Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 2

On the Jews and Their Lies and Copyright

Deleted link to On the Jews and Their Lies: The website shows no signs of having asked for permission to post this document. As the editor for Project Wittenberg, I know both publishers of Luther's Works quite well. To date they have never granted permission to copy any of the translations in this set. If we wish to reference the volume and page number of a passage from the work, that would be an acceptable (and legal) alternative.

Rev. Bob Smith, Project Wittenberg Coordinator and Electronic Resources Librarian for Concordia Theological Seminary, a seminary of the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod, A.K.A., Bob of the Fort, A.K.A. CTSWyneken

Avoid copyright paranoia. The link is on a remote site, so whether it is infringing or not only concerns us - well, remotely. If it's considered a violation, the website owner will get in trouble, not us. Furthermore, it is a socially and historically valuable document (whose commercial value is questionable) and only part of the entire "Luther's Works", so it is arguable whether the online reproduction for educational use cannot be considered fair use. In any case, I find it questionable to claim a translation copyright on a public domain work. I say the link should stay until a copyright holder complains about it. --Eloquence 20:11 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually, linking to a page that violates copyright is against the wishes, if not the policies of Wikipedia. wikipedia:copyrights The page in question really is infringing because:

1. Translations are considered under established copyright law to be works of original authorship. See U.S. Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 101 , 1030[[1]], [[2]].

2. The site copies On the Jews and Their Lies completely. In copyright law, this counts as the "work as a whole" Title 17, 1, sec. 107 (3)[[3]]

3. Fair use analysis of the work is as follows:

1. The character of the use is non-profit, but not educational. In terms of the law, educational means employed in a regular course of instruction at an accredited institution of learning (Elementary, middle, high school, college or grad school) Because the use is in a publication, the courts likely would find against this factor.

2. The nature of the work is historical and non-fiction, so this factor would likely weigh in favor of fair use.

3. The amount is the full work, which finds against fair use. Indeed, its social relevance would increase the finding against fair use in this factor.

4. The effect on market, as interpreted in the courts, is negative and likely to weigh against the use.

With the finding of three of four factors against fair use, the courts will likely find it infringing. In addition, it concerns us in that recent copyright cases have found sites linking to infringing net resources to be contributing to that infringment. While the USSC has yet to rule on such cases, it is established precedent on the appealate level.

Finally, if you were to buy a TV from a fence, should you say: "But I didn't steal it?" Bob of the Fort CTSWyneken

---

Let's accept for a moment that the translation of Luther's public domain texts are copyrighted (which I find morally, if not legally highly questionable) and concentrate on the fair use issue:

1) Educational use: I would like to see citations that educational use only means "employed in a regular course of instruction at an accredited institution of learning (Elementary, middle, high school, college or grad school)". Currently Wikipedia, a non-profit educational project, uses hundreds of images as fair use (see Wikipedia:Image use policy).

3/4) The text is clearly part of a much larger compilation of 55 volumes. True, the text alone is probably a "whole work" as per US law, nevertheless, certainly the fact that this is a negligible portion of the marketed product should have an effect on the interpretation, esp. of its commercial relevance. Would distributing a single Encarta article have a substantial effect on the market for Microsoft Encarta?

I find the matter of fair use debatable, and I encourage the site owner very much to go through with a court case. In the meantime, it is not our job to prematurely decide whether or not the use is infringing -- we can just sit back and relax. It seems paranoid to remove a link because someone, at some point, might interpret the linked content as infringing, in which case it is highly unlikely that linking sites would in any way be concerned.

Lastly, theft and copyright infringement have nothing to do with each other. Please do not use incorrect analogies.

The text of "On the Jews and their Lies" is of high relevance and importance for the understanding of Luther's person, and I find it despicable to engage in self-censorship even of relevant links in the name of the fiction of "intellectual property". Wikipedia should set an example for common sense, not for paranoia and fear. --Eloquence 21:42 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In continuing the discussion,

"ON THE JEWS AND THEIR LIES by Martin Luther, in this year 1543 Translated by Martin H. Bertram"

"The following text is the English translation found in the hard cover edition of "Luther's Works," Volume 47, pages 137-306, published by Fortress Press/Philadelphia (1955). Trough a failure to renew the copyright in 1983, this fine translation has fallen into the public domain. May it cause thinking Christians to look closely at the nature of their relationship with God, and not as an incitement to evil."

The foregoing is the statement on the web site that is linked to, http://reactor-core.org/secret/on-the-jews-and-their-lies.html

The assertion by the Canadian (indicates B.C. as home) owner of page that the copyright was not renewed is in doubt as I have previously shown. Further, I can see that in the later printing which retained the copyright, 1971, that there are no changes that I can readily see. When I check the notes, they are the same notes as in the book or as on the CD-ROM all of which are copyrighted. The page owner also asserts at least one other book to be out of copyright and now in the public domain, but I have not researched that.

Looking at some of the links on "reactor-core.org," I myself would be hesitant to link to that page even if it had something of value. I find some of the pages that comprise the whole to be of questionable value. It is for others to determine for themselves if they are of the same opinion, but on moral and ethical grounds, I could not.

As to "Luther's Works (AE)," [LW] the question of "fair use" came up. It should be noted that while the set is called Luther's Works, each volume came out in different years and was added to the set at those times. Also, two different publishing houses, Fortress and CPH (Concordia Publishing House) published individual volumes that comprise the set and both have copyrights not to mention any holding by the CD-ROM version people in cooperation with the publishing houses. The volumes are on a large variety of subjects, but each volume is a book unto itself. The gentleman who owns "reactor-core.org" (please note the .org for organization and that organizations often have specific agendas) too, if I am correct, 170 pages of the book, specifically pages 137 to 306. That is more than half the book! I don't think that that constitutes "fair use."

Herr Eloquence, I did not think that you were the sole author of the article. As a matter of fact, one of the disturbing things was a name that I found associated with the effort when I first looked at it. I did not think it wise of the individual make comments that I did not think he was qualified to make. That was what initially upset me not to mention the fact of the questionable use of "Vol. 47" by the ".org" page owner. As a matter of fact, by excerpting as he did, he left out important segments to include comments that 'wish he (Luther) had not written what he did,' etc. Volume 47 is number 4 of 4 on the Christian in Society. In vol. 47 you also find polemics on what where believed to be heresies. The other volumes include many positive things if one were to read them, e.g. schooling for the young.

As to the "viewpoints of other congregations," I suspect you meant synods as congregations compose synods, supposedly of like mind in doctrine, or at least as some Lutheran church bodies understand the term. You will find that the word synod can have more than one meaning. As to church polity, I won't even get into that issue as polity varies from denomination to denomination.

There are those more qualified to edit than I. I just point out the biased stance that the article appears to take and the fact that copyright infringement may be in play. Best Regards, P.E. 20 June 2003 ___

Copyright Status of On the Jews and Their Lies

From Bob at the Fort:

Not quite sure where to start in continuing this discussion, let me start with the copyright status of the work On the Jews and Their Lies.

First of all, the text of the work first appears in German in 1543, followed by a latin translation in 1544. The text in its original language appears in the authoritative Weimar Ausgabe, 53:414-552. The date of this edition is 1920. Since both predate 1923, the latest year when a previously published item can be safely assumed to be public domain, (see "When Works Pass Into the Public Domain," http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/public-d.htm). So, the translator may create a derivative work without permission. (which is what a translation is according to Title 17 of the US Code, Chapter 1, sections 101 and 103. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html and http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/103.html) So, whether or not we like it, (and there is much about the law I don't like and have said so to my Senators and congressman) the fact is that legally a translation was copyrightable before 1978 and is copyrighted automatically since 1978. This translation is, to the best of my knowledge, the only one ever done of this text into English. If you'd like to do one and donate it to the public good, I'd be willing to post it. Now, the only remaining question is whether or not the work was renewed. The first edition of the work appeared in 1955. According to the evidence mentioned by PE, which I have verified, the work was either renewed or entered a second edition in 1971. It's difficult to tell which. Complicating matters is that a good number of copyright renewals are not recorded in the Library of Congress' online databases. Worse, they will not certify the results of any search that they do for you. To discover the status, I've contacted the publisher, who holds the rights to the set. I'll need to do some digging to provide references to the definition of an educational purpose and will add this info later. On the fair use criteria and how to apply them, check the information at: http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/ The author is an expert in copyright law, holding a teaching doctorate in law and a second doctorate in library science. He is a regular witness before congress on copyright issues. In the mean time, I'm content to let the link stand. CTSWyneken

Summary and Update about Copyright and On the Jews and Their Lies

(Copied from Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews, Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies)

Status

Verso of the Title Page, Luther's Works, Vol. 47, "The Christian in Society": (c) 1971 Fortess Press, Library of Congress Number 55-9893, ISBN 0-8006-0347-8

Laura N. Gasaway, J.D. (Director of the Law Library, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), "WHEN U.S. WORKS PASS INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN": "Published from 1964 - 77, When published with notice, 28 years for first term; now automatic extension of 67 years for second term." http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm [5]

Therefore, Augsburg Fortress is correct; the still hold the copyright in this work.--CTSWyneken 15:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Online searches not sufficient to establish status

Warning from US Copyright Office on trusting the office's records: "Searches of the Copyright Office catalogs and records are useful in helping to determine the copyright status of a work, but they cannot be regarded as conclusive in all cases. The complete absence of any information about a work in the Office records does not mean that the work is unprotected." [6]

Project Gutenberg: "Rule 6 in the Copyright HOW-TO describes the situation in which an item copyrighted between 1923 and 1963 may be in the public domain if it was not renewed. (Items from 1964 and afterwards were automatically renewed; items prior to 1923 are in the public domain.)" http://promo.net/pg/vol/howto6.html [7] The volume in Which "On the Jews..." appears was published in 1971. --CTSWyneken 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC) [edit]

Publisher claims never gave permission

I called the publisher. To verify, You are welcome to call Augsburg Fortress also. http://www.augsburgfortress.org/copyrights/contact.asp [8]

I have an inquiry in to Fordham as well. Will report back what they say. --CTSWyneken 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC) --CTSWyneken 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I contacted Augsburg Fortress, and they have indicated to me that they have never given permission to post "On the Jews and Their Lies" translated by Martin Bertram on the internet. The copyright is some 16 years more recent than the first volumes of Luther's Works, so the copyright still stands. drboisclair 15:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Short quotes fair use

Short quotations and excerpts, however, are fair use. I can provide links, if anyone would find that helpful. --CTSWyneken 11:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Quote from WP:COPY

Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us.--CTSWyneken 01:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Report of Conversation with Forham University

Staff members report that Forham University is not responsible for the content of the Internet History Sourcebook. They host these documents for Dr. Paul Halsall, who is no longer with the University. I have initiated an attempt to reach him. --CTSWyneken 00:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Search for Paul Halsall

Since I had not been able to find Dr. Halsall, I asked the American Theological Library Association list ATLANTIS for assistance in locating him. One of the librarians called the University of North Florida, where Dr. Halsall last taught. The librarian was told Dr. Halsall no longer works for an academic institution. I was given the email of another person associated with the Internet Medieval Sourcebook, who will check their files for a permission letter. I will report back when I learn more. --CTSWyneken 02:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote from WP:OR

Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. --CTSWyneken 00:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Also note that a talk page is not an article. It is a place to explain why edits and additions are made or suggests such. --CTSWyneken 00:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Who do you believe holds the copyright, CTSW, and do you have any evidence to support your belief? Also, can you explain the relevance to this discussion of the passage you cited from NOR? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As I've noted above, I have the printed copy of Luther's Works, volume 47, which contains the original printing of the translation of "On the Jews and Their Lies" that has been scanned and placed on the internet in two separate locations. The copyright holder is Augsburg Fortress Press, the successor to Fortress Press. They published the volume in 1971. In addition, I called the publisher, who verified that they still hold the copyright. They also stated that they have never given permission to have this work placed on the internet. Another editor, drboisclair, has also called the publisher, and received the same reply.

The WP:NOR quote was inserted here in reply to the accusation that looking this up and making this phone call, I was engaging in original research. Does that help? --CTSWyneken 01:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Formal Requests to Doright

(Pursuant to the Wikipedia policy on Dispute Resolution, the following post made to User talk:Doright is also made here, on the discussion page of an article involved:)

Doright, I'm sure you would like to be taken seriously as an editor, but in the past few days discoveries have been made in some of your edits where you have represented words as coming from someone they haven't, and where you have quoted only portions of a statement with the effect of suppressing balancing views that the original author had stated and distorting the thought. Such actions are violations of WP:NPOV. Please read that section and other policies and follow them. Please stop making personal attacks upon other editors. Please stop placing inflammatory statements in edit summaries. Please stop the use of intemperate language in your postings. Please remember that you are expected to make an article balanced, not lop-sided with any POV. Please note that if you continue to infringe upon the rules of good conduct that disciplinary actions (including being banned) may be initiated against you. That would be unfortunate, and I ask you to conduct yourself in such a way that discipline will not become necessary, and that your edits can become a useful part of Wikipedia. --StanZegel (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

StanZegel writes to CTSWyneken:

"An anonymous editor is like a sniper in a tree top, taking pot shots at those trying to do serious work on the ground, and dropping his waste matter into the work in progress. I'm not sure that anything such a person attempts to add is worth verifying but should be summarily deleted on the basis that a responsible person would identify himself. If the material is truly worthy, a responsible scholar will get around to adding it. In the present case, I believe we are dealing with a sock puppet for an editor who has been banned previously for similar activity and may be on probation right now. If so, that probation is being violated, and keeping his edits or wasting time on his "contributions" simply enables continuing violations.--StanZegel (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)"

-Doright 01:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Where does Luther's statement that all Jews should be murdered go in the article?

"We are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them." On the Jews and Their Lies.Doright 20:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Verified. 47:267. --CTSWyneken 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"...and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin)." Is this an example of Blood libel against Jews?--Jbull 01:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Luther has bought into these false charges and assumes them as fact here. This is one of many examples in this book where Luther did not rise above his times, as many of us which he had. --CTSWyneken 12:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• (a) What's the original German? (b) If he said "slay", we use "slay" or a synonym. "Murdered" (though accurate) is an interpretation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Page number please. Better yet, even if the quote is accurate, produce book and page number of a scholar who views this as Luther seriously recommending genocide. Until then, no change. --CTSWyneken 20:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The quote is cut and pasted from the universally cited english language translation published in the universally referenced Vol of "Luther's Works," which you can link to here [[4]]and read for yourself. One of the links even provides very informative footnotes from the translator. Hope this helps. Just cut and paste the quote into a search on the page and you can get the page number if you want it. Regards, Doright 21:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Luthers program for the Jews also calls for "pain of death." What is the synonym for that? It also calls for "pain of loss of life and limb." What is the synonym here. At some point a synonym becomes a euphemism. It must be called murder, i.e., killing motivated by malice. It is clear Luther is at a minimum expressing malice and it is equally clear his statment is calling for killing. IMHO, the only was to justifiy not calling it murder is to take the position that the call for killing is justifiable homicide. Regards,Doright 21:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Below is another place you find Luther calling for the murder of Jews. It follows the syllogism: All thieves and usurers should be executed by hanging. All Jews are thieves and usurers.Therefore, all Jews should be killed.

"They are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. . Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security. For a usurer is an arch-thief and a robber who should rightly be hanged on the gallows seven times higher than other thieves."

On the Jews and Their Lies. Also,check out [[5]]Doright 21:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Where does he say, "murder"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Jpgordon, Since you can now see for yourself that I have accurately quoted the Luther source, you do seem to agree that the quotes call for the killing of Jews. Am I correct in this? I guess your point of not addressing my above reply is that maybe you're saying it is proper to use the term murder, only if one's calls for the killing of innocent people is accompanied by their explicit use of the term "murder." Is that correct? Do you agree that the quote calls for the "slaying" or killing of innocent people?Doright 22:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This issue is not whether or not Luther's words in this tract (and others on the Peasant rebellion, the Turks, the Pope and his supporters, the Anabaptists. etc.) are harsh, vile, venomous and worthy of condemnation. This has been said by all parties. In fact, it is in the carefully negotiated summary/intro.

The question is whether he said the words quoted above and if he did, if he was recommending the murder of all Jews. Since a previous citation from these infringing sites (See copyright topic page) inaccurately transcribed the translation of Martin Bertram, (using race instead of Bertram's word people), the texts cannot be trusted. I will not use them. Until I can check the physical printing next week, therefore, I will not accept it as accurate. If it proves accurate, I will pull the German version and check the original.

Assuming for the moment that Luther did write these words, is he actually recommending genocide or using hyperbole, which he does often throughout his writings? If he is, then why is it not in his infamous eigth point plan?

In summary, if the quote proves accurate, I'll support it in the body of the Martin Luther and the Jews article. Until a fully cited quote from a scholar is produced that suggests or even charges that Luther was recommending the murder of all Jews, I will view it as POV. In all the reading I've had to do in Luther scholarship on this subject, I've not seen a single claim to that effect. --CTSWyneken 21:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, You say, "... in Luther scholarship on this subject, I've not seen a single claim to that effect." Really? In fact you, working as a team with Drboisclair, and StanZegel you have censorded numerous times exactly that scholarly claim cited here from "Luther's murderous program for the Jews." [[6]]. It says, "Many have denied that Luther advocated death for Jews. These people have NOT read "The Jews and Their Lies." [2]"

As requested here is a scholar who views this as Luther seriously recommending mass murder of Jews. Here are Dr Michael’s impeccable credentials [[7]] Dr. Michael says Luther “urged mass murder of Jews.” The below material is directly quoted from Dr. Michael where he repeatedly says “Luther clearly stated that all Jews should be murdered.”

“In "On the Jews and Their Lies," Luther clearly stated that all Jews should be murdered. (emphasis added) "We are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them." Hans Hillerbrand, "Martin Luther and the Jews," in James Charlesworth, ed., Jews and Christians (New York 1990), 132.

Luther implored the German princes to follow a cruel policy, actually carried out four hundred years later by a modern German "prince," Adolf Hitler. Both Luther and Hitler advocated the destruction of Jewish religious culture, the abrogation of legal protection, expropriation, forced labor, and expulsion of the politically defenseless Jews. Luther also urged mass murder of Jews.” (emphasis added)

Luther's program for the Jews asked the princes three times to kill Jews who resisted. (emphasis added) His third and fourth steps mention "pain of death" and "pain of loss of life and limb." His fifth step advises the authorities to deprive the Jews of safe passage once they have left their ghettos. Another passage of "On the Jews and Their Lies" indicates that Luther saw the necessity of killing at least some of the Jews: "I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people . . .. They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. [They are a] people possessed . . .." “

“A sermon of 1539 argued that "I cannot convert the Jews. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not succeed in doing it. But I can stop up their mouths so that they will have to lie upon the ground." The language is ambiguous, but it implies a death threat. The imprecise language allowed people of good will to believe that outright murder was not being proposed, while at the same time this kind of language permitted them to "speak about the unspeakable," the mass murder of Jews.” (emphasis added)

ref: Martin Luther. Dr. Robert Michael, h-antisemitism 25 May 1994.Doright 02:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yawn. Have you nothing better to do with your time? The article is clear on Luther's views; this dead horse you continue to flog is starting to go to pieces. Argue that the language is too strong or too weak --- just keep it concise, and keep it an argument. -Rekleov 02:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I will check Dr. Michael's published article at the head of this quote list when I get into the library Monday. The H-Antisemitism post, however, is not a juried forum. It is an email list. In fact, I had a civil conversation with Dr. Michael on that very list on this topic about 12 years ago. You are, of course, free to quote me or the other one or two people on that forum that do not agree with his opinion on that subject. But then again, it is not a juried, scholarly publication, just a conversation among scholars. --CTSWyneken 03:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Our library doesn't have a copy. I'll send for one via interlibrary loan. --CTSWyneken 00:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Rupp, On the Jews... and "Murder All Jews"

Gordon Rupp in Martin Luther: Hitler's Cause -- or Cure? London: Lutterworth Press, 1945, pp. 78-79, translates the following passages from On the Jews...:

"We must indeed with prayer and the fear of God before our eyes, exercise a sharp compassion towards them and seek to save some of them from the flames. Avenge ourselves we dare not. Vengence a thousand times more than we can wish them is theirs already."

and

"Forbid them the buisness of usury and take from them all the silver and gold they have stolen and robbed as a result of this practice and use it for the maintenance of truly converted Jews and the old and infirm among them."

It appears, if the above "slay" quote is accurate, that it is vile, hyperbolic rhetoric and not a recommended course of action. Although I find these words shameful in the words of a reformer, they are not a call to genocide. --CTSWyneken 22:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• You are obviously merely stating your POV. Where does Gordon Rupp say, "it is not a recommended course of action?" I've already provided above the reference to the Historical Association Award winning scholar that says you are wrong. And in fact riducules such an absurdity, by saying anyone that maintains your position has not even done the reading.Doright 02:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note the words above are not Rupp's but Luther's. In this case it is Rupp's translation.

As for Rupp's conclusions:

Luther's antagonism to the Jews was poles apart from the Nazi doctrine of "Race"."

"Luther is a small chapter in the large volume of Christian inhumanities toward the Jewish people." (Rupp, p. 75)

"But, as the reader will remember, the fighting of a civil war does not equal beheading of Anabaptists, nor does that equal the exile of Jews, which Luther demanded. Where is the evidence that Luther demanded a pogrom or wholesale executions?" (Rupp, p. 76)

"Luther was not recommending personal violence." (Rupp, pp. 78-79).

"It all falls very far short of the Nazi anti-semitism with its doctrine of Race, with its mass extermination." (Rupp, p. 79)

So, therefore, the consensus built summary/intro should stay as is. If I can verify the quote that started this current flurry, I am content to let it appear on the Martin Luther and the Jews page. --CTSWyneken 03:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Brecht on On the Jews and Murder All Jews

Martin Brecht, in his magesterial three volume biography Martin Luther tr. James Schaaf. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993, 3:341-346, disagrees with Dr. Michael. Brecht spends five pages summarizing and analyzing On the Jews He does not mention the passage from On the Jews quoted above. He does, however, say: "What Luther really intended was the expulsion of the Jews, not their deaths." (p. 344)--CTSWyneken 11:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Luther scholars like my own professor Dr. Norman Nagel: Brecht has "read Luther through" and one can rely on Brecht for reliable information. Brecht is very critical of Luther and his work "Von den Juden und Ihr Luegen", but he is accurate. Brecht does not justify or defend this work by any means. drboisclair 15:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Graham Noble on On the Jews and Murder All Jews

Graham Noble. "Martin Luther and German Anti-Semitism." History Review (2002) no. 42:1-2.

No matter that [Luther] sought, in his own terms, to save the Jews not to exterminate them, that he had no notion of the pseudo-scientific eugenics which underpinned Nazi anti-Semitism, or that he depreciated physical violence against them -- Martin Luther offered in his writings a historical and intellectual justification for the Holocaust, which the Nazis took pains to exploit." p. 2.

--CTSWyneken 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edits: Point well taken

Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often described as "anti-Semitic"^[8] or "anti-Judaism"^[9]. Luther expected that a clear and direct presentation of the Christian gospel to the Jews would convert them, but when his efforts to persuade the Jews to accept Christ as the Messiah failed, he became embittered and recommended harsh persecution of the Jews within the German territories. Four centuries later, the Nazis, though their philosophical roots were primarily pagan, cited his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) to justify their attempts at genocide. Since the 1980s, numerous Lutheran church bodies and organizations have formally disassociated themselves from these writings and the views concerning Jews held therein.

Find below my reasons for these proposed changes (at least some of them). Reasons for the other, small changes should be obvious. If not, I will be happy to give them.

• abandon the faith of their fathers is clearly a POV statement, as Luther would certainly not have argued that that is what he was hoping they would do; quite the reverse, really, as he saw Jesus as the fulfillment of their faith.
• though their philosophical roots were primarily pagan: this is a point that must be made when Godwin's Law comes into play, especially in this context. They wanted no part of Luther's theology, or of the theological underpinnings of his arguments vs. the Jews in Germany; rather, they only wanted the exterior anti-Jewish support.
• begun a process, etc.: odd, odd wording. Is there an official process for this to be done? -Rekleov 23:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your proposals here to be discussed. I am happy with the language as it was when we finished the collaborative edit, but have no problem with the adjustments, save one. Since we're supposed to be neutral, and not all people accept Jesus as the Christ, I would change the word "Christ" for the name "Jesus." Others may have concerns, though, so I'd like to hear them out. --CTSWyneken 01:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think an even better way to balance the first statement would be to say --- content-wise, and not as a final statement --- "when his efforts to persuade the Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah failed, efforts the Jewish population understood as a call for them to abandon the faith of their fathers". Just a thought. -Rekleov 01:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Abandon the faith of their fathers" is clearly a NPOV way of describing it; he wanted them to abandon the faith of their fathers, and adopt Christianity. He wasn't claiming that Christianity was the faith of their fathers, was he? As for "though their philosophical roots were primarily pagan", this is a brief summary, and contains enough apologetics for Luther already. Finally, "numerous" is an exaggeration - as far as I can tell there are three. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not NPOV --- that's why I suggested changing it in the first place. From Luther's POV, they would not be abandoning "the faith of their fathers", but having that faith come to completion, as they would see that the messiah they were still looking for had already come. Thus one side saw it as a call for abandonment, while the other saw it as a call for acceptance. Declaring either of these as NPOV would, thus, be mistaken. To establish NPOV in this case is to recognize that each side had a wildly differing view of the matter at question. -Rekleov 03:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, each side had a wildly different POV; perhaps Luther thought they would be "completed" (though in reality this is a 20th century concept), and the Jews thought they were being asked to idol-worship. Nevertheless, Wikipedia cannot ignore reality; whatever Luther thought, the fact was he wanted them to convert from Judaism to Christianity, and that fact is perfectly NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote

Stan, you're replacing a direct, cited quote with a paraphrase of your own, which is odd. Do you have anything against the quote? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim, there has been careful negotiation in good faith amongst editors for several weeks on the precise wording here, which is currently acceptable to both sides. Regardless of whether I think I could improve it, I wouldn't without first submitting the proposed change on the talk page and getting concensus. I simply reverted whatever-it-was-you-changed back to the "treaty language" so that the whole issue does not need to be dealt with again. Perhaps your change was already suggested and declined during the negotiations, I don't know, but I suggest that if it wasn't, you first place it on the talk page and get a concensus before making any change to this area. It is a minefield.--StanZegel (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Stan, thanks for your response, but I'm not party to any prior agreement. It's always better to quote than to paraphrase when the issue is in dispute, and the quote is relevant and cited, and should therefore be allowed to stay. See WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I'm sure that those who are more active in this area will see this and take note of your thoughts and consider them. I don't know what the quote was (as I said, I'm simply reverting everything to the treaty language) but if it involved a translation or nuance, direct quotations may be misleading without larger context around them. Perhaps that is why the negotiators agreed on the language they did. I'm not going to try to unilaterally override their concensus, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to disrupt the harmonious cooperation of opposing scholars either. It would be best if you are the one to revert your change back to the treaty language while your change is being considered. --StanZegel (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Stan, I just arrived here so I know nothing about any "treaty language." This is a wiki. All I saw was you trying to insert that he "recommended harsh persecution" instead of that he "wrote that Christians were 'at fault in not slaying' Jews," which is somewhat stronger than "recommend[ing] harsh persecution." It's important not to insert your own words for his.

However, if you have doubts about the accuracy of the quote, that is another matter. Do you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim, if you want to take the attitude that you can edit away the language that those who work on this page almost full time have carefully crafted, and you are aware of the fact that the language has been reached as concensus but choose to ignore their cooperation and substitute your own words, then you must not take offense if your changes are summarily reverted to the community concensus. I am not one of those who spends most of his time working on this page, but I am respectful of those who do and would not presume to change their work and will help preserve it against vandalism. As to the specific quote, I think what you have tried to substitute is a POV out-of-context quotation. That is why the others have settled upon the wording they have. Please give them the respect you would like to receive. If you want to see a change, discuss it with the community first. They are reasonable in seeking NPOV. In the meanwhile, please demonstrate your good faith by reverting your edit. --StanZegel (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I can only repeat: if you have a specific reason to doubt the accuracy of the quote (perhaps due to translation or context), please say (but be specific), but otherwise a quote from Martin Luther is clearly more appropriate than your own paraphrasing, no matter how many editors agree with it. We have to edit within policy, and that is not negotiable. See WP:V and WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a nice example of the Luther "consensus" building thatStanZegel refers to. It is copied from here.[[10]]

"Yes, it is a problem, and I think the best way to deal with these high school kids with such bad attitudes is to ignore and not respond to them. Perhaps in a few years they may acquire some maturity, but in the meanwhile they are not worth the time to explain why their edits are reverted and their baiting is ignored. We all have more valuable things to do than allow ourselves to be held hostage by typo terrorists. --StanZegel (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)"

Doright 06:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you may not be aware that the person who invited you in to this matter is an editor (a sockpuppet for a banned editor, I believe) who has made a career out of insulting others in this area and insists upon his way at all times. He has a POV to push and insists upon it in inappropriate places. I think you would be best advised to read through all the talk pages before further involvement. You may conclude you are being used. --StanZegel (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

---

the item below was added anonymously by User:Doright:

Here is a nice example of the Luther "consensus" building thatStanZegel refers to. It is copied from here.[[11]]

"Yes, it is a problem, and I think the best way to deal with these high school kids with such bad attitudes is to ignore and not respond to them. Perhaps in a few years they may acquire some maturity, but in the meanwhile they are not worth the time to explain why their edits are reverted and their baiting is ignored. We all have more valuable things to do than allow ourselves to be held hostage by typo terrorists. --StanZegel (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)"

=== see related Luther censorship issue and more ad hominem attacks here === [[12]]Doright 08:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The only one that is making ad hominem attacks here is one virtually anonymous qui est benefactor? drboisclair 08:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

English Language Translations

• Luther, Martin. On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543, Translated by Martin H. Bertram. Found in the hard cover edition of "Luther's Works," Volume 47, pages 137-306, published by Fortress Press/Philadelphia. Complete text plus includes footnotes that may be of significant scholarly interest. [13]
• Luther, Martin. On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543, Translated by Martin H. Bertram. The Internet Medieval Sourcebook. Complete text. [14]

These editors repeatly delete links to these important sources

StanZegel says "sockpuppet for a banned editor"

This certainly cannot be what wikipedia is about: ad hominem attacks of "sockpuppet for a banned editor?" Of course no evidence accompanies this slander. It is a shameful display. Please stick to the merits of the argument. First I'm labeled a Jew with a vendetta against Luther, now I'm labeled a sock puppet. These bullying tactics are highly corrosive.Doright 08:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

However, since you raise the issue of a POV agenda, I offer the below gems.

I agree that the Jews should learn Christian charity: forgiveness and not consuming hatred. Yes, insults may have been given, injustices may been done, but that happens to everybody. Get over it! Get on with life! Competitive Victimhood is so unbecoming. --StanZegel (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

copied from drboisclair 10:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC) on :[[15]]

Perhaps what should be done is get rid of Against the Jews and their Lies while leaving the historical notice that it was mean and ill-tempered. No one knows the vicious blasphemy that prompted Luther's book. I guess Luther over reacted because He was a deeply religious man. The Jews must learn to forgive. There was an interesting play in the 60s called something like The Man in the Glass Booth about the trial of a Holocaust perpetrator. The man was not a Nazi or a Holocaust perpetrator at all: he had one of those concentration camp numbers tatooed on his arm. He was a Jew, who was consumed with his hatred.

I believe that we should keep the title page of Against the Jews and their Lies out of the article.

Dave, as I look more into this, and read the summary of the 1543 pamphlet, I cannot help but see the parallels in those recommended actions in context with those done against the Palastinians since 1948. I guess it matters whose ox is being gored. --StanZegel (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You are so right about this. It had even been discussed in Israel about deporting all of the Palestinians out of the region. I remember my professor Dr. Erich Kiehl, who spent many years in the Holy Land, who said that the Israelis should not have been simply given the land of others, namely the Palestinians. Both must seek to coexist. Thank you for your even temperedness and editorial genius. drboisclair 11:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

copied from --CTSWyneken 02:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC) on [[16]]

It is proving very difficult, since I'm the sole Lutheran voice here at the moment.

copied from --CTSWyneken on [[17]]

Thanks for the Luther Page Revert

copied from [[18]] Admin tells Drboisclair Do not turn this into a Jewish versus Lutheran thing. What matters is Wikipedia policies and our compliance with them: NOR, NPOV, and accurate articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC) A couple more gems:

there is a difference between antisemitism and antijudaism: the arabs, too, are semites.--StanZegel (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

As pointed out by other editors Anti-Semitism comprises prejudice not only against Jewish people but also against other "Semites" like the Arabs. IMHO, drboisclair 17:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC))

I believe that all are entitled to their POV. But, bad behavior like slander, stalking and reverting edits without comment and censorship does not make for good scholarship.Doright 08:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This page is for the discussion of material that should be in this article not to level charges. Exception should be taken to this blatant ad hominem attack. Please, stop it. drboisclair 09:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No Lutherans here

I was concerned about a statement from someone above about editing as a Lutheran. I hope that we stick to Jimbo's philosophy that: "We don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians" and "For me, when I enter Wikipedia, I try to leave my personal politics at the door. I try to leave my personal opinions about religion, etc. at the door. Here, I am a Wikipedian. And this inspires in me a feeling of serious quiet thoughtful reflection ... Outside, I may be an advocate. But here, I am a Wikipedian." [19]

It means we stick to policy, use good sources, quote them when the point is a contentious one, write in an encyclopedic, educated tone, and don't introduce our own arguments or opinions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is something wrong with the quote, say what is wrong with it. Do not simply revert. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please supply the quote. BTW, there are also no Catholics or Jews or Moslems or Hindus here either. drboisclair 09:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the quote you keep deleting. Because of your absurd reverting, I've not been able to continue improving the article, which is in need of it. Also, there is some problem with the references. In the Luther and the Jews section, none of the references seem to point anywhere, so I've used Harvard referencing to add the latest material. I'll be re-inserting that quote tomorrow. You have no right to keep on deleting properly referenced material without saying exactly what your objection is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you get into the process of finding a consensus and leave 'your' soap box at the door of this website. drboisclair 09:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Say exactly what is wrong with the quote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As Jayjg has pointed out there needs to be balance. There is a subarticle for these quotations. This is supposed to be a summary. Why don't we agree to revert this back to the paragraph that was agreed upon for over two months of negotiations, and put your quotations into the sub article? You are conducting yourself in an uncivil manner. drboisclair 09:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be balance, but there is none in this article. The material on Luther and the Jews is left to the very end, one tiny paragraph, with the rest shunted off to a sub-article, and no proper summary of it here. That won't do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to you, whom I take to be a senior Wikipedian with a large edit count. Are you not aware of the fact that we have gone through this before? These quotations introduce a skew here. If they remain—I will not violate the 3 reversion rule—then, quotations from the opposing side will have to be put in here, making it longer still. All this despite the fact that we have a subarticle Martin Luther and the Jews. Why don't we put your new article here on the discussion page for discussion and put back what was agreed to. I appeal to your sense of fairness here. drboisclair 10:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop putting in what is in no encyclopedia

SlimVirgin, you have not been a part of the process of editing this article, so please propose your emendation before putting it here. You are not checking your soap box at the door by putting it in here without proposing it. Please show some civility in not being the tool of the virtually anonymous. drboisclair 09:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The need for neutrality flag

Since persons are trying to insert their POV into this article. I think that the neutrality flag needs to be put up. This is absolutely outrageous that educated people cannot conduct themselves in a more civil manner. drboisclair 09:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there aren't as many educated people here as you think. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are all middle aged children at play, and rudely putting things in without consultation. drboisclair 09:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read our policies. You have no right to delete properly cited, relevant quotes. For the fourth time, please say exactly what is wrong with the quote, and kindly review WP:OWN. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Slim Virgin, I have not reverted anything for the fourth time. You are unilaterally taking upon yourself the revision of this article, which has been the painstaking process of three to four months. It has been agreed by the editors, who have worked on this above that nothing would be added to this article without an OK. Yes, you are within your rights to put in quoted material. Why don't you put them into the subarticle? As far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with the quotations. I am sure that you are accurate and within your rights, but I deplore your incivility. drboisclair 09:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you had reverted four times; I said I had asked the same question four times, and you have at last answered it, confirming that there is nothing wrong with the quote. Thank you. I also deplore your incivility, so that's two points we agree on, which is progress at least. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As I would like to think of myself as a gentleman, I apologize for any incivility. It is good that seasoned Wikipedians get into the process of making this online resource the prodigy that it is. Your help is appreciated, but perhaps you could work with us rather than against us. Respectfully, drboisclair 10:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted and thank you. I would very much prefer to work with you than against you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Need for Arbitration Here

As we have come to the brink of an edit war here. It may be time to appeal for a judgment from the arbitration board. Facts are like stones: they can be maneuvered into whatever configuration one wants. That is the case here through the building talents of a virtually anonymous benefactor. I quote the immortal Bard: "The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones." Julius Caesar, Act 3, scene 2. drboisclair 10:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration committee will almost certainly not hear this just yet, because other steps in dispute resolution have yet to be tried. Could someone either briefly outline here the main points of contention, or refer me to which section of which talk page best explains them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the editors working on the compromise text and I hoped that after weeks (or months?) of arduous disputes and series of disappointments we worked it out and established more/less good working relations. If the compromise is not satisfactory from encyclopedic standpoint, perhaps it is partly my fault. The Johnson's, MacCulloch's and some other quotes were moved out of here into a subarticle, see #It is more dreary than I thought. BTW, SlimVirgin is a very reputable WPian, (don't take this as a personal attack), even though we do not always agree. Please let me know how/whether I can help. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is in #ML & the Jews redux and below. Roughly, the main points (as I see them) are overzealous accusals of ML in antisemitism/genocide on one hand and whitewash/denial on the other. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Our earlier discussions can be found at Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews#2005. FYI, I just archived old 2003 talks into Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Archive 1. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 12:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Humus, Thank you for weighing in on this matter. I disagree that you are at fault here. You have been eminently fair and cooperative. This is what I wanted to add too: The work on revision began when we started over on this talk page. The debate about the paragraph in question begain with the subtopic above: ML & the Jews redux. Jayjg was instrumental in formulating a balanced compromise, and the editors involved began work on Martin Luther and the Jews, having settled the wording of the section in the Martin Luther article. Disagreement erupted within the last month when User:Doright came onboard and posted above, I guess, Admin warning unheeded Censorship Continues--that post is unsigned. A new article was written by Mr. Doright On the Jews and Their Lies, and there has been dispute about that article as well. This latest is about this matter of "to blame for not killing them." This is an accurate quotation, but IMHO it should be a part of Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies. The reason for excluding it here is for balance sake. When User:Jayjg assisted in the writing of the introduction of Martin Luther and the Jews he pointed out that there should be balance pro and con throughout these articles. As it stands now in this subsection of the Martin Luther article there is no balance. I hope that this is a helpful summary. drboisclair 11:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slim: there is a disagreement in the scholarly community concerning the meaning of Luther's words which user Doright has chosen to insert into our finely crafted text. Please read the section above "Where does Luther's statement that all Jews should be murdered go in the article?" Where documentation to that effect is listed. At least one scholar, on the other hand, believes that Luther intended genocide as a last resort. He is a respected scholar of antisemitism. At least several others, experts in the life, work and Rheotric of Luther, maintain he intended nothing of the sort. They hasten to add what Luther did intend was quite deplorable, but in no way comaparable to what the Nazis intended to do.

The problem with placing this quote in the summary here is that quotes that demonstrate that a substantial number of scholars do not believe Luther intended to advocate the genocide of the Jewish people would need to be added. Since emotions of all parties run high on this subject, it is likely that the section will grow to a full-fledged article. It will limit the amount of time our editors have to work on the balance of the Luther article, the Luther and the Jews article and the "On the Jews and Their Lies," Not to mention, other articles. I therefore contend we should retain the previously negotiated summary and intro as is. --CTSWyneken 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Humus, thanks for directing me to the relevant discussions. CTS, can you (without too much trouble for yourself) direct me to the best scholarly sources regarding what Luther is believed to have meant? As I see it, we do not imply that he intended genocide. We simply quote him, and leave it to others to judge what he meant, because in truth no-one knows what he meant. And that is the problem with paraphrasing him. If scholarly opinion is to be added, it could surely be done in a paragraph. It's clearly an important quote, and it would seem obtuse to leave it out simply because there is disagreement about its meaning. It's particularly worrying that it's being deleted from this article on the grounds of space, and from the other article (which is about Luther and the Jews) on the grounds of balance. This gives the appearance of editors wanting to keep it out of Wikipedia at any cost. All we do here is report what other people say. We don't insert our own opinions, we don't omit material because we don't like it, or because scholarly sources don't like it. We simply say A said X, and B said Y, trying to use the most reputable sources we can, and then we leave it up to the reader. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As a compromise I would propose that it might remain in Martin Luther and the Jews but be omitted here for brevity. I have quoted Luther in extenso in the introduction to place the quotation in its proper context. Some editors may wish to pare it down if necessary. I agree that quoting is good, but isn't it the hallmark of encyclopedias to sumarize, condense, and simplify. I agree that we cannot omit things because we disagree with them. drboisclair 13:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Things can be pared down where there is agreement, but when there's disagreement, quoting is better. Does anyone happen to know whether the original German of the full quote Dr supplied is online anywhere? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There is none that I know of. Here is another translation of parts of it [20]. drboisclair 13:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd be interested to know what the original was for: "There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses_namely, that God has struck them with 'madness and blindness and confusion of mind.' So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them."

"We are at fault in not slaying them" is odd English, and in "so we are even at fault": it's not clear what "even" means. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have the Weimarer Ausgabe in front of me. This is the whole paragraph in question in German: "Nicht anders ists, denn wie droben gesagt aus Mose, das sie Gott mit wahnsinn, blindheit und rasendem hertzen geschlagen hat. So ists auch unser schuld, das wir das grosse unschüldige Blut, so sie an unserm Herrn und den Christen bey dreyhundert jaren nach zerstoerung Jerusalem, und bis daher, an Kindern vergossen (welchs noch aus jren augen und haut scheinet) nicht rechen, sie nicht todschlahen, Sondern fur alle jren mord, fluchen, lestern, liegen, schenden frey bey uns sitzen lassen, jre Schule, heuser, leib und gut schützen und schirmen, damit wir sie faul und sicher machen und helffen, das sie getrost unser geld und gut uns aussaugen, dazu unser spotten, uns anspeien, ob sie zuletzt kündten unser mechtig werden, Und fur solche grosse Sünde uns alle todschlahen, alles gut nemen, wie sie teglich bitten und hoffen. Sage du nu, ob sie nicht grosse ursach haben, uns verfluchte Goijm feind zu sein, uns zu fluchen und unser endlich, gruendlich, ewig verderben zu suchen." This is 16th Century German as different from 21st Century German as our English is different from Shakespeare. That is the reason for some of the irregularities. The German behind "so we are even at fault" is "So ists auch unser schuld" "sie nich todschlahen" is "not slaying them". The modern German word for slaying would be todschlagen. This quotation is WA 53,522,lines 7-19. The translation is somewhat accurate. drboisclair 14:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Slim, for being willing to talk about this issue. Please understand the touchy nature of our editors here. For some of us, this is the fourth time we've taken up this discussion on wikipedia. For me, I've had to revisit this topic about every three months for the twelve years I've been putting the works of Martin Luther on the 'net. We thought we had a good comprimise in place with the help of fine editors Jayg, Humus, and to some extent, drboisclair and I think also slrubenstein. All of us found a way, after emotional exchanges, to come to a text we can all live with. Now we're back again at. As time permits, I will begin again with you on this one.

Please feel free to verify my identity. If you'd like, I'll email you from your talk page my phone number at work and/or the number of our business office. I'd also be happy to email to you titles of my publications, so that you can check them.

I'd also be happy to help with the references. I've been compelled by this discussion to do quite a bit of reading on the subject and have a fair bit on its way to me via interlibrary loan. On the side of Luther scholarship, the most respected biography is Martin Brecht's three volume Martin Luther The most respected, accessible, one-volume biography is the venerable Here I Stand by Roland Bainton. (full details in the article bibliography) The leading expert in Luther's polemical works (Including the ones under discussion in the Martin Luther and the Jews article is Mark Edward's Luther's Last Battles Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983)

Please note that size is a consideration for me in this article. I did quite a bit of research into what print encyclopedias have done with this topic ( see Talk:Martin_Luther#Luther_and_the_Jews_in_Encyclopedias and other summaries of sub-articles have done. Talk:Martin_Luther#Survey_of_articles_with_summaries_of_sub-articles The size consideration does not come into play in the sub-article, which I hope will cover every scholarly viewpoint on the subject. If it would help, I would be happy to summarize what I believe all scholars agree about on this topic (at least in this stage of my research) and what they say where they disagree. --CTSWyneken 15:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for supplying the German. I'm having difficulty parsing it, so I'll take a closer look later. If this issue keeps coming up, it's perhaps a sign that the current compromise isn't right. I really don't see the harm in quoting him, and size isn't that much of an issue, particularly as that section in the current version is so short. Summarizing the current scholarship on the issue sounds like a lot of work for you, and I don't want to put you to a huge amount of trouble, though it would be very interesting and helpful.

Can you say exactly why you don't want the quote to be included, and what you think people will read into it that arguably isn't there? Whether Luther was advocating genocide or random acts of murder is somewhat beside the point. Assuming the translation is accurate, he was clearly intending to incite a mob to do whatever mobs do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As a mitigating factor the quotation of the German passage here posted has been placed in the article on Martin Luther and the Jews. Might this be a resolution? Could we please return the version of the summarization of the subarticle to what it has been originally. It would be helpful for Jayjg to weigh in here too. Please remove the pov:neutrality flag as well. Respectfully requested, drboisclair 16:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Antisemitism issue has been resolved

The red flag having been raised again I would like to urge its removal becaue we have worked this out. I would appeal for arbitration. It is sad that when one novice Wikipedian does not get his way, everything should be disrupted. drboisclair 14:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Modern German of the passage

Dear SlimVirgin, this is the modern German version of the paragraph in question taken from the St. Louis Edition of Luther's Works, Vol. 20, column 1989, no. 296:

Nicht anders ist's, denn wir droben gesagt aus Mose, daß sie GOtt mit Wahnsinn, Blindheit und rasendem Herzen geschlagen hat: so ist auch unser Schuld, daß wir das große unschuldige Blut, so sie an unserm HErrn und den Christen bei dreihundert Jahren nach Zerstörung Jerusalem, und bis daher an Kindern vergossen (welches noch aus ihren Augen und Haut scheint), nicht rächen, sie nicht todtschlagen, sondern für alle ihren Mord, Fluchen, Lästern, Lügen, Schänden frei bei uns sitzen lassen, ihre Schule, Häuser, Leib und Gut schützen und schirmen, damit wir sie faul und sicher machen und helfen, daß sie getrost unser Geld und Gut uns aussaugen, dazu unser spotten, uns anspeien, ob sie zuletzt könnten unser mächtig werden, und für solche große Sünde uns alle todtschlagen, alles Gut nehmen, wie sie täglich bitten und hoffen. Sage nun du, ob sie nicht große Ursach haben, uns verfluchten Gojim feind zu sein, uns zu fluchen, und unser endlich, gründlich ewig Verderben zu suchen?

That may be easier to parse and translate. With respect, drboisclair 16:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, DRB, that's very helpful. The English isn't a brilliant translation, in my view, in part because the German itself is unclear. We're to blame for not killing them. Well, clearly, if we don't kill X, we are responsible for not killing X, so he doesn't mean it in that trivial sense, but it's not clear to me exactly what he does mean. And "so ist auch unser Schuld" is not "so we are even at fault," which implies a degree of sarcasm or irony, which isn't obvious from the German. I wonder if there's a better translation somewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you know German! As a student of Luther for 20 years, my graduate master's is in studing the theology of Luther, I find that what you have just pointed out is a problem we scholars have had with the English translations in the American Edition of Luther's works. We constantly find mistranslations and problems. That is what CTSWyneken means when he points out that scholars are unclear about what Luther meant. I think that all of us are clear about the 7 point program that makes me weep as a Christian. I can tell you that if I were alive then and they were doing that to Jewish people, I would stand beside them and take on myself the violence done to them, so out of keeping with the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Love your enemies, Love one another." The story of Corey Ten Boom shows how her father, a devout Christian, had the yellow star of David sown onto his own coat. While we Christians are not part of the Holocaust, we were also victims of diabolical Nazi torture and evil. I pray that we may never forget what Hitler did. drboisclair 17:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I translate that as "so it is also our guilt that we spilt so much innocent blood, it is we christian gentlemen three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem; and if as children (which we seem from our skin and eyes) we do not avenge, we will be struck dead.". Sam Spade 17:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Sam, do you see sie nicht todtschlagen as reflexive? I think, though that it is "them not struck dead." "Sie" here would be "they", right? Thank you for weighing in here. The more the merrier. drboisclair 17:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• When is "sie" ever first person plural? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, sich is, but I thought that Mr. Spade was taking sie nicht todschlagen as reflexive. sie is third person plural. drboisclair 22:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I was of course agreeing with your question. Unless there's some reading I'm missing, I can't see where the first person aspect comes from. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long in replying (I poured a beer on my laptop, actually). My german is terrible, I was simply taking a stab at what I thought was a matter of lesser import. I see now that there are many people involved, and that my conversational german skills are probably not needed ;) Sam Spade 10:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's one of the best excuses I've heard in a while. Cups of coffee have usually been my weapon of choice. Signed, destroyer of keyboards. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Argument for the noninclusion of the "slaying" quote

"Harsh persecution" or "pogrom" give a more accurate presentation of what Luther said in his entire body of work against the Jews. The polemical language in the quotation is related to the past Jewish-Christian relations. It is not a part of his horrible proposal to his prince John Frederick of Saxony. To leave it in would distort the sense of this paragraph which does not focus in on one of Luther's works. The paragraph does appear in the Martin Luther and the Jews, so this is a good compromise. drboisclair 17:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Drboisclair, after some thought I agree with those editors who maintain that "harsh persecution" (too vague) or "pogrom" (a single incident) do not adequately reflect the meaning of "We are at fault in not slaying them". I believe that given violent history of anti-Semitism, such calls should not be glossed over. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've begun to compile scholarly references to what Luther was actually recommending in this work over on the Martin Luther and the Jews page. Please feel free to add quotations to this list.

The problem I have with including the quotation here (I know you've been through this one already, Humus, I'm repeating for the newly arriving editors) is to keep the size of this summary down to a minimum. The reason why we have a separate article is to give full expression to all viewpoints. So far, I've found in scholarly literature only Dr. Michael suggest that Luther was seriously urging the killing of Jews. Out of the sources I've consulted so far, only he actually quotes these words. I think it is important to give his view space. all of this is possible in at least the body of the Martin Luther and the Jews article.

If we are to expand this summary to reflect that some scholars believe these words were intended to encourage the murder of Jews, then for NPOV's sake, we will need to represent a quotation from the scholars that disagree with Dr. Michael, and, because of that, Dr. Michael's view, too. Do you have a suggestion as to how we might accomplish that? Another way to approach it is to find another way of characterizing Luther's horrid recommendations that include the view that, in Bertram's words in the intro to the translation of On the Jews goes only as far as expelling them from the country. (Bertram, 47:135) and Michael's view that it included genocide. Any suggestions? --CTSWyneken 14:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Humus sapiens that "such calls should not be glossed over."Doright 21:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A Second Call for Arbitration

The article has once again been reverted without a resolution of the dispute. I again call for arbitration. The User:Doright is advancing his POV through the Luther quotation taken out of context. In the House of Representatives one would move that the gentleman's words be taken down. drboisclair 20:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• That's not how it works, though. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. If a person persists in editing against consensus, the first step is usually to file an RfC. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The state of things in this article and two others is an edit war, which may warrant further scrutiny. drboisclair 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It may. But it's nowhere near the state that requires arbitration (or that ArbCom would accept). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Any reading of the talk pages here shows that The SDG's claim of on ongoing consensus is bogus.Doright 01:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Depends what the meaning of "Is" is, Call for Separate Luther Denial article

SlimVirgin, Admittedly, translation inherently includes some degree of interpretation. There are two points that come to mind. However, no scholar denies that he wrote it. That's why I stick to "he wrote". One, what did the original scholar of the English language translation understand it to mean? And, two, isn't it obvious what it means taken in the context of the surrounding language of the document?

On the first point, the translator understood these to be, and I use his word, "proposals." He writes in the footnotes:

"Most of Luther's proposals are paralleled in the other anti-Jewish literature of the period, but the specific formulation which follows may be attributed to him."

On the second point, I often say, when all else fails, maybe I should read the text. Here is the relevant section of On the Jews and Their Lies. In an effort to maintain balance and still reflect the views of particular Lutheran scholars, I wonder if an article on Luther Denial modeled after [[21]] might be salutary. Doright 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Since it has now been established that we do not hold them captive, how does it happen that we deserve the enmity of such noble and great saints? We do not call their women whores as they do Mary, Jesus' mother. We do not call them children of whores as they do our Lord Jesus. We do not say that they were conceived at the time of cleansing and were thus born as idiots, as they say of our Lord. We do not say that their women are haria,, as they do with regard to our dear Mary. We do not curse them but wish them well, physically and spiritually. We lodge them, we let them eat and drink with us. We do not kidnap their children and pierce them through; we do not poison their wells; we do not thirst for their blood. How, then, do we incur such terrible anger, envy, and hatred on the part of such great and holy children of God?

There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses — namely, that God has struck them with "madness and blindness and confusion of mind." So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite an their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin!

From all of this we Christians see — for the Jews cannot see it — what terrible wrath of God these people have incurred and still incur without ceasing, what a fire is gleaming and glowing there, and what they achieve who curse and detest Christ and his Christians. O dear Christians, let us take this horrible example to heart, as St. Paul says in Romans II, and fear God lest we also finally fall victim to such wrath, and even worse! Rather, as we said also earlier, let us honor his divine word and not neglect the time of grace, as Muhammad and the pope have already neglected it, becoming not much better than the Jews.

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice: [173]

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly — and I myself was unaware of it — will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

In Deuteronomy 13:12 Moses writes that any city that is given to idolatry shall be totally destroyed by fire, and nothing of it shall be preserved. If he were alive today, he would be the first to set fire to the synagogues and houses of the Jews.' For in Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 he commanded very explicitly that nothing is to be added to or subtracted from his law. And Samuel says in I Samuel 15:23 that disobedience to God is idolatry. Now the Jews' doctrine at present is nothing but the additions of the rabbis and the idolatry of disobedience, so that Moses has become entirely unknown among them (as we said before), just as the Bible became unknown under the papacy in our day. So also, for Moses' sake, their schools cannot be tolerated; they defame him just as much as they do us. It is not necessary that they have their own free churches for such idolatry.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.' For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:10) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16:18, "You are Peter," etc., inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home. I have heard it said that a rich Jew is now traveling across the country with twelve horses — his ambition is to become a Kokhba — devouring princes, lords, lands, and people with his usury, so that the great lords view it with jealous eyes. If you great lords and princes will not forbid such usurers the highway legally, some day a troop may gather against them, [174] having learned from this booklet the true nature of the Jews and how one should deal with them and not protect their activities. For you, too, must not and cannot protect them unless you wish to become participants in an their abominations in the sight of God. Consider carefully what good could come from this, and prevent it.

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us an they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.

But when they boast that Moses allowed or commanded them to exact usury from strangers, citing Deuteronomy 23:20 — apart from this they cannot adduce as much as a letter in their support — we must tell them that there are two classes of Jews or Israelites. The first comprises those whom Moses, in compliance with God's command, led from Egypt into the land of Canaan. To them he issued his law, which they were to keep in that country and not beyond it, and then only until the advent of the Messiah. The other Jews are those of the emperor and not of Moses. These date back to the time of Pilate, the procurator of the land of Judah. For when the latter asked them before the judgment seat, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" they all said, "Crucify him, crucify him!" He said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" They shouted in reply, "We have no king but Caesar!" (Matthew 27:22; John 19:15). God had not commanded of them such submission to the emperor; [175] they gave it voluntarily.

But when the emperor demanded the obedience due him, they resisted and rebelled against him. Now they no longer wanted to be his subjects. Then he came and visited his subjects, gathered them in Jerusalem, and then scattered them throughout his entire empire, so that they were forced to obey him. From these the present remnant of Jews descended, of whom Moses knows nothing, nor they of him; for they do not deserve a single passage or verse of Moses. If they wish to apply Moses' law again, they must first return to the land of Canaan, become Moses' Jews, and keep his laws. There they may practice usury as much as strangers will endure from them. But since they are dwelling in and disobeying Moses in foreign countries under the emperor, they are bound to keep the emperor's laws and refrain from the practice of usury until they become obedient to Moses. For Moses' law has never passed a single step beyond the land of Canaan or beyond the people of Israel. Moses was not sent to the Egyptians, the Babylonians, or any other nation with his law, but only to the people whom he led from Egypt into the land of Canaan, as he himself testifies frequently in Deuteronomy. They were expected to keep his commandments in the land which they would conquer beyond the Jordan.

Moreover, since priesthood, worship, government — with which the greater part, indeed, almost all, of those laws of Moses deal — have been at an end for over fourteen hundred years already, it is certain that Moses' law also came to an end and lost its authority. Therefore the imperial laws must be applied to these imperial Jews. Their wish to be Mosaic Jews must not be indulged. In fact, no Jew has been that for over fourteen hundred years.

Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen. 3:19). For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting., and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, — servants, cattle, etc., if they had to serve and work for us — for it is reasonable to assume that such noble lords of the world and venomous, bitter worms are not accustomed to working and would be very reluctant to humble themselves so deeply before the accursed Goyim-then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., compute with them how much their usury has extorted from us, divide, divide this amicably, [176] but then eject them forever from the country. [177] For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!

I hear it said that the Jews donate large sums of money and thus prove beneficial to governments. Yes, but where does this money come from? Not from their own possessions but from that of the lords and subjects whom they plunder and rob by means of usury. Thus the lords are taking from their subjects what they receive from the Jews, i.e., the subjects are obliged to pay additional taxes and let themselves be ground into the dust for the Jews, so that they may remain in the country, lie boldly and freely, blaspheme, curse, and steal. Shouldn't the impious Jews laugh up their sleeves because we let them make such fools of us and because we spend our money to enable them to remain in the country and to practice every malice? Over and above that we let them get rich on our sweat and blood, while we remain poor and they suck the marrow from our bones. If it is right for a servant to give his master or for a guest to give his host ten florins annually and, in return, to steal one thousand florins from him, then the servant or the guest will very quickly and easily get rich and the master or the host will soon become a beggar.

And even if the Jews could give the government such sums of money from their own property, which is not possible, and thereby buy protection from us, and the privilege publicly and freely to slander, blaspheme, villify, and curse our Lord Jesus Christ so shamefully in their synagogues, and in addition to wish us every misfortune, namely, that we might all be stabbed to death and perish with our Haman, emperor, princes, lords, wife, and children — this would really be selling Christ our Lord, the whole of Christendom together with the whole empire, and ourselves, with wife and children, cheaply and shamefully. What a great saint the traitor Judas would be in comparison with us! Indeed, if each Jew, as many as there are of them, could give one hundred thousand florins annually, we should nevertheless not yield them for this the right so freely to malign, curse, defame, impoverish by usury a single Christian. That would still be far too cheap a price. How much more intolerable is it that we permit the Jews to purchase with our money such license to slander and curse the whole Christ and all of us and, furthermore, reward them for this with riches and make them our lords, while they ridicule us and gloat in their malice. That would prove a delightful spectacle for the devil and his angels, over which they could secretly grin like a sow grins at her litter, but which would indeed merit God's great wrath.

In brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule — if my counsel does not please you, [178] find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews. Lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, the blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, his dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us. Do not aid and abet them in acquiring your money or your subjects' money and property by means of usury. We have enough sin of our own without this, dating back to the papacy, and we add to it daily with our ingratitude and our contempt of God's word and all his grace; so it is not necessary to burden ourselves also with these alien, shameful vices of the Jews and over and above it all, to pay them for it with money and property. Let us consider that we are now daily struggling with the Turks, which surely calls for a lessening of our sins and a reformation of our life. With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my conscience.

ref: English Language Translations

• Luther, Martin. On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543, Translated by Martin H. Bertram. Found in the hard cover edition of "Luther's Works," Volume 47, pages 137-306, published by Fortress Press/Philadelphia (1955). Includes footnotes that may be of significant scholarly interest. [22]
• Luther, Martin. On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543, Translated by Martin H. Bertram. The Internet Medieval Sourcebook. [23]

Doright 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Watch the quotable limit for copyright, eh? -Rekleov 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Did Luther recommend the killing of the Jews?

Gathering scholarly quotations at: Talk:Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews#Did_Luther_recommend_the_killing_of_the_Jews

Please help build this section. --CTSWyneken 14:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

To preempt, yet another another straw-man argument, let's remember the disputed language is "he became embittered and wrote that Christians are at fault for not slaying Jews. Paradoxically, and imho ironically, it is CTSWyneken himself who repeatedly uses the language Luther "recommended" So CTS, if you don't like the word slay, what did Luther say IN HIS OWN WORDS?Doright 21:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Doright, do you see what you do to others? "yet another straw-man argument". Everyone other than you has a weak and duplicitous view. Only you are right. Why don't you at least consider the opinion of others as at least equal with yours? Have you studied Luther's writings? How much of his works have you read? Have you read scholars that have the opposing view of your internet web discussion forum? Yes, in his own words, but in his own words in context. You take them out of context and give them a new spin to support your POV and that of Dr. Robert Michael. drboisclair 22:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Four Conflated Issues of the SDG

There are four issues that are being conflated repeatedly in the arguments of a certain self-defined group [[24]](hereinafter referred to as ‘’’ “The SDG” ’’’) of wikipedians on this and the other Luther related pages.

The four conflated issues are:

• (1) What words did Luther actually write?
• (2) What do those words actually mean?
• (3) Did Luther mean what he wrote?
• (4) Did Luther intend for his writings to be actually put into action?

The currently SDG controlled article says:

“… he became embittered and recommended harsh persecution of the Jews.”

Here is a list in chronological order and increasingly accommodating attempts to satisfy The SDG POV. All have been rejected by the SDG without much of an explanation except that they seem to behave like they own the Luther related pages.

• (1st try): “… he became embittered and recommended the Jews be murdered. ” [[25]]

• (2nd try): “… he became embittered and recommended killing the Jews.” [[26]]

• (3rd try): “… he became embittered and recommended slaying the Jews.^[27]” [[28]]

• (4th try): “… he became embittered and wrote that Christians are at fault for not slaying Jews.^[29]”

1. ^ Martin Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies, Trans. Martin H. Bertram, in Luther's Works Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971. "We are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them." [[30]]

Please note that in this last try, “he … recommended” is replaced with “ he … wrote” followed by a direct quote.

After THE SDG refused to provide a meaningful reply in talk other than the implication that they own the page SlimVirgin had to temporarily accede to their reverts when she hit her 3RR threshold. SlimVirgin says, “have expanded and tidied writing; so as not to violate 3RR, I have had to leave out the slaying quote but I will restore it asap) [[31]]

‘’’The SDG has repeatedly demonstrated their agreement that Luther “recommended” something. This is shown by their continued reversion to their phrase “recommended harsh persecution.” One asks, Did Luther specify exactly what these "harsh persecutions" are? And, if so, why use a euphemism like "harsh persecution" instead of Luther's own words? ‘’’

Finally, if The SDG wants to revise or deny what Luther wrote and cite MORE THAN a vastly limited minority of Luther Revisers and Deniers as authorities, I have no problem with that. But, do not censor Luther’s own words. Indeed, if The SDG can show that their POV is a viewpoint held by a significant minority with prominent adherents then the Luther Denial viewpoint may warrant greater weight, for example, please see here for one example of how such viewpoints has been handled in other wikipedia articles.[[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Revisionists_and_deniers]]

However, IMHO, in no case should anyone’s opinion about what Luther said or meant be given more weight than Luther’s own words. Collegially,Doright 21:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Luther in his own words

With respect, Mr. Doright, Luther must be known from his own words in context. This is what SlimVirgin, CTSWyneken, and I have done with Dr. Michael's quotation of Luther--via you--in the appropriate article Martin Luther and the Jews. SlimVirgin requested the original text, which I provided via the Weimarer Ausgabe and the second edition of Walch. SlimVirgin noticed that there was an ambiguity of meaning. You want to press Dr. Michael's POV of Luther advocating mass killing of the Jews. He is a doctor and a scholar, and he has studied Luther. I agree with you that we must hear his POV, but we must not present his POV as the only valid position. When one cuts this phrase out of this passage and frames it with connecting words as you have done and places it in the introduction that merely presents Dr. Michael's and your POV about what Luther said. Let's take another example that StanZegel cited to me two or three months ago: "the devil is the god of the world." This is found on page 137 of vol. 47 of Luther's Works. If this were cut and pasted into an article about Luther, one would get the impression that Luther believed that the devil is god.

The bottom line is you can get Luther to say whatever you want him to say. Have you ever seen Primary Colors? That was about a campaign for President of the United States. The operatives of one candidate used the recorded words of the other to make him say whatever they wanted him to say.

What we have in this quotation from Luther is an evil sentiment that Christians and Jews should have had it out in the past: the Jews should have been killed. This is a heinous sin in the Christian religion, the sentiment that is. However, objectively it is not part of Luther's proposed pogrom. To say that this phrase in question, cut out of context, is the "final solution" is not to accurately present what Luther was saying here. By pushing for its inclusion as it was being pushed by you, is tantamount to pushing your POV. Respectfully submitted for your consideration. drboisclair 22:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Luther and the Jews section

I'd like to suggest the text below for now for this section, and then perhaps to add the "slaying" quote later if and only if we can find a scholar who supports the view that Luther was suggesting the Jews be killed. But for now, could people say whether they would support the following (or if not, with reasons please)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often described as "anti-Semitic" or "anti-Judaism." ^[32] Luther had expected that presenting his understanding of the Christian gospel to the Jews would convert them, but when his efforts failed, he became embittered and recommended their harsh persecution. ^[33] In his pamphlet Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and their Lies), published in 1543, he wrote that Jews' synagogues should be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes "smashed and destroyed," property seized, money confiscated, and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be drafted into forced labor or expelled "for all time." [34]

British historian Paul Johnson has called On the Jews and their Lies the "first work of modern anti-Semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust" (Johnson 1987:242). Four centuries later, the Nazis cited the pamphlet to justify the Final Solution. Since the 1980s, Lutheran church bodies and organizations have begun a process of formally disassociating themselves from these writings.

As a whole I would agree to these introductory paragraphs, but there would need to be 1) added views of scholars who have taken the alternative view--you do not have anything here from Brecht or Bainton, persons who have studied Luther more thoroughly than Dr. Paul Johnson; 2) this contains the external link to a page that has questionable propriety in that it is not apparent that they have obtained permission from the publisher for posting the entire text of On the Jews and Their Lies on the internet. Perhaps instead of the external link you could put in the reference to the document which I would be happy to supply. I would think that CTSWyneken, Humus Sapiens, Jayjg, SlRubenstein, StanZegel and others should weigh in on this. They have done very much work on this, and the status quo paragraph is a consensus of their work. Yes, Mr. Doright should be consulted and heard in this too. I think though that it would be better to leave the paragraph as it is. drboisclair 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an excellent section. I don't understand what an opposing view would be; does anyone dispute that the work was a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, yes, there is JG. I'm not quite sure where in this maze of discussion it is, but I can produce three or four. It is the position of a fair number of scholars that take the position that this unfortunate tract was largely forgotten in the Christian community until the Nazis used it after the fact to justify their conclusions. There are, besides Dr. Michael, several others who maintain or suspect the opposite. Since it is an interpretative conclusion, both sides need either to be represented or excluded. --CTSWyneken 01:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is appropriate for the lead to this topic. The remainder is appropriate further down in the discussion, after context and history have been set. Leaving them so prominent and unbalanced is too POV. Whatever goes in also needs to be supported by a body of scholarly work. Slim, have you had a chance to read through all the related talk pages on this topic yet? --StanZegel (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have, thank you. This is a suggestion for the Luther and the Jews section in this article, by the way, so there would be no "further down" to move it to, because it's already at the end. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Then I must say that it would be NPOV to leave the first sentence and refer the reader to the Martin Luther and the Jews article. All of the matter after the first sentence is one-sided, but can be balanced in the subsidiary article. The sentence indicates to the interested reader that there is some controversy, and where to go to get deeper in to it. --StanZegel (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it would be POV to leave such an important aspect of Luther's thought (for many people, the most important aspect) to one sentence, with the rest relegated to a subsidiary article, a bit like having only one sentence about the war in Iraq in the George W. Bush article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim, that is indeed the problem we have in coming to a solution here. For most Luther scholars, even the most critical non-Lutheran ones, it is a significant, but not central aspect of Luther's life and thought. If you will notice the general encyclopedia summary, you will see what I mean. For scholars of the Holocaust and the history of Anti-Semitism, it is central.

I appreciate the George Bush analogy. The difference is that the present war is the central issue of his life. In Luther's life, the controversy on the Jews takes up less than one volume out over one hundred. It is important, don't get me wrong, but it is not the same thing.

Let me see if this analogy can help. In the scholarship on Thomas Jefferson. For most of those who study him as a life' work, his comments on African Americans in Notes on the State of Virginia. For African-Americans, being classed in detail as sub-human is a major issue. Last I checked, the work was not mentioned in the wiki article on Thomas Jefferson.

So, how do we make this work? The way we've achieved an NPOV text earlier was for those that favor the Luther scholar's viewpoint to have a summary of the issue here. Those favoring the anti-semitic scholars allowed for this summary to much briefer than they like. For me, personally, I'd rather have the paragraph as it was before you arrived, but I can agree to letting it grow, for the sake of representing more fully the view of Holocaust scholars, provided all scholarly POVs are represented. I would hope that those whose only interest in Luther is to expose his dark side would be willing to grant that Luther's impact goes beyond this issue. --CTSWyneken 12:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, you assert, "Slim, that is indeed the problem we have in coming to a solution here. For most Luther scholars, even the most critical non-Lutheran ones, it is a significant, but not central aspect of Luther's life and thought." Yep, I guess that's why it is limited to a single subsection of the last section at the bottom of the article that is euphemistically titled, Luther and the Jews (originally, Luther and antisemitism, which is the actual subject of the section). The problem we have in coming to a solution here is therefore obviously NOT the one you claim it to be. Rather, Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much. Your criticism ("not central aspect of Luther's life and thought") suggests that SlimVirgin is editing the opening paragraph of the Luther article. She is not. The problem is you don't want it to appear anywhere among the currently 24 sections of the article, not even the subsection dedicated to the very subject.Doright 21:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In principle, two paragraphs would not be too long for a summary. I have the same conserns as DR does, however. Adding a quote from the other perspective would solve this inbalance, or reducing it to a summary, as we have in the first sentence and moving the citations to the footnotes. That would help control the size here. Most general encyclopedias do not contain even this much information in their Luther articles. (see Talk:Martin Luther#Luther and the Jews in Encyclopedias We do not have to be as attentive to size in the subarticle, which is, after all, why we have one.

I am also against linking to online versions of the Bertram translations for reasons outlined on the copyright archive Talk:Martin Luther/Copyright of Luther's Works This is an ethical matter for me, and a professional one. We should not be linking to infringing works and should err on the side of not linking.--CTSWyneken 01:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I think your text is very good along with your caveat on the “slaying” quote. Additionally, I have modified your text and hope to receive your input. Also, my thoughts about The SDG's censoring links to the websites of scholars at major universities can be summarised here.[[35]]Doright 05:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doright, I'm fine with your addition, though others may not be. As for censoring links to websites on the grounds that they might be copyright, the copyright issues are for those websites to worry about. All we are doing is linking to something on the web. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Slim, it is our problem, for two reasons. Most importantly, WP:COPY states that: "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us." Second, it is not right ethically to encourage the stealing of someone else's property. For Luther and Lutherans, this is essential. The one work of Luther's known by all Lutherans is his Small Catechism. He comments on the commandment against stealing in this way: "We should fear and love God, so that we will neither take our neighbor's money or property, nor acquire it by fraud or by selling him poorly made products, but will help him improve and protect his property and career." (Small Catechism, Seventh Commandment) It may not be so for others, but it is for us. Third, as the WP:COPY quote suggests, litigators for copyright holders are now trying to make the case that linking to a site with infringing material without the copyright holder's permission is both infringing and contributing to infringement. In two cases, a Federal judge has found the argument to have merit. (I can provide the legal citations if you like) Please feel free to ask for one of the wikipedia copyright experts to review my explanation. --CTSWyneken 12:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to weigh in here on this issue. We need to go out of our way to keep from infringing copyright. In other cases that I have seen Wikipedia goes all out to protect copyright. I think that WP:COPY speaks for itself. The links to the questionable pages should also be removed from talk pages wherever they appear. drboisclair 16:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often either described as ""antisemitism" or "anti-Judaism." [^[36] Luther had expected that presenting his understanding of the Christian gospel to the Jews would convert them, but when his efforts failed, acting upon hatred of Jews ^[37] recommended their harsh persecution. ^[38] In his treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and their Lies), published in 1543, he wrote that Jews' synagogues should be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to teach, homes "smashed and destroyed," property seized, money confiscated, attacks against Jew permitted, and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be drafted into forced labor or expelled "for all time." [39]

British historian Paul Johnson has called On the Jews and their Lies the "first work of modern anti-Semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust" (Johnson 1987:242). Four centuries later, the Nazis cited the Luther’s writings to justify the Final Solution. Since the 1980’s some Lutheran church bodies and organizations disassociated themselves from aspects of these writings.

1. ^ Halsall http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/1543-Luther-JewsandLies-full.html (Retrieved January 4, 2005) "In his Letters to Spalatin, we can already see that Luther's hatred of Jews, best seen in this 1543 letter On the Jews and Their Lies, was not some affectation of old age, but was present very early on. Luther expected Jews to convert to his purified Christianity. When they did not, he turned violently against them."

Regarding "attacks against Jews permitted", Luther states “safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.”

Collegially,Doright 05:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate Mr. Doright's desire to act collegially. I think that we need the ruling of administrators as to whether or not to include the links to the full text. From my experience with Wikipedia it goes out of its way to stay within the law and propriety. Here is my proposal for the introductory paragraphs sans the controversial links. Giving the reference to On the Jews and Their Lies in Luther's Works should be sufficient.

Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often either described as antisemitism or anti-Judaism. [^[40] Luther had expected that presenting his understanding of the Christian gospel to the Jews would convert them, but when his efforts failed, acting upon hatred of Jews ^[41] recommended their harsh persecution. ^[42] In his treatise Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and their Lies), published in 1543, he wrote that Jews' synagogues should be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to teach, homes "smashed and destroyed," property seized, money confiscated, attacks against Jew permitted, and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be drafted into forced labor or expelled "for all time." (On the Jews and Their Lies, translated by Martin Bertram in Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971) vol. 47, pp. 121-306).

British historian Paul Johnson has called On the Jews and their Lies the "first work of modern anti-Semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust" (Johnson 1987:242). Four centuries later, the Nazis cited the Luther’s writings to justify the Final Solution. Since the 1980’s some Lutheran church bodies and organizations disassociated themselves from aspects of these writings.

1. ^ "In his Letters to Spalatin, we can already see that Luther's hatred of Jews, best seen in this 1543 letter On the Jews and Their Lies, was not some affectation of old age, but was present very early on. Luther expected Jews to convert to his purified Christianity. When they did not, he turned violently against them."

--drboisclair 14:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dave, I think we need to add a quotation from one of the Luther scholars who contend just as firmly that Luther was not responsible for the Nazis. Which one do you think is the clearest. Also, I'm going to find the Luther to Spalatin letter recently quoted on the Martin Luther and the Jews page, restore that quotation and cite it from the physical American edition. Would you suggest leaving this reference to the indirect citation as it is above, or substituting the more direct reference for this one? --CTSWyneken 14:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, having checked it, a quotation from the Luther to Spalatin letter is already in the Martin Luther and the Jews article. The citation to Halsall is not necessary here, since any one of a number of other printed sources, which do not link to the infringing work, are available to us. I'd suggest we cite one of those. --CTSWyneken 15:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Robert, I was just leaving the proposal as it was and making minor changes. The reference is not usable as is and needs a more direct reference. BTW, I am glad to see SlimVirgin has read all the talk on these issues, that is a monumental task in itself. There is a lot of text in this debate. drboisclair 15:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually the paragraphs in the main article Martin Luther should be more like the introductory paragraph in Martin Luther and the Jews. Why not have the intro from the sub in the main:

Martin Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often described as "anti-Semitism" [1] or "anti-Judaism." [2] Luther expected that presenting his understanding of the Christian gospel to the Jews would convert them, but when his efforts to persuade them to abandon the faith of their fathers with what he saw as "Christian love" failed, he became embittered and recommended harsh persecution of the Jews. Four centuries later, the Nazis cited his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) to justify their attempts at genocide. Since the 1980s, Lutheran church bodies and organizations have begun a process of formally disassociating themselves from these writings.

drboisclair 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right they should be the same, but the problem is that the paragraph here and the intro from the stub are whitewashes which do not correctly characterize the nature of Luther's comments, nor their impact. No doubt that is why SlimVirgin was trying to re-write it into something more informative and NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful to know what you would like to see in the intro/summary that isn't there in the negotiated text. I was under the impression it was OK with you when we signed off on it a week or so ago. I apologize for that assumption. --CTSWyneken 23:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to repeat that I do not have a problem, in general, with SlimVirgin's version, providing we add a quote from a Luther scholar who disagrees with Johnson's POV. --CTSWyneken 23:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that SlimVirgin's version is mostly fine.

I'm not sure what the Paul Johnson reference adds; Luther's suggestions are despicable enough on their surface. Also, German anti-Semitism was already healthy when Luther wrote; I am wary of giving the impression that Luther invented German anti-Semitism when instead he jumped on the bandwagon.--Jbull 00:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

With respect may I point out that "harsh persecution" is not a euphemism for a Christian. Persecution involves a threat to life by displacing people. It is pursuit of persons solely for religious reasons. διωκειν is the Greek word in the Christian New Testament for "persecution." It means "to pursue." The present paragraph as it stands is a stinging indictment against Luther. I think that we should also include such indictments on the Nicholas of Lyra page and the Paul of Burgos page, since Luther was repristinating their antisemitism. Looking at the Thomas More page I can see that the editors of that page have included his antiprotestantism. I think that we should see to it that Nicholas of Lyra does not get off scott free. drboisclair 02:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

True, WP still needs a lot of work, but two wrongs don't make it right. The communal/religious violence is not a comfortable topic. I insisted on including direct quotes for weeks and would prefer SlimVirgin's version. Johnson is one of many mainstream historians saying pretty much the same, see #It is more dreary than I thought. I think we should consider the source of special interest opinions, such as Jewish accusers on one hand and Lutheran apologists on the other. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Persecution is not a Euphemism for Ethnic Cleansing or Genocide for Christians

Is Wikipedia a Christian Publication? Dear colleague, with respect, may I point out that whether "harsh persecution" is or is not a euphemism for a Christian seems irrelevant according to wikipedia guidelines? We are writing for a general audience, not merely Christian Seminarians. Therefore, when attempting to understand how a literate reader will understand the language of this wikipedia article, I suggest we look to a dictionary of the English language and not Greek of 2,000 years ago. Indeed, this is reminiscent of the claim that antisemitism implied discrimination against Arabs. I implore wikipedians to pick up a dictionary.

Looking up the definition of "persecute" in my Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the 1st entry is "to harass," the 2nd entry is "to annoy." Now, if you would, take the following material (all directly from Luther) and tell me which fall into the "harass" meaning, which fall into the "annoy" meaning and which don't quite fall into either.

eject them forever from the country, set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. I advise that their houses destroyed. books and writings taken from them. safe-conduct abolished completely for the Jews.all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them, slaying,

At a minimum, these word, that Luther wrote, undeniably fits either the definition of ‘’’ "ethnic cleansing" ‘’’ (i.e., the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of ethnic minorities by a dominant majority group) or ‘’’genocide’’’ (the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group) or both. As now shown, “harsh persecution” is a euphemistic whitewash for ethnic cleansing or genocide for readers of standard English. Collegially,Doright 04:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Undeniably" would not be the right word. That quote, taken out of context, can be made to sound like Nazi rhetoric, but many people claim that the Nazis misunderstood Luther's words. Ethnic cleansing and genocide both involve killing people. Even taken out of context, that quote says nothing about killing people. --لæmäļ al diη 04:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Jamal al din, welcome to the discussion. May I suggest we concentrate on the text offered to improve the article, not on an adjective that an editor used in his comment. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Humus, I think we should move on. Later in the AM, unless something at work commands my attention, I'll start yet another new section on the text itself. I will start from SlimVirgin's text and add a quotation from a Luther scholar that disagrees with him. I'll ask the same question I asked of Jayg... is there anything else you'd like to see in it? While I would like this section short for reasons you know already, I'm getting tired of having to repeat all of the arguments every few weeks. --CTSWyneken 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Jamal, indeed, a pleasure to meet you. You make several interesting points. Funny you should mention that about the Nazis, since the Nazis actually did cite Luther's writings in Nazi rhetoric and this very text was cited by them at the Nuremberg Nazi trials. And, scholars have pointed out that, in context, "No one can rationally deny the parallels between Luther's program for the Jews and Hitler's. Many have denied that Luther advocated death for Jews. These people have not read "The Jews and Their Lies." Check it out on the jews and their lies or read here in talk above where I provided several pages of the actual text. Reagrding ethnic cleansing and genocide, I would make at least two points. (1) Killing is only one of the many ways of Ethnic Cleansing. If you don't have a dictionary handy, try this one. [[43]]. It says, the expulsion, imprisonment, OR killing. (2) What do you think would happen to a people (remember public services are a bit sparse in that century) that had their home destroyed, all their institutions destroyed, property taken, all objects of their culture destroyed, attacks permitted against them on the roads, etc, etc? What do you think your life expectancy would be with no shelter, no money ... nothing? Do you think some people might die from exposure? Hunger? Be killed trying to defend themselves? Again, welcome to the conversation.Doright 06:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed New Summary Text: Luther and the Jews

Several editors support the expansion of the summary of the sub-article Martin Luther and the Jews, beginning with SlimVirgin's suggestions. Humus_Sapiens has suggested we start over, get to the text, stop arguing over each others words. In that spirit, I have extracted SlimVirgin's version and added my own suggestions to it. Is this acceptable? If not, please list what should be added from your POV. It would help if we would all focus on the text itself, not engage in personal attacks or debate each other's point of view. We should limit ourselves to what we can quote or cite from scholars in peer reviewed sources. Especially for our members that are admins, is this fair? --CTSWyneken 14:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear CTSWyneken, I am afraid there is some misunderstanding. As I said a paragraph above, I prefer SV's version. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Humus. My mistake. I went from your last comment above and didn't go all the way back. Sorry for the confusion. --CTSWyneken 02:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Text

Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often described as "anti-Semitic" or "anti-Judaism." ^[44] Luther had expected that presenting his understanding of the Christian gospel to the Jews would convert them, but when his efforts failed, he became embittered and recommended their harsh persecution. ^[45] In his pamphlet Von den Juden und ihren Lügen ([[On the Jews and their Lies), published in 1543, he wrote that the Jews' synagogues should be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes "smashed and destroyed," property seized, money confiscated, and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be drafted into forced labor or expelled "for all time." (citation to printed text to follow shortly)

British historian Paul Johnson has called On the Jews and their Lies the "first work of modern anti-Semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust" (Johnson 1987:242). Luther Scholar,(name to follow) disagrees. He said, (quote and citation to follow) Four centuries later, the Nazis cited the pamphlet to justify the Final Solution. Since the 1980s, Lutheran church bodies and organizations have begun a process of formally disassociating themselves from these writings. --CTSWyneken 14:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to this non-Lutheran.--Jbull 14:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! If anyone gets to substituting a Luther scholar's words for my boiler plate fields above, please feel free. My feelings will not be hurt. --CTSWyneken 15:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As we seem to agree, I've added the new text to the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slim: out of respect for you, I haven't reverted the article, but we were not quite done. As it is, the article is unbalanced, because it is missing the opinion of Luther scholars that Luther is not Hitler's ancestor. This is coming, when time presents itself. I am restoring the NPOV flag until either the Johnson quote is removed or we can add a Luther scholar. --CTSWyneken 03:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I should have checked the comment in the edit history first. I see you've accounted for that. I'll leave the flag up until the counter quote is in.

One question, though. Do we all think the Johnson quote is the best to represent the holocaust scholars, or is there a better one? --CTSWyneken 03:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Segregation of the Jews from the rest of society is documented from the twelfth century to the twentieth century throughout Europe. Luther didn't start the concept of Jews being "the enemy within." Stories of the time, like Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice are rife with it. Indignant at being spit upon and treated as sub-human, Jew Shylock, the antagonist of the play says,

If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

--لæmäļ al diη 22:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Always affirming no denominational affiliation

In the light of the above, I want it to be known that my comments do not have behind them the idea that I think that Wikipedia is Christian. I speak here not as a Christian but as a scholar. I am dedicated to Wikipedia's NPOV. I must also point out to anyone that might push POV that Wikipedia is not Republican, Democrat, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist, e.g. There are times when I get the impression that that is thought by some. I do not. When I said that persecution was not a euphemism I meant to point out the enormity of such a charge to a Christian. Christians too have been the victims of persecution. Christians too were the victims of Hitler while they were not part of the Holocaust. I would counsel against any editor sitting in judgment of another editor.

As to euphemisms, any word is euphemistic for concepts like genocide or racial cleansing, or pogrom. Whatever we say is euphemistic. drboisclair 16:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Since you now agree that "whatever we say is euphemistic," and you agree that any word is euphemistic for concepts like ethnic cleansing, may I conclude that you now support the non-euphemistic term ethnic cleansing over what what you now admit is euphemistic (i.e., "harsh persecution")?

• BTW, Dear Colleague, despite all the evidence to the contrary, I continue to force myself to assume good faith. Therefore, I’m seeking an alternative explanation to your reply than the one that would be consistent with numerous pages of evidence. There may be a comprehension issue here. Would you be kind enough to indulge me by simply outlining your understanding of what I wrote here [[46]] so one can compare it with your reply.Doright 19:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

CTSW, you've put up the neutrality tag, and yet the only change was that I inserted the section you and others agreed to. Is there a further problem? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slim, the problem is that the Luther scholar quote is not yet in the text. I would have preferred to leave the previously negotiated text online until this one was complete. Nevertheless, I do not want to impede progress towards a resolution of the issue, so I put the flag on it rather than revert it. --CTSWyneken 11:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The parts I've bolded below are conclusions in the Jewish section that are not cited. I can understand why they are not cited: it is because they are not true.

Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric (according to WP:NPOV the article itself cannot assume this controversial conclusion) and doctrines are often described (some authors call it anti-Semitic, some do not; in such a case specific examples of each must be noted for the article to be WP:NPOV) as anti-Semitic or examples of anti-Judaism. [14] Luther had expected that presenting his understanding of the Christian gospel to the Jews would convert them, (according to who?) but when his efforts failed, he became embittered and recommended their harsh persecution. (this is absurd; Luther says over and over in his own writings the reason he recommended harsh treatment for those that broke the usury laws and other established Christian rules of commerce, and also because of the "innocent blood" "spilt by the Jews." [47]) [15] (this link to Martin H. Bertram is a misquote; Bertram did not reach this conclusion) In his pamphlet Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and their Lies), published in 1543, he wrote that Jews' synagogues should be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes "smashed and destroyed," property seized, money confiscated, and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be drafted into forced labor or expelled "for all time." (this sound-bit is out of context unless you also include the reasons and conditions under which Luther said that such punishment is warranted; you are making this sound as if it is racially motivated and nothing could be farther from the truth; Luther repeatedly said this action is warranted for those that break the laws of the country, not those that convert to Christian practices of equitable merchantry and brotherly love; you may disagree with the usury laws, but Luther must be judged by the laws of his time, not ours) British historian Paul Johnson has called On the Jews and their Lies the "first work of modern anti-semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust" (Johnson 1987:242). (This is how all rogue historians must be cited. However, the majority view must also be represented) Four centuries later, the Nazis cited the pamphlet to justify the Final Solution. (this is absurd; the "final solution" was a secret; the Nazis never "justified" it to anyone; who makes this claim?) Since the 1980s, Lutheran church bodies and organizations have begun a process of formally disassociating themselves from these writings. (this statement assumes that more Lutheran organizations will distance themselves in the future; since we cannot see the future, it is POV; the truth is that some Lutheran bodies have disassociated themselves and some have not)

You are trying to paint Luther to be an anti-Semitic instigator which is patently absurd. The writings of Luther's later life reflected the general feeling of the time. The amazing thing about Luther is that he tried as hard as he could in his early life to transcend the anti-semitism on one side and the semitism so prevalent on the other side. --لæmäļ al diη 20:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Jamal, what on Earth is semitism?Doright 06:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not the editors here who are trying to paint Luther as anti-Semitic; rather, it is a large number of historians. What makes Paul Johnson a "rogue historian", and where did you get your novel thesis that all Luther was doing was responding to Jewish usury? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, it is primarily one disruptive editor here trying to push the view that not only was Luther anti-semitic, but that he was the inspiration for the genocides of WWII! Jamal al din raises valid points. The "large number of historians" has not been demonstrated to include a significant segment of scholars of Luther, and words are being twisted through incorrect quotations to pretend support for a POV. The fact that Luther was responding to an anti-Christian pamphlet of Jewish origin, and that usury was indeed an issue in those times, seems to be getting buried here in an attempt to push a POV. It seems there are more folks pushing POV in here than have actually read the works in question, and I am prepared to defer to those who know what they are talking about instead of those with an emotional obsession. I think you have been trying to keep things on track in that area, and I thank you for it. --StanZegel (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that it is disputed that the Nazis used Luther's work in their propaganda; whether they were truly inspired by it is a different (and debated) question. As for historians, scholars of Luther tend to come from a certain "demographic" (i.e. generally members of Lutheran bodies), and so have their own biases. Unsurprisingly, non-Lutheran historians tend to reach different conclusions from them. Regardless, Jamal al din's re-write of the section seems to me to be as one-sided as anything I've seen yet, and, even worse, appears to be entirely premised on original research. And thank you for your kind words. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll not get into the demographic game on Luther scholars, except to say that two of the ones we we have been quoting on this and other articles are not. Rupp is (was) an Anglican and I believe that Bainton was from the Church of the Brethren. Scholars on all sides have their biases and that is very understandable. Most freely admit them. Other than that, I agree with Jayg. The Nazis did use Luther's words to justify their actions. This is why Lutheran church bodies have been going on record condemning this work and the violent rhetoric he used at other times. There is also general agreement that Luther's words were vile and hate-filled. There is substantial disagreement among scholars as to whether to call this anti-semitism or anti-judaism, including some Luther scholars calling it anti-semitic (though most do not) and some non-Lutheran scholars calling it anti-judaic. Some scholars like Johnson, who specialises in the history of England, and Robert Michael, a scholar of anti-semitism suggest Luther is the intellectual ancestor of Hitler, others, like Rupp, disagree. Once we've agreed if the Rupp quote is acceptable to represent the latter view, I'll be content to remove the NPOV flag. --CTSWyneken 23:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, they're not all Lutherans, but in many ways they are all his heirs, being members of Protestant churches. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait one sec! A quotation from "On the Jews..." That I do not agree with has been added in a footnote to "harsh persecution"! Since the meaning of this quotation is very much in dispute, I will not remove the NPOV flag unless it goes, too. --CTSWyneken 23:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote to add after Johnson Quote

However, Anglican Luther scholar Gordon Rupp concludes: "There is no trace of such a relation between Luther and Hitler." (Rupp, 84)

Is this acceptable with all? --CTSWyneken 23:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, exactly which such relation between Luther and Hitler do you think Rupp is referring to?Doright 05:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, that is how every controversial conclusion should be cited. When we write the article in the way that you have shown, whether or not the conclusion is true becomes the responsibility of Rupp, not Wikipedia.

I don't think that anybody here is qualified to judge Martin Luther. It was a different time and a different mindset. Most people today can't even appreciate how politics, commerce and religion were all inexorably combined. When Luther talks about the evils of usury, he is speaking of commerce. Differences in the way Jews and Christians do business is the reason that Jews were segregated all over Europe, and was the reason Jews had to differentiate themselves in dress with red hats, yellow stars, etc. At that time, people in Europe were concerned that usury and other Jewish business practices would become common place if the more aggressive Jewish way of business were immersed unrestricted with the Christian commonwealth. I don't expect any of you to understand this while living in a country that embraces usury, Monsanto and Wal-mart, but please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an international resource. If a western historian has an opinion about Martin Luther, please quote and cite that western historian instead of saying things like "it is widely believed." --لæmäļ al diη 05:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jamal, it is our job to convey to our readers what reputable historians say about every historical figure, especially of such huge influence as ML. As for "evils" of moneylending or commerce: I didn't see any historian mention that this was the reason of his hatred, so you'll need to prove that. "Jews had to differentiate themselves in dress": see yellow badge and judenhut. Finally, your expression "Jewish business practices" simply doesn't smell good. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

CTSW, IMHO the Rupp's phrase is too vague for an encyclopedia. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Humus. In context, Rupp makes his meaning quite clear, but to quote him more fully would throw the balance off the other direction, at least in terms of number of words. I'm searching for another quote that would be more precise. Would this one be OK for now, should I expand it or leave the quote out and the NPOV flag in place? --CTSWyneken 11:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility is from Australian Lutheran pastor Russell Briese's comments the Council of Christians and Jews at the Great Synagogue in Sydney: "historians are at a loss to find a direct link between the anti-semitism of Luther's time and that of Hitler's campaign." (Lutheran Forum 34 (2000) no. 2:30.) This one is still not perfect, but better than the Rupp one will be unless I quote about a paragraph. --CTSWyneken 15:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

One more is Uwe Siemon-Netto: "It was the Jews, not the Germans, who suffered the kind of fate Luther predicted for them -- and worse. But does this make him the Nazi's progenitor as his detractors assert? Clearly not." (Lutheran Witness 123 (2004) no. 4:19) --CTSWyneken 16:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the Briese quote is better.

But rather than forcing editors to scour the literature for a balancing quote, wouldn't it be better to remove the Johnson quote? I love Johnson, but does this quote add anything objective? Can one really trace the development of German anti-semitism and the rise of the Nazis along a straight line, starting just with Luther? I doubt it, and I'm no fan of Luther.--Jbull 16:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews and Their Lies Merge Suggestion Discussion Restarted

Dear Friends:

I've suggested on Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews that we reopen the discussion of merging the On the Jews and Their Lies into the Martin Luther and the Jews article. Please drop by and express your opinion. --CTSWyneken 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semetic Doctrine?

The statement "Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines " stuck me as slightly odd. Which of Luther's doctrines is Anti-Semitic? Can we adequately distinguish between which statements Luther intended as discussions of doctrine and those which were obiter dictum, or is such a distinction too nuanced in this context? I wasn't sure if some principle of Luther's theology was thought to be implicated here or if this were a rhetorical flourish. Sumergocognito 08:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Good question. First note that the scholarly community is divided as to whether to call Luther's comments and teachings antisemitic or anti-judaic. Luther's views that only by becoming Christians could a Jew be saved, that their exile and sufferings are a sign that God had rejected them as his people, that their ways of interpreting the Old Testament were false and they were lying because they should know better (For Luther, the Old Testament is all about the Christ) is seen by some as antisemitic. Almost all the Luther scholars I've read see these theological components as attacks on the religion of Judaism and not as attacks on Jews as being biologically Jewish. Many have correctly pointed out that to a Jew having their places of worship destroyed, books seized and burned, and being expelled from a country, it makes little difference as to why these things are done. Most of us who respect the work, theology and thought of Luther agree on that point. Anyway, I would prefer "Anti-Judaic," but do see the phrase anti-Jewish as an accurate enough and neutral enough description of Luther's words and teachings. --CTSWyneken 10:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have to repeat this, but I'd like to reemphasize that "Anti-Judaic" is a synonym for "antisemitic". ML did not go into intricacies of Judaism, all he wanted from Jews was them to disappear - either by religious conversion, restrictions, violence or expulsions. Religious antisemitism is still antisemitism, and to be qualified as such the racial/ethnic/biological component is not required.

An argument keeps creeping up here or in the subarticle that ML's call for getting rid of entire Jewish communities was merely a reaction to some Jewish writings. Even if this was true (proof?), such justification is unacceptable. Otherwise, why not give fake Talmud quotes still spread by antisemites or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Der Sturmer or propaganda by Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines as legitimate justifications for what followed? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate the point you're making and understand why you would come to that conclusion. Please do not mistake the attempt to reflect what scholars of all types say on this subject with support for the positions they take. In wikipedia our task is to reflect what scholars say on the subject. You may be suprised at how much we can agree on this subject.

Also, please note that I have yet to find a scholar writing after the Holocaust (Neo-Nazis and other false scholars aside) that excuses Luther for his vile rhetoric and his advocacy of full scale perscecution of the Jewish people. Luther wished that all of his books be burned, save a handful. In the case of these and all of his polemical books, I agree with him. These scholars are trying to understand how a man who accomplished so many good things could wallow in the worst aspects of his time's hatred of the Jews and employ his considerable gifts to advance such an evil.

As for all the false charges, false documents, slanders and rumors bought by Luther and other Christians of their time -- they should have known better.

So, what can we do? Make sure that the scholarship that struggles to reveal all this and understand it is well represented and that the false rumors, charges, etc. be exposed by what is a considerably more unified scholarly voice. If we do not know how human beings can come to exterminate so many of their fellow human beings, how can we stop it in Africa and other places where it rears its head even today? --CTSWyneken 02:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Intent to add Bliese quote, delete note on "harsh persecution"

Dear Friends:

Since comments have died down on this issue, I intend, sometime tomorrow, to put the following quotation into the Luther and the Jews summary, below the Paul Johnson quote, remove the the footnote on "harsh persecution" which is misleading IMHO and remove the NPOV flag. Any objections?

Australian Lutheran pastor Russell Briese's comments at the Council of Christians and Jews at the Great Synagogue in Sydney: "historians are at a loss to find a direct link between the anti-semitism of Luther's time and that of Hitler's campaign." (Lutheran Forum 34 (2000) no. 2:30.

Quote Inserted, NPOV Flag Removed

I've inserted the quote in the Martin Luther and the Jews section and removed the NPOV flag. --CTSWyneken 16:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Eucharistic views and controversies section

The section "Eucharistic views and controversies" needs some help. Right now it's one very long paragraph, full of detail about many, many other groups. Can it be restructure as an overview that summarizes Luther's position, then some additional paragraphs maybe broken out chronologically or by group? Does anyone want to take a shot at revising this? Johnh 18:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Johnh, or anyone else for the matter, please feel free to break the paragraph up, reword, modernize the language and remove detail. It's cut and pasted from a public domain source just to provide a baseline. We intended to get to that, before the long discussion on the Martin Luther and the Jews began. --CTSWyneken 18:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I did a quick rewrite of this section to get the ball rolling.--Jbull 19:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Keep up the good work. --CTSWyneken 22:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Catagory Anti-Semitic People

This catagory is very much in flux. Looking at the talk page there, it seems that no consensus has been reached as to what the term means as it is used on this catagory's page. If the page is for those who expressed hatred for the Jews and/or recommended persecution of Jews, then Luther clearly fits. If it refers to modern, racial anti-semitism, it does not. As it is, I can go either way personally, because I think it doesn't matter much if someone wants to burn down your house because you are a believer in Judaism, or because you are a descendent of Abraham. He still wants to burn down your house. However, it seems to be the consensus on the catagory's talk page that almost no scholar would dispute that the figure added was anti-semitic. As we have documented here and at Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews and Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies, quite a few scholars dispute that Luther was anti-semitic (because the race factor was not a part of Luther's thought). By that rule, Luther does not belong in that catagory. I'd suggest we either create an Anti-Judaic People catagory or some such thing, or wait for consensus to emerge on the Anti-Semitic People page. --CTSWyneken 12:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Such POV name-calling categories are unencyclopedic, and are used to push POV. Should Jesse Jackson be listed under [[category:racists]] or [[category:extortionists]], and should Jimmy Carter be put under [[category:worst U.S. presidents]]? Should Ramsey Clark be tagged as [[category:subversive people]]? Such classifications are a matter of degree and opinion, and we should not encourage their use. Thus I have removed Luther from such a category listing. --StanZegel (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't care one way or another whether the anti-Semetic category is used here or not. But I think it is somewhat disingenuous to say that Luther objected to the Jews merely because of their religious views. Instead, Luther seems to have bought into the blood libel of medieval Europe, which had nothing to do with Jewish doctrine:

They have been blood thirsty bloodhounds and murderers of all Christendom for more than fourteen hundred years in their intentions, and would undoubtedly prefer to be such with their deeds. Thus they have been accused of poisoning water and wells, of kidnaping children, of piercing them through with an awl, of hacking them in pieces, and in that way secretly cooling their wrath with the blood of Christians, for all of which they have often been condemned to death by fire. And still God refused to lend an ear to the holy penitence of such great saints and dearest children. The unjust God lets such holy people curse (I wanted to say "pray") so vehemently in vain against our Messiah and all Christians. He does not care to see or have anything to do either with them or with their pious conduct, which is so thickly, thickly, heavily, heavily coated with the blood of the Messiah and his Christians. For these Jews are much holier than were those in the Babylonian captivity, who did not curse, who did not secretly shed the blood of children, nor poison the water, but who rather as Jeremiah had instructed them [Jer. 29:7] prayed for their captors, the Babylonians. The reason is that they were not as holy as the present-day Jews, nor did they have such smart rabbis as the present-day Jews have; for Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel were big fools to teach this. They would, I suppose, be torn to shreds by the teeth of today's Jews.

This goes beyond rejection of Jewish religious practices and constitutes actual anti-Semitism.--Jbull 16:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jbull. The Halsall text is infringing of copyright. See discussion on Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews

On the topic itself, there is no question that Luther's rhetoric was vile and unjustifiable and his attempts to persecute the Jews unworthy of his theology, his faith and his God. To me, it really doesn't matter how we label that. But we're supposed to be reflecting scholarship on this subject, not our opinions. Here quite a few scholars find the distinction important. So, the real question is whether the category captures this. --CTSWyneken 19:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken--Thank you for removing the link to infringing material.

By no means do I want to reopen the "Luther and the Jews" issue in general; I think your contributions on that subject have been very reasonable throughout. But as to your reference to scholarship, I would be curious to see what Jewish scholarly opinion is re: the distinction between "anti-Judaism" and anti-Semitism in Luther's writing. Further, I'm not at all sure that a scholar's opinion is needed to evaluate blood libel.--Jbull 19:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Jewish scholars, secular scholars and most non-Luther scholars class Luther's words as anti-semitic. Some Luther scholars, even those of Lutheran faith agree. Some secular scholars and some non-Luther scholars go with the major of Luther scholars (non-Lutheran Christian scholars of Luther as well) as classing Luther's words and actions as anti-Judaic. So, for the purposes of these articles, we need to reflect it.

The reason for the insistence of the "anti-Judaic" school is the evidence that suggests Luther saw the Jews as a part of, from his perspective, a trio of the enemies of salvation by Grace in Jesus alone -- the Pope, the Turks and the Jews. Sometimes he added Anabaptists as well. He let loose with every fiber of his being on all of these, not yielding an inch, including charges like the blood libel that he earlier rejected as uncredible.

As I said earlier, this makes little difference to me. Persecution is persecution no matter what the motive. All are equally detestible. To accept it at the hands of one means to accept it at the hands of others. In the 21st century, no one should accept or tolerate anti-semitism, the arrest and murder of Christian missionaries, suicide bombings in the name of Islam and all manner of mistreatment of people simply because of who their parents are, what they believe. Luther should have know better. --CTSWyneken 19:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything you have said makes sense, and Luther's life was certainly marked by zeal and a certain lack of caution and subtlety, even as his theology of grace was painstakingly worked out and intellectually respectable. I doubt that Luther was, for most of his life, anti-Jewish at all, but once recalcitrant Jews came to his attention, he appears to have lost his sense of proportion. His repetition of blood libel contains no theological criticism; this, to my mind, defeats the anti-Judaic/anti-Semetic dichotomy.--Jbull 21:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Jbull, I agree with your conclusion. IMHO, the 1536 episode with Josel of Rosheim demonstrates ML's antisemitism. I think Oberman is correct. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving Martin Luther and the Jews into Luther's other writings

Is there a good reason for Martin Luther#Martin Luther and the Jews to be the closing section, following after his death? I think it should be moved into Martin Luther#Luther's other writings. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree.--Jbull 23:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should have an "Other Writings" section at all. I had hoped to get to reducing it or eliminating it in the interest of space. But this topic got going in November-December...

We have the Luther and the Jews section where it is at the moment as a part of an evaluation of the influence of Luther. This section itself is incomplete.

Almost all articles on Luther's life, along with most of his biographies, place this subject in a discussion of Luther's polemical writings of his last years. So, I wouldn't mind moving it up just above the section on Luther's death. Does that work? --CTSWyneken 03:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Humus! It looks good. --CTSWyneken 14:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Category Antisemitism (People)

This is not a duplicate category. And it has not already been debated. The only related debate has been on the failed POV claim of another antisemtism category. A key difference is that this category is not a list of Anti-Semitic people. It is a list of people whose works have been influential in the history of Antisemitism even if that was not their intention. It allows the WP user to quickly identify and link to the history of the ideas and people related to Antisemitism. For example, Martin Luther is one of the most widely cited theologians among Nazis to justify their anti-Semitism. Luther was even cited as a defense by Nazis at the Nuremberg trials. Therefore, Luther is important in the history of Antisemitism. This category allows the WP user to track the relationships among the history of ideas and people related to anti-Semitism. Those that claim this is a duplicate category are merely making a straw man arguement to push their own POV.Doright 19:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether Martin Luther was himself an anti-Semite are not relevant to the required determination to be included in this category. Inclusion requires that his works have played a significant role in the history of antisemitism, not that he was an antisemite himself. Please read category definition here [[48]] and its discussion page. Also consider voting to retain this important newly created category.[[49]]Doright 19:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)