This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 85 | ← | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 |
I've moved the following paragraph to the Talk: page:
In answering the question, "What do Jews think of Jesus," philosopher Milton Steinberg pointed out that even for Christians there are diferent "Jesuses" and that higher criticism, which suggests that much of the Gospels is in effect propaganda, offers only limited tools to discover a historical Jesus. Of the Jesus that he can discern, once all Christian claims in the Gospels are disregarded, he writes,
- To Jews, that Jesus appears as an extraordinarily beautiful and noble spirit, aglow with love and pity for men, especially for the unfortunate and lost, deep in piety, of keen insight into human nature, endowed with a brilliant gift of parable and epigram, an ardent Jew moreover, a firm believer in the faith of his people; all in all, a dedicated teacher of the principles, religious and ethical, of Judaism. [1]
Nevertheless, Steinberg claims, for Jews even this historical Jesus is neither messiah nor even a prophet, and cannot be accepted as anything more than a teacher. "In only a few respects did Jesus deviate from the Tradition," Steinberg concludes, "and in all of them, Jews believe, he blundered." [2]
The section in question describes what Judaism's view of Jesus is, not what various Jews believe. There are over 13 million Jews, and thus 13 million different Jewish opinions about Jesus; what is significant is not what Jews believe, but what Judaism says. Also, I'm not sure why we would give this one individual's opinion such prominence, particularly as he wrote this over 60 years ago, in a basic introduction to Judaism. Instead I've substituted the position found on the official website of Conservative Judaism. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a bad policy to exclude quotes from people for whom there are no Wikipedia articles. Steinberg was a major 20th century Jewish philosopher. Was he the only one, or the most important one? Of course not. Jayjg seems to have a general bias against using 20th century jewish philosophers as sources. I simply do not have that bias. I agree there is a problem of undue weight, and if Norman Lamm or Joseph Soloveitchik or Eugene Borowitz or AJ Heschel wrote interesting things about Jesus, I would be all for quoting them as well. Rather than delete one philosopher's view, why not add other philosophers from a spectrum of Jewish positions? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
"Judaism" is not a human being, therefore Judaism cannot speak, therefore Judaism has nothing to say about anything. Within Judaism there are people who hold various points of view. Our approach must comply with NPOV: We provide multiple points of view. The issue here is not "Judaism's" view versus "an individual Jew's view" as yo claim. The issue is, which individual Jews are notable? I am sure you and I would agree for example that Hillel's view was notable. But let's get this straight - the issue is, is any given individual Jew's view notable or not. Most accounts of 20th century American Judaism name Milton Steinberg as a leading Reconstructionist thinker. He meets my threshold of notability. As I said, I am sure there are other points of view that are at least as notable and I would not delete them from the section. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, two to one, we include Steinberg. Next question, what do we say. I propose: "American rabbi and author Milton Steinberg (1903 – 1949) disregarded Christian claims about Jesus in the gospels. He wrote that Jews saw the historical Jesus as a noble and loving Jewish teacher." Leadwind ( talk) 03:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It now reads "Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE), also known as Jesus of Nazareth, was a 1st century Jewish leader who is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions."
Due to the vagaries of the historical record, how about this: "Jesus.... also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is widely agreed to have been a 1st century Jewish leader, and is the central figure of Christianity as well as an important component of (to avoid repeating the word "figure", for style's sake) several other religions."
Such an introductory sentence would be free from bias, and would agree with the second introductory paragraph of
Historicity of Jesus. As it stands, these two passages conflict, and Wikipedia should be consistent. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mdiamante (
talk •
contribs) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph would be much better suited along the lines of;
"Jesus", also known as Jesus of Nazarth (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE) was a 1st century preacher. He is the central figure of Christianity, as well as being an important figure in several other religions. Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnate Son of God and the redeemer of the human race."
In-line with Wikipedia policy, it gives a clear description of who he is and what he is known for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.131.87 ( talk) 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 85 | ← | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 |
I've moved the following paragraph to the Talk: page:
In answering the question, "What do Jews think of Jesus," philosopher Milton Steinberg pointed out that even for Christians there are diferent "Jesuses" and that higher criticism, which suggests that much of the Gospels is in effect propaganda, offers only limited tools to discover a historical Jesus. Of the Jesus that he can discern, once all Christian claims in the Gospels are disregarded, he writes,
- To Jews, that Jesus appears as an extraordinarily beautiful and noble spirit, aglow with love and pity for men, especially for the unfortunate and lost, deep in piety, of keen insight into human nature, endowed with a brilliant gift of parable and epigram, an ardent Jew moreover, a firm believer in the faith of his people; all in all, a dedicated teacher of the principles, religious and ethical, of Judaism. [1]
Nevertheless, Steinberg claims, for Jews even this historical Jesus is neither messiah nor even a prophet, and cannot be accepted as anything more than a teacher. "In only a few respects did Jesus deviate from the Tradition," Steinberg concludes, "and in all of them, Jews believe, he blundered." [2]
The section in question describes what Judaism's view of Jesus is, not what various Jews believe. There are over 13 million Jews, and thus 13 million different Jewish opinions about Jesus; what is significant is not what Jews believe, but what Judaism says. Also, I'm not sure why we would give this one individual's opinion such prominence, particularly as he wrote this over 60 years ago, in a basic introduction to Judaism. Instead I've substituted the position found on the official website of Conservative Judaism. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a bad policy to exclude quotes from people for whom there are no Wikipedia articles. Steinberg was a major 20th century Jewish philosopher. Was he the only one, or the most important one? Of course not. Jayjg seems to have a general bias against using 20th century jewish philosophers as sources. I simply do not have that bias. I agree there is a problem of undue weight, and if Norman Lamm or Joseph Soloveitchik or Eugene Borowitz or AJ Heschel wrote interesting things about Jesus, I would be all for quoting them as well. Rather than delete one philosopher's view, why not add other philosophers from a spectrum of Jewish positions? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
"Judaism" is not a human being, therefore Judaism cannot speak, therefore Judaism has nothing to say about anything. Within Judaism there are people who hold various points of view. Our approach must comply with NPOV: We provide multiple points of view. The issue here is not "Judaism's" view versus "an individual Jew's view" as yo claim. The issue is, which individual Jews are notable? I am sure you and I would agree for example that Hillel's view was notable. But let's get this straight - the issue is, is any given individual Jew's view notable or not. Most accounts of 20th century American Judaism name Milton Steinberg as a leading Reconstructionist thinker. He meets my threshold of notability. As I said, I am sure there are other points of view that are at least as notable and I would not delete them from the section. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, two to one, we include Steinberg. Next question, what do we say. I propose: "American rabbi and author Milton Steinberg (1903 – 1949) disregarded Christian claims about Jesus in the gospels. He wrote that Jews saw the historical Jesus as a noble and loving Jewish teacher." Leadwind ( talk) 03:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It now reads "Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE), also known as Jesus of Nazareth, was a 1st century Jewish leader who is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions."
Due to the vagaries of the historical record, how about this: "Jesus.... also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is widely agreed to have been a 1st century Jewish leader, and is the central figure of Christianity as well as an important component of (to avoid repeating the word "figure", for style's sake) several other religions."
Such an introductory sentence would be free from bias, and would agree with the second introductory paragraph of
Historicity of Jesus. As it stands, these two passages conflict, and Wikipedia should be consistent. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mdiamante (
talk •
contribs) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph would be much better suited along the lines of;
"Jesus", also known as Jesus of Nazarth (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE) was a 1st century preacher. He is the central figure of Christianity, as well as being an important figure in several other religions. Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnate Son of God and the redeemer of the human race."
In-line with Wikipedia policy, it gives a clear description of who he is and what he is known for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.131.87 ( talk) 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)