Talk:Jesus/Archive 92

message: 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.M. Steinberg, 1975 Basic Judaism pp. 106-107, New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich
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."M. Steinberg, 1975 Basic Judaism pp. 108, New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich
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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Milton Steinberg's opinion