laplandian (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Jews and Judaism are not the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Elijah Benamozegh

Main article: Elijah Benamozegh

A positive view of Jesus was also offered by Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh. He respected Jesus as a wise righteous Jew and even considered the Gospel as a Midrash comparable to the Talmudic Aggadah, but criticized the religious innovations of Paul. Benamozegh's main work on religious universalism, Israel and Humanity, contains about 20 citations from New Testament and numerous Kabbalistic interpretations of Jesus' words.

As a proponent of religious universalism and panentheistic dialetic philosophy, Benamozegh explains the Christian Trinity as an oversimplified interpretation of the Kabbalistic Sefirot. While he disagreed with the Trinitarian Christian theology, he considered this dogma, unlike most other Orthodox rabbis, a minor error and not a major deviation from monotheism.

"[The thought] of Benamozegh, like Benamozegh himself, is almost unknown." (Richard A. Cohen, Religious Experience and the End of Metaphysics, Indiana University Press, 2003, p. 137). Please review WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Adin Steinsaltz brought Benamozegh back into the mainstream Jewish discourse in 2005, when he wrote his famous article on religious pluralism. Laplandian (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have provided a reliable source. Provide a reliable source that says something else. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You provided an outdated source that says nothing whatsoever. "Almost unknown" to whom? Known to Steinsaltz, known to everyone in Livorno, known to the Noahides, known to many researchers of comparative religion, known to a plenty of MO intellectual folks, known to YU professors. Laplandian (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My source is less than 10 years old, and is quite clear and informative. On the other hand, you provide no sources at all. Please review the previous comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. Benamozegh's inspired reading of Spinoza, his grand project of a universal religion, his "feminization" of Jewish thought, and his ability to excel simultaneously as a rabbi, an Italian patriot, a citizen of the Republique des Lettres, and a proud representative of an ancient Sephardic culture make him one of the most outstanding and original figures of the nineteenth-century Jewish culture (David Ruderman's review to Allessandro Guetta's book "Philosophy and Kabbalah: Elijah Benamozegh and the Reconciliation of Western Thought and Jewish Esotericism"). Benamozegh emphasized the universalistic and unifying aspects of the mystical components of Judaism, understood as constituting the Kabbalah. Together with A. Frank and F. Molitor, he adumbrated the twentieth-century reevaluation of Jewish mysticism as a vital constituent of Judaism (Moshe Idel's appendix to the English edition of Benamozegh's book "Israel and Humanity"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laplandian (talk • contribs) 06:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"outstanding and original figures of the nineteenth-century Jewish culture" does not in any way mean well-known or normative in Judaism. Ahad Ha'am and Hayim Nahman Bialik were also "outstanding and original figures of the nineteenth-century (and early twentieth-century) Jewish culture", and were much, much better known, but they too had no impact on Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahad Ha'am strongly influenced Martin Buber and his friend Rabbi Shmuel Alexandrov (very original Orthodox thinker, sort of precursor to Reb Shlomo and Jewish Renewal). Laplandian (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

...and neither Ahad Ha'am or Bialik had any impact on Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Chabad doctrine of incarnation

Main article: Chabad messianism

Main article: Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies

The idea that certain righteous individuals are Divine incarnates, deemed heretical by many Jews, was stated by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, a prominent Hasidic leader . This idea fueled much controversy around Chabad Messianism. However, the generalized panentheism, i.e. considering everything and everyone as manifestations of God, is the accepted mainstream Hasidic and Kabbalistic view.

This section cites primary sources that don't even mention Jesus. Please review WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I am totally confused - is this being proposed for this article or Chabad messianism? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This article, clearly, since the section has a {{Main|Chabad messianism}} at the top. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This section is a refutation of the main claim in this article that the concept of incarnation is totally foreign to Judaism. Much of this article doesn't mention Jesus either. There are a number of Christian sects who don't believe that Jesus is a God incarnate and reject Trinity. The subject of monotheism is not directly related to Jesus. This article sounds to me like propaganda of "the only true" version of Judaism. The Lubavitcher Rebbe, one of the most important figures in today's Orthodoxy, explicitly said that some righteous individuals are God incarnates. That fact pokes an obvious hole in the theological claims of this article. Some Hasidic Jews do believe in incarnation. Not about Jesus and in somewhat different form than Christians, but Chabad Hasidim - even not mashichists - believe that some people are identical in some way to God. Many (all?) Breslov Hasidim hold similar beliefs, because Rebbe Nachman said about himself that he is completely one with Einsof (essence of God). So, either my addition is relevant to this article, or the entire theological part of this article should go, since it doesn't mention Jesus directly either. Laplandian (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

All sources in this article must, at a minimum, refer to Jesus, per WP:NOR (they must also meet many other qualifications as well). Do not propose material based on sources that do not refer to Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So all the stuff about the Messianic Age, the Torah and the commandments, the Tanakh, monotheism vs. Trinity, prophecy, idolatry, the absolute unity and singularity of God, eschatology etc. should be deleted, huh? They don't refer to Jesus per se.Laplandian (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to remove anything cited to a source that doesn't mention Jesus. How many times must I repeat that? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-authoritative views

Main article: Jacob Emden

Main article: Haskalah

Main article: Elijah Benamozegh

Main article: Shlomo Riskin

Main article: Shmuley Boteach

Main article: Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies

The main body of the article describes the authoritative texts common to Modern Orthodox Judaism, Haredi Jews, Reform Judaism and Liberal Judaism.[citation needed] There are other forms of Judaism outside these traditions and inside these traditions as well, as minority opinions of certain individuals or groups, which may have variant emphases or variant views of Jesus, as well as theological beliefs that may be closer to the Christian claims about Jesus than Judaism's mainstream theological views described in this article. Laplandian (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Laplandian,

Firstly listen to work Jayjg is saying about WP:sources. That means a source that has the word "So and believed" "about Jesus" or "Christ" in the text with a page number.

Sorry, this above is not how main links are used. A main link is when there is a section which is a summary of another article. In this case you would want something formatted more like:

The main body of the article describes the authoritative texts common to Modern Orthodox Judaism, Haredi Jews, Reform Judaism and Liberal Judaism. There are variant minority views of Jesus within these traditions, as well as outside main Jewish denominations. Among those minority views Jacob Emden, Haskalah movement, Elijah Benamozegh, have presented views which vary from mainstream views in Judaism, but still do not recognise Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah of Israel.

................I'm assuming in each case that a would link to a properly referenced English language publication with an author title place date ISBN and then helpfully in quotes "Moses Mendelsohn suggested blah blah blah about Jesus" p15. etc. Otherwise it's spam and will be deleted. I don't even know that the leading comments in the paragraph are remotely accurate, they need too. Your main problem at the moment isn't the text but the provision of relevant WP:sources. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Here is a new version. Later I'll look up Guetta's book and add the missing page numbers and exact quotes.

New version

I suggest the following expansion of In ictu oculi's section: Laplandian (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-authoritative views

Main article: Jacob Emden

Main article: Haskalah

Main article: Elijah Benamozegh

Main article: Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies

The main body of the article describes the authoritative texts common to Modern Orthodox Judaism, Haredi Jews, Reform Judaism and Liberal Judaism. There are variant minority views of Jesus within these traditions, as well as outside main Jewish denominations. Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach writes:

For the past six years I have been working on a book, to be published shortly, on a new understanding of Jesus as prophet rather than deity, based exclusively on the New Testament. The real story of Jesus as teacher of traditional Jewish spirituality to his disciples lies explicitly in the text. I have lectured Christian audiences about rediscovering the uniquely Jewish Jesus as a way of deepening their spiritual understanding of Christianity and stripping it of any acquired pagan coating. The response has been overwhelming.

Jacob Emden, a famous 18th century Orthodox rabbi, believed that Christianity has an important role to play in God's plan for mankind. In Emden's view, the original intention of Jesus and Paul was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah. Emden praised Jesus as a righteous Jew and a great teacher of the Gentiles, praised ascetic Christian practices as a non-Jewish equivalent of the Jewish Mitzvot and quoted the New Testament with respect. . Emden's views are promoted by Rabbi Shlomo Riskin.

Similar view were held by Moses Mendelssohn, Rabbi Isaac Ber Levinsohn and other prominent religious thinkers of the Haskalah movement.

Elijah Benamozegh, a well known Italian Orthodox rabbi and universalist philosopher, also wrote that Jesus was "a good Jew who did not dream of founding a rival church". Benamozegh believed that Jesus was an early public promoter of Kabbalah and considered the Gospel as a part of the Jewish Aggadah. Benamozegh compared the Christian Trinity to the Kabbalistic system of Divine emanations, known as the Sefirot, and held that Christian theology is not far from some mystical Jewish conceptions of monotheism. Benamozegh's universalist views were recently promoted by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz.

While the doctrine of incarnation is foreign to most Jews, some Hasidim believe in a somewhat similar concept. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, a prominent Hasidic leader, said that the Rebbe is God's essence itself put into a body of a Tzaddik. . While many other Jews find this idea highly controversial, panentheism, i.e. considering everything and everyone as manifestations of God, is the accepted mainstream Hasidic and Kabbalistic doctrine.

Aside from the fact that it is filled with all sorts of farfetched and unsourced claims (e.g. that Benamozegh is a "well known" rabbi), you don't appear to be listening to the comments made here. This article is about "Judaism's view of Jesus". As such, it's not really interested in the fringe or individual views of various Jews. Why would we care what Boteach has to say on this topic? And why would it include material that is not about Jesus? Please review the comments that have been made many times already. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The central square in Livorno is named after Benamozegh. He is like Maharal for the people in Prague - a legendary figure. People write books and academic research articles about him. Adin Steinsaltz admires him. I call it "well known". But fine, I can delete these two words. Regarding your questions: it is you who don't appear to listen. This article is about Judaism's view of Jesus. It's not about "Mainstream Jewish Orthodoxy's view" or "Judaism's majority's" view of Jesus. It does not even contain a section on the Reform views. These opinions were expressed by notable Orthodox rabbis - not by some unknown individuals. Can you imagine an article on Zionism and Judaism that would not contain a large section about Neturei Karta? Or an article on Judaism and homosexuality that would not include a section about the Orthodox gay underground? Notable religious opinions or folk practices are not necessarily the majority's view. This article is far too monolithic and contradicts the fact that there are some very public Orthodox rabbis like Boteach and Riskin who respect Jesus and call him a rabbi. Now, regarding you second question, may I ask you, why is this article full of theological stuff about Trinity and incarnation? These parts of the article don't mention Jesus either. By your own logic, either all this theological material should be deleted as OR, or it should be noted that the Jewish theology on these matters is not entirely monolithic. Chabad is not fringe by any standards. Like it or not, it's a large Orthodox movement that holds openly that their Rebbe is "God's essence itself in a body of a Tzaddik" - whatever it actually means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laplandian (talk • contribs) 05:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm sure Benamozegh was famous in the town of Livorno, where he was born and raised, and served as a rabbi until he died. Reliable sources indicate he is mostly unknown outside it. Bring reliable sources that say something else; until you do, the Benamozegh topic is done.
2. I can indeed "imagine an article on Zionism and Judaism that would not contain a large section about Neturei Karta". Neturei Karta is a small group of fanatic religious extremists, the epitome of WP:FRINGE. Please review WP:UNDUE, to which you've been directed many, many times.
3. There are thousands of Jews who have an opinion on Jesus, but, as explained, this article isn't "Every Jews' opinion on Jesus". There must be criteria for inclusion, and those criteria cannot be the ones you are using, which is "include them simply because they say something positive". Boteach is very good at promoting himself, but has little, if any, influence in Judaism and the Jewish world. Riskin has a small following among strongly Zionist Modern Orthodox Jews, but his views on Jesus are in no way normative, nor would he himself ever claim they are authoritative. Do not keep searching for more opinions of Jews to include, simply because they may have once said something positive about Jesus. One doesn't build NPOV by searching for opinions that coincide with one's own.
4. The Chabad material is perfectly fine for the article on Chabad messianism. It is not, however, about Jesus. Don't bring it up again; instead, if you feel the temptation to do so, continually re-read WP:NOR until the impulse passes.
5. I've already said that if material in the article is cited to sources that don't mention Jesus, it should be removed. Please feel free to do so.

In general, if your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT continues, you will find no-one even bothering to respond any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Already did above.Laplandian (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Neturei Karta reperesent an extreme form of what used to be the normative default anti-Zionist view of Judaism. On the contrary, religious Zionism is a recent invention deemed by many authoritative rabbis as grave heresy. Laplandian (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
3. My opinion is anarchism. I don't support monolithic views on anything. One great thing about Wikipedia is its rich material on things that may be not normative, but notable for their originality. Laplandian (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
4. I provided sources above that do mention Jesus.Laplandian (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

1. No, your sources said nothing about Benamozegh being well-known. Please make more accurate Talk: page statements.
2. Neturei Karta is a small group of fanatic religious extremists, the epitome of WP:FRINGE. Please review WP:UNDUE, to which you've been directed many, many times.
3. Wikipedia's content rules do not allow for "anarchism" in articles.
4. None that I can see; perhaps you can be more specific. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

1. The phrase "a small group of fanatic religious extremists" is the epitome of POV, especially because they are the ones who represent the traditional mainstream anti-Zionist view that most Orthodox and Reform Jews maintained until recently and some of the largest Haredi groups still maintain in a less radical form. No decent academic article, unless it's written with Zionist or right-wing bias, would call NK this way. Note also, that from NK's own relative perspective, the only authentic Judaism is anti-Zionist, for a number of good objective historical reasons. Anyway, that's far off the topic. Laplandian (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
2. It's not what I meant. Different topics in Wikipedia have different perspectives of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, depending in the context discussed. Anarchism-themed articles tend to emphasize dissent and rebel religious groups. Many people, not only in my lefty neo-Hasidic milieu, think that contemporary Judaism is a radically decentralized semi-anarchic set of diverse traditions, where every tiny group and notable opinion may be equally important in its own way, as in "both are the words of the living God". Obviously, we have very different views of Judaism. Anyway, I will remove the POV tag, if this final little paragraph will be added. Laplandian (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, it's a POV, and an entirely accurate one: "Neturei Karta is a fringe, extremist example of this millennial stance". (Kenneth G. C. Newport, Crawford Gribben. Expecting the End: Millennialism in Social and Historical Context, Baylor University Press, 2006, p. 73. There are dozens more reliable sources that say much the same thing. Neturei Karta and their views are covered under WP:FRINGE.
2. My edits are guided by Wikipedia's content policies, not my personal beliefs.
3. Please stop inserting your comments in the middle of mine. Among other things, it messes up the numbering. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

See the minimalistic version below. I hope this little paragraph will not raise objections. Laplandian (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's moving in the right direction, at least. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Neturei Karta have nothing whatsoever to do with millennialism and only an ignoramus would call it "a messianic group". It's a traditionalist group strongly opposed to Zionist millenialism. And the author is surely either a Zionist or is parroting the Zionist slur against NK. Only a very biased anthropologist would apply such labels to a well established peaceful religious community with a few thousand members and well documented beliefs deeply rooted in authentic Judaism's stance against Zionism. Imagine the same slur used against the Amish. Would not you feel that something is wrong about it?

My edits are also guided by Wikipedia's content policies. The problem is that there are no objective criteria for prominence and notability of cultural phenomena. They are subjective by definition. We may like it or not, but different schools of anthropology and religion have different criteria. Compare the articles on Jewish subjects in Britannica, Encyclopedia Judaica, Great Soviet Encyclopedia and the Russian Wikipedia. Very different criteria for what's called here WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE in very many cases. Liberals, socialists, communists, nationalists, multiculturalists, postmodernists etc. tend to value different sorts of things. Such situations can only be solved by an argument followed by a vote, (preferably) consensus or compromise. Laplandian (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: "authentic Judaism's stance against Zionism"... Whoa, wait a minute, are you saying now that "authentic Judaism's stance" is anti-Zionist, and therefore we are to conclude that current mainstream Judaism's generally pro-Israel stance disqualifies it from being "authentic Judaism"? Regardless, this is getting WAAAY off the topic of "Judaism's View of Jesus" and is largely WP:SOAPBOX. Can we please stick to the topic at hand. Zad68 (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I personally see it this way: Zionism was originally incompatible with both mainstream Orthodox and mainstream Reform Judaism and religious Zionists had to invent a number of far-fetched untraditional reinterpretations of Judaism. But I would not suggest this conclusion for a Wikipedia article about Judaism and Zionism and would not disqualify Zionist views due to my personal convictions. What I am saying is that an unbiased article on Zionism and Judaism must include a large section about religious anti-Zionism and can not discard it as "fringe", because this stance is, indeed, historically authentic (read about Satmar Rebbe and see his works on the subject), was shared to various degrees by most religious Jews before the creation of the State of Israel and is still shared by hundreds of thousands of Haredim, albeit not in the same vocal and radical style as NK. Anyway, it is indeed WAAAY (or rather OYWAY) off the topic. :-)

Regarding the WP:SOAPBOX, sorry for the mess. I suggest to delete all this annoying sandbox part and to focus on the final paragraph. Laplandian (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree it would be best to delete all the off-topic stuff here. As they're mostly your edits, I think you'd be the best one to go ahead and do the deletes. Zad68 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the talk page is a record, it can be archived, but not simply deleted, particularly other peoples' comments. Please just leave it alone. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

How solid are Walker 1931, Ben-Chorin 1974, Bruteau 2001 and Hoffman 2007 as sources?

In looking for substance to Laplandian's sources above (which, sorry I couldn't find, not sure about which page of Hoffman is meant, p. please), I came across these which might be more appropriate than Primary Source material for filling out the 19th and 20th Centuries in the article:

• Thomas Walker, Jewish Views of Jesus: An Introduction and an Appreciation (London: George Allen and Unwin) 1931.
• Shalom Ben-Chorin, "The Image of Jesus in Modern Judaism," Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Summer 1974,
• Beatrice Bruteau Jesus through Jewish eyes: rabbis and scholars engage an ancient brother in a new conversation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001), p. 10...- 2001 "During late antiquity and the Middle Ages, Jews had commonly caricatured Jesus as a sorcerer"

And one of Laplandian's sources:

• Hoffman From Rebel to Rabbi: Reclaiming Jesus and the Making of Modern Jewish Culture (Stanford Studies in Jewish History and C) (9780804753715) "—Kinky Friedman (1974) From the end of the eighteenth century, Jewish proponents of modernization, enlightenment (Haskalah), and reform began to reject the traditionally negative Jewish views of Jesus in favor of increasingly ..." cf. The margins of Jewish history Marc Lee Raphael - 2000 "... some other synoptic works include Thomas Walker, Jewish Views of Jesus (New York, 1973), Shalom Ben-Chorin, "The Image of Jesus in Modern ... I thank my student, Matthew Hoffman, for providing me with much of this bibliography."

On the face of it these look fairly mainstream, secular, objective. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you give more information about "Beatrice Bruteau - 2001"? Also, I'd be leery of a source published in 1931 - just a bit too old to represent current scholarship, in my view. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg

I have no idea, I just found them following what looked the most academic of Laplandian's sources. And yes 1931, unless it's cited a lot (which actually it appears to be) would be too old, but it might well give a start for the 1870-1930 period. I've just been "bold" and added this at the bottom of the article:

Non-authoritative views

The main body of the article describes the authoritative texts common to Modern Orthodox Judaism, Haredi Jews, Reform Judaism and Liberal Judaism. Outside these traditions there are also other forms of Judaism with, sometimes, variant views of Jesus.

Not because I think this short sentence is right, I don't know enough to know it's right, in fact I'd suspect it wasn't right, and there isn't much variance at all, but simply that looking at the comment made about Moses Mendelsohn above, and looking at these sources it seems that there should at least be a placeholder at the bottom of the article for other views, but I have no clue what those other views are, just that there are always other views. I suggest someone should radically hack at the sentence I just added, rather than just delete it, or simply conclude, actually there's no variation worth speaking of.., source, end.

(NB are Maimonides and Nahmanides really "authoritative", to whom?) In ictu oculi (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Maimonides' Mishneh Torah is one of three main sources for the Shulchan Aruch, the basis for all practical halakha. In addition, it is the only source for much of halakha. Nahmanides is a fourth source used in the Shulchan Aruch; in addition, he would be considered in the "top 10" (if not "top 5") of Jewish Biblical commentators (in terms of importance), after Rashi, of course. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Many people would say that Nahmanides is #2 after Rashi. However, Nahmanides is not the fourth source in the "Shulchan Aruch". There are three main sources: Jacob ben Asher, Maimonides and Isaac Alfasi. The fourth source in what's usually called today "Shulchan Aruch" is Moses Isserles. The fifth source (or even the first) is Arba'ah Turim, after which Beit Yosef and Shulchan Arukh were modeled. The other sources like Nahmanides, Rashi, Tosafists etc. are only used ocassionally. Anyway, what do Halacha and Shulchan Aruch have to do with Jesus? Non-Orthodox Jews don't go by Shulchan Aruch. In reality, no one goes today by Shulchan Aruch, except for some Sefardim. Orthodox folks say that they follow Shulchan Aruch, but everyone really follows various local customs, which often contradict Joseph Qaro's and Remah's opinions. Outside of Orthodoxy, Maimonides is known primarily as a great philosopher and important public figure. In Kabbalistic circles, Nahmanides is known primarily as a great mystic. His personal view of Jesus as a person is not so clear, though it was most likely very negative. His actual views on Christianity as religion were much softer than the ones he expressed during his famous disputation, as one can see from his responsa and private correspondence. Maimonides' personal views on many things were also quite different from what he wrote in "Mishneh Torah" and far from today's mainstream Orthodoxy. Marc Shapiro wrote an excellent book that exposes some of Maimonides' unconventional personal views. For one thing, Maimonides believed that philosophical contemplation makes one's soul eternal, while Halacha is merely a set of tools that help to calm one's mind and develop philosophical skills. Laplandian (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nachmanides is a fourth source - there were others too. I'm glad we agree on the importance of Maimonides and Nahmanides in Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the secondary sources - yes. I just don't see how he fits as the fourth source, while they are more then four more important ones. It may be a matter of opinion though. Laplandian (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I quite clearly wrote he was a fourth source, not the fourth source. Please read my comments more carefully in the future, so I don't have to keep repeating them. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. English is not my native language.Laplandian (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. In that case, your English is very good. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! My native languages are Russian and Yiddish. I am removing the POV tag. I will delete the off-topic parts of this horrific looking mess, as Zad68 has recommended. Let's focus on the last "non-authoritative" paragraph, which I expect to be included in its finalized version. I am saying sorry in advance, in case I delete too much, but the discussion seemed almost unreadable and is now almost completely off topic, since I agree not to include anything beyond this short paragraph. I must also thank your for giving useful editing experience. Cheers! Laplandian (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You should not delete Talk page comments, particularly those of other people. I've restored them, please don't remove them again, and please don't comment about individuals. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I delete the comment about individuals. Sorry for deleting too much. Laplandian (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And Zad68 removed it because of WP:DISCLAIM - please explain. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In general, I don't think the paragraph is helpful, since it's unsourced and doesn't really say anything. More specifically, articles aren't supposed to be self-referential; that is, they should talk about the topic, not their own contents, and in particular, should not have disclaimers apologizing for their contents. I agree with Zad68 that it should go. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, thanks for the answer on Maimonides and Nahmanides. Perhaps a brief sentence could go into the "authoritative" section before them.

I didn't know much about this subject before digging into Laplandian's edits, and still don't. But as a general editor it's clear that something is slightly off here. The four academic sources I just cited, which I found within 5 minutes, tend to confirm that there are other views/emphases. They just don't particularly seem to be the ones Laplandian is placing. Unless we have an academic source which says "there is only one view, all other emphases are not Judaism." which is not what, e.g. A Jewish appraisal of dialogue: between talk and theology G. David Schwartz p51 says. cf Shaul Magid in The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation ed. Zev Garber p358. The article as it stands is too much like a puff-piece for orthodoxy.

The use of the WP:DISCLAIM template to justify deleting a small end paragraph "alternative views" I'm sorry but Zad68 misused the WP:DISCLAIM page; since to list "Alternative views" are not a disclaimer "apologizing for [the articles] contents, as we all know from any religion article. The point of the placeholder paragraph, complete with {cn}s, was what I said, no more no less, that this article at the moment presents a monolithic view, which I (as of this moment) find somewhat odd. Even if I don't know enough to exactly address it. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

O.K., but articles still should be about their topics, not about their own contents, and the material itself is still unsourced and still doesn't really say anything. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)