Talk:Jesus/Archive 92

Archive 85

←

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Milton Steinberg's opinion

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.

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."

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)

"what is significant is not what Jews believe, but what Judaism says." Both are significant. I'm quite interested in what Jews believe about Jesus, and imagine other readers might also be. Is there a guideline or policy that reflects your view that only one is significant? Also, if Steinberg doesn't deserve a block quote, he still ought to get a mention. Leadwind (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what individual Jews think is generally not that important at all, unless they're unusually famous, a noted subject matter expert, or particularly notable in some other way. As I said, there are over 13 million of them, and they all have their own opinions, we certainly can't quote even a significant number of them. As for guideline or policy, WP:UNDUE for one; why bring this particular person's opinion, as opposed to thousands of other Jews? WP:V applies as well; why rely on the word of a 60 year-old book on Basic Judaism? Steinberg's opinion about Jesus might or might not be relevant in an article about him (I tend to doubt it, as I doubt it's a significant element of his own thought, and he's certainly not a Jesus scholar). But, considering that we don't even have an article on the man, it seems absurd to insist we must quote his opinion in this overview article of Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it would be absurd to insist that he be quoted. I propose he be cited instead. Leadwind (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Why him as opposed to anyone else? Why cite individuals at all, rather than the positions of Jewish denominations? Please see WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 21 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)

Steinberg isn't just giving his opinion about Jesus. He's talking about how Jews see Jesus. How about this citation? "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) 20:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure what makes Steinberg "a major 20th century Jewish philosopher." As far as I know, his published books include a novel and a book on Basic Judaism. On top of that, his opinion, which seems an entirely personal one, is relevant only to his understanding of American Conservative Jews in the mid-20th century. In addition, I've consistently stated that the section should say what Judaism has to say about Jesus, not any individual Jews. That is, in fact, the title of the section (and the sub-article), "Judaism's view of Jesus". Many Jews have written about Jesus; attempting to include any one of their opinions would violate both WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 21 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)

Judaism isn't a human being, but it does have official bodies, authoritative works, etc. Individuals don't quite rank that high. As for WP:NPOV, we do comply - we provide the views of several different movements. However, a critical issue when quoting one preferred individual is also an NPOV issue, WP:UNDUE. Regarding Steinberg, as I said, he seems to have written one novel, and one book on Basic Judaism; am I missing any of his published works? Mordechai Kaplan is undoubtedly the primary philosopher when it comes to Reconstructionism, and even his opinion wouldn't belong here. Nor, for that matter, would Soloveitchik or Kook. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Steinberg should be used in this article (though his writings might be useful in Jewish views of Jesus when discussing Reconstructionist views), since it would be undue weight to a small minority view. However, Steinberg has several books to his name and is a well-regarded Jewish modernist and Reconstructionist writer. His Wikipedia article mentions The Making of the Modern Jew, though not Anatomy of Faith. He is also well-respected for sermon collections such as Only Human - The Eternal Alibi... and essay collections like A Believing Jew. Vassyana (talk) 03:47, 22 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)

I'm generally for including information rather than excluding it, but if V's against including Steinberg, I'd rather spend my time on some other front. Certainly nothing should be in this section that's not already in the main article. Leadwind (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias in the first sentence

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)

History books say he existed. As far as WP is concerned, he existed. Find a university-level history textbook that describes Jesus "maybe" existing. I don't think you can. Until you can, case closed. So how about this first sentence? "Jesus of Nazareth (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE) was a 1st century Jewish leader, considered by Christians to be Jesus Christ, the unique human incarnation of God." That's why we're on this page, because he's God. That's better than "central figure." Is he the "central figure" the same way Muhammad (PBUH) is to Islam? No. Moses to Judaism? No. Leadwind (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Leadwind in the fact that wikipedia should not present Jesus as a mythological character. However I do believe, about the first sentence, that the fact that he is the central figure of christianity should take precendence over the stated fact that he was a 1st century preacher. Schicchi (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No. All people who believe he existed agree he was a 1st century preacher. A smaller group of people believe he was messiah and God. The more general claims should come first, then the more specific or narower claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, preacher first, God second. We can do better than "central figure," right? How about: "Jesus of Nazareth (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE) was a 1st century Jewish leader, considered by Christians to be Jesus Christ, the unique human incarnation of God"? Why use the vague "central figure" phrase when we could use something more definitive? Leadwind (talk) 15:12, 22 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)

Please feel free to swap in your text. It's better than what's there. Alternatively, I propose the following as slimmer: ""Jesus", also known as Jesus of Nazarth (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE) was a 1st century Jewish preacher. Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnate Son of God and the redeemer of the human race, and he is an important figure in Islam and some other religions. "