Talk:Jesus in the Talmud/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Jesus in the Talmud. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP:WEASEL

This whole article is one giant weasel. There is not a single reference in the entire Talmud which can logically be about J*sus. There is a lot about Yeshu Ha Notzri, a contemporary of Salome Alexandra, but only Chr*stians say that is about their messiah no matter how illogical it may be. If you mean according to Van Voorst then you should say according to Van Voorst but I sincerely doubt that his opinion is noteworthy enough to write an entire article about it. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Confusion

When an editor cits a reference he gives the date of the edition he is using. Please don't change that as it will cause problems. What is appropriate is to add (First published 1881) - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

name of page

since scholars do not agree that "Yeshu" mentioned in the Talmud actually refers to Jesus, should not this page be titled "Yeshu in the Talmud"?--The soft voice of Judaism (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a good question. Most scholars discuss this material in the context of "Does the Talmud mention Jesus"? or "Does the Talmud contain evidence of the historical Jesus"? The name "yeshu" by itself is not notable, and there would be no encyclopedia article about Yeshu if it were not for the (disputed) hypothesis that Yeshu is Jesus. Looking at the scholarly works on this topic (and there are many) nearly all contain the word "Jesus" in their title, and very few focus on the name "Yeshu". Finally, most readers of this English language encyclopedia have no clue what "Yeshu" is, and naming the article "Yeshu in the Talmud" would be misleading and confusing. --Noleander (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. since the related text in the Talmud reads "ישו" (pronounced "Yay Shoo" = "Yeshu") and the page this discussion is listed under is titled in the Talmud, it rings true that the page should be renamed to accurately portray the article's content(which is the occurrence of the name Yeshu in the Talmud). (additionally, the title as is, is misleading in the sense that it portrays the assumtion that jesus and yeshu are one and the same -whereas the matter is one of debate). as to the English speaking user, perhaps a page redirect would suffice?--The soft voice of Judaism (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Yeshu article?

I think there may be a bit of confusion between this article and the Yeshu article. They are both covering nearly the identical ground. Probably a merger would be best for readers and for the encyclopedia. There is some controversy in this topic, because some of the alleged references to Jesus in the Talmud have been used by antisemites to attack Judaism. Perhaps the article name "Yeshu" is preferred by some as a way of de-emphasizing that antisemitism. The article title "Jesus in the Talmud" is probably better than "Yeshu" because it (1) it more accurately describes what the topic is; and (2) there are several academic works with (nearly) that exact same title. There is no book or area of study called "Yeshu". I don't think "Jesus in the Talmud" is, by itself, offensive. The article can and should describe how many of the alleged references are under dispute, and many scholars think that it is not the historical Jesus, etc. That should make the article neutral and balanced. --Noleander (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally disaree. I see little common ground. It would be impossible to merge. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a little more? Maybe you could define what you see as the topic-area of the two articles, and explain how they differ? --Noleander (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way: There is one situation where I can see both articles existing side by side: if the Jesus in the Talmud were the larger article, addressing the question of whether or not Jesus (historical individual, or Christian messiah) were mentioned in the Talmud (including all the scholarly arguments both ways); and then Yeshu article were a smaller article, and simply discussed the etymology of the name, and listed places that the name is used (including non-Talmud situations). --Noleander (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay ... I'm learning more. I see that today, an editor moved the material that was in Yeshu that listed the alleged references to Jesus; and moved that material into this article. Hmm. I guess that is moving in the direction I suggest immediately above (where the Yeshu article focuses on the name, and not so much on Jesus), so it is not too bad. But that still leaves the question: Which article should contain the scholarly debates about whether or not the references are to Jesus or not? --Noleander (talk)

No problem. Compare the references. No overlap. They are two good articles but to try to merge them, would ruin both of them. Put another way: If you asked 100 Biblical scholars what they thought the Wikipesdia article called "Yeshu" was about, how many of them would reply "Oh that is about Jesus in the Talmud". I strongly believe you are opening a can of worms or Pandora's box. This is meant in good faith. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The two articles do have significant overlap at the present time. For example, the section Yeshu#Critical scholarship contains the following text:

Modern liberal scholars debate whether Yeshu does or does not refer to the historical Jesus. Thiessen and Merz draw on Dalman (1893), Maier (1982), and Thoma (1990) in reaching this conclusion.[27] a view seen in several 20th century encyclopedia articles including The Jewish Encyclopedia (1901–1906)[28], Joseph Dan in the Encyclopaedia Judaica (1972, 1997).[29] and the Encyclopedia Hebraica (Israel). The early 20th century Christian historian R. Travers Herford, author of Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (1903) based his work on the understanding that the term refers to Jesus.[15] It was also the understanding of Joseph Klausner,[30] a Jewish scholar of early Christian history. They agree that the accounts offer little independent or accurate historical evidence about Jesus.[31] Herford argues that writers of the Talmud and Tosefta had only vague knowledge of Jesus and embellished the accounts to discredit him while disregarding chronology. Klausner distinguishes between core material in the accounts which he argues are not about Jesus and the references to "Yeshu" which he sees as additions spuriously associating the accounts with Jesus. Recent scholars in the same vein include Peter Schäfer Professor of Judaic Studies at Princeton University[19], Steven Bayme the American Jewish Committee’s director of Contemporary Jewish Life, and Dr. David Kraemer professor of Talmud and rabbinics at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

and one of the key references in Yeshu is Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007. So I think you are overstating the separation between the articles. Perhaps if that "Critical scholarship" section were moved from Yeshu into this article, then the distinction between the two articles would be more in keeping with your goal, but perhaps some other editors should weigh-in. --Noleander (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What is clear is that this is not a very good article. Many of the references to "Jesus" are references to a person in the Talmud who is not Jesus. The following statement: "Many scholars believe the Talmud gives us great insight into the Historical Jesus." is flat out wrong. The Talmud was edited in the 6th century and includes material largely from the third century CE on, it is less contemporary with Jesus than the NT. It was formed during the same time that Christianity formed, and one could argue that some of these stories give insight into what the Rabbis thought about Christianity (as Daniel Boyarin has argued) but that is a different matter. I would propose that this arrticle be deleted. I see little of value in it, whereas the Yeshu article is for the most part very well-researched. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are correct, but the real question here is: Does this encyclopedia present that material in one article? or two? If we use only one article, what should the name of the article be? Using the name "Yeshu" to hold the detailed and extensive debate about Jesus in the Talmud is a bit odd, and confusing to readers (I'm sure 99.99% of readers have absolutely no idea what "Yeshu" is), so I would endorse the name "Jesus in the Talmud" (which is the similar to the name of several scholarly works on the topic). I think a second article on the name "Yeshu" could also be useful, since that name is used outside the Talmud. --Noleander (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Yeshu article is broader in its addressing other Jewish sources. But there is debate over whether Yeshu refers to Jesus. An article called "Jesus in the Talmud" should not be an article on how Jesus is portrayed in the Talmud but rather what were the Rabbis trying to talk about in their stories about Yeshu. I proposed a deletion because I see no material in this article that ought to be merged into the better Yeshu article. if Ret. Prof. thinks this article covers stuff that that article does not, I would appreciate more explanation. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, a merger is a good possibility because the two articles are so much alike. So, assuming for the sake of argument that a merger happens: what should the name of the article be? "Yeshu" or "Jesus in the Talmud"? My contention is that the latter title is better for several reasons: (1) it reflects the wording that several scholarly sources use when discussing the topic; (2) no source talks about "Yeshu" on its own: Yeshu is always discussed within the context of "Does Yeshu refer to Jesus or not?"; (3) the "J in T" title is much more understandable to readers of this English encyclopedia. Granted, there is some non-Talmudic material that is involved in the discussion (Toledot Yeshu, etc), and perhaps that argues in favor of the title "Yeshu", but I don't think that outweighs the arguments in the other direction. The title "Jesus in the Talmud" does not draw any conclusions: it is neutral, and can include "yes it is J" and "no, it is not J" sides of the debate. The alternative: "Debates about Jesus in the Talmud" is a bit weasel-wordy. I suppose a compromise title might be "Jesus in Judaic literature" or a similar, broader title. --Noleander (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: Google-Books stats for <Jesus Talmud> = 257,000 hits; <Yeshu Talmud> = 3,700 hits. Google-Scholar: <Jesus Talmud> = 27,100 hits; <Yeshu Talmud> = 1,340 hits. And the scholarly works on the topic nearly all contain the word "Jesus" in the title, but rarely "Yeshu". --Noleander (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and you are correct. I did a google book search and found that "Jesus in the Talmud" was an important topic in regards to the historical Jesus. Also lots of reliable sources. see Jesus in the Talmud. In any event happy editing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

To help us finalize consensus on these issues, it may be instructive to look at a set of topics that are included in the Yeshu/Jesus/Talmud topic area. (The content, of course, would simply reflect scholarly sources on the topics, I'm not suggesting that editor's personal opinions should be included in the articles):

Character of Yeshu in Talmud & Tosefta: is it Jesus or not? (discuss the many differing scholarly opinions on this)
Yeshu is modern Hebrew word for Jesus
Proper name "Yeshu": examples, etymology, relation to Yeshua, etc.
Are there other individuals named Yeshu that are not Jesus?
Character of Ben Stada in Talmud: is it Jesus or not?
Character of Ben Pandira in Talmud: is it Jesus or not?
Balaam in Talmud: is it Jesus or not?
Is Yeshu an acrostic for "May his name be blotted out"?
Yeshu/Jesus in Toledot Yeshu
Scholarly research into topic: "Does Talmud (and other ancient texts) provide evidence of historical Jesus?": conclusions, trends, books
Changes to Talmud to avoid antisemitic backlash (e.g. was name "Yeshu" changed to Balaam?)
Discussion of how medieval Disputations attacked the Talmud by asserting Yeshu was Jesus
Defense by rabbis in Disputations: asserting that Yeshu was not Jesus
Attacks on Talmud by antisemites, based on alleged insults directed at Jesus
Scholarly hypothesis that Yeshu/Jesus was added to Talmud as an anti-Christian polemic (referencing the messiah, but not a historical individual)
"Ha-Notzri suffix (Nazareth)
Is Miriam (Mary) in the Talmud Jesus' mother?

That is just a partial list (any other editor is welcome to add to it). This list may be useful as we discuss the two key issues: (1) should there be one or two articles? and (2) if a single article: what should its name be? --Noleander (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A very crude analysis of the above 16 topics show that 16/17 address Jesus; 11/17 address the Talmud; and 10/17 address Yeshu. That does suggest that (if a single article were used) "Jesus" should be in the name of the article. Here are some candidate article titles:

Yeshu
Jesus in the Talmud
Jesus and Yeshu in the Talmud
Yeshu and Jesus in the Talmud
Jesus in ancient Judaic texts
Controversies regarding Jesus in the Talmud
Evidence for Jesus in the Talmud
Jesus (Yeshu) in the Talmud [added based on RetProf suggestion]
Yeshu (Jesus) in the Talmud

Just tossing out some ideas. If no title seems good (at representing all the topics in the list above) that may be a sign that we should be considering two articles. --Noleander (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Some good points being raised by all of you. "Jesus in the Talmud" is the way the references most often refer to the topic. The "Jesus in the Talmud" title is much more understandable to English readers. Also the title "Jesus in the Talmud" does not draw any conclusions: it is neutral, and can include "yes it is Jesus" and "no, it is not Jesus" sides of the debate. Having both sides of the debate fairly represented is very, very important. Clarity of prose and references are also important. Having looked at both articles and the arguments presented, here are my candidate article titles:

Jesus in the Talmud
Jesus (Yeshu) in the Talmud

Finally, please look at the bottom of my talk page to see what is my goal. Last but not least, I must say I respect the civil way you are debating a most controversial topic. Although I disagree with the merge, I am a fan of of both of you, ie Noleander&Slrubenstein. All the best - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That latter title you propose "Jesus (Yeshu) in the Talmud" is a possibility ... but I'm wondering if some readers would interpret the parenthetical "(Yeshu)" as asserting that they are conclusively the same individual? So, if both Jesus and Yeshu were in the title, maybe "Jesus and Yeshu in ..." or "Yeshu and Jesus in ..." would be more neutral? --Noleander (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on the above, I'm starting to think that there should be two articles. One for "Jesus in the Talmud"; and one for the proper name "Yeshu". There would be some overlap, but there is no WP policy prohibiting that. Trying to fit all those topics into a single article would be unwieldy, and may just be too controversial. There is much about Yeshu that has nothing to do with Jesus (e.g. etymology, etc); and much about Jesus in the Talmud that has nothing to do with Yeshu (e.g. Miriam, ben Stada, etc). --Noleander (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My feelings exactly. They are two different topics. On goes to understanding the Hebrew word "Yeshu" and the other is whether the Talmud supports the Historicity of Jesus. Ret.Prof (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My vote calls for the page to be titled (interesting as this was not presented as an option above) Yeshu in the Talmud. Logic being that the Talmud presents the name as such, all other option's -in my opinion- will reflect a bias in terms of the debates listed above and on the page itself--The soft voice of Judaism (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

Therefore you are saying that Yeshu=Jesus? - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

In this case googlie hists should be ignored. Jesus in the Talmud hits more because more ggogle users are Christian and care about Jesus. the fact remains that

Yeshu is neither the Hebrew no Aramaic word for Jesus, so it is far from clear this refers to Jesus
"Mattai, Naqqai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah" were not Jesus' disciples, so this must be a reference to a different person than Jesus
No one claims that Jesus' father was Perachya, Sitida, or Pandira, meaning that none of these characters were Jesus

What we have here is crude POV pushing. I know of no respected historian of Jesus who uses the Talmud as a credible historical source on Jesus, and no respected scholar of the Talmud who thinks these stories are about jesus. What has hapened is that Christians quote the Talmud and add the name of Jesus. So poof google searchers show lots of references to Jesus, when in fact there are none, it is a web fabrication.

I agree that this is all POV. Note that it uses sources also used in the Yeshu article and that article is marked "neutrality disputed." But it's not a web fabrication. The main sources are Pranaitis, Laible and Herford all of which I've read. Pranaitis is known for his ignorance on Talmud, which lost a court case a hundred years ago. Laible and Herford make assertions they don't even try to back up, and the backup they do provide is full of fallacies; furthermore not only Talmud but Midrash contradicts them. Any references which rely on these three sources to conclude that Talmud does reference Jesus have to be labeled suspect and that includes Schafer. I held an email exchange with him; he fails to understand the difference between what the text says and the interpretation imposed on it by these authors, and he cites to Laible and Herford so that makes his work unreliable, and I've told him so. This article at a bare minimum has to be marked neutrality disputed just like the Yeshu article. p.s. I read Talmud every day and I accessed the Munich uncensored 1324 Babylonian Talmud which is online in legible page images; the copy of Talmud on the Mechon Mamre site has the entire Munich text except the handwritten marginal notes. If it's not in Mechon Mamre, it's not in there.4.249.63.158 (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

This article should not be merged. The Yeshu article is encyclopedic. Anything in the Yeshu article that is repeated here may be reliable, but everything else here is pretty much OR and extreme POV-pushing by a fringe group with an agenda. NPOV demands that articles not push such povs. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your personal opinions on whether Yeshu=Jesus are not relevant. Scholars have studied it in depth and come to a variety of conclusions. The majority of scholars have concluded that some of the references are to Jesus. This is an English encyclopedia, and the word "Yeshu" is incomprehensible to 99.99% of the readers. All of the scholars that study Yeshu do it for one and only one reason: To ask the question: Does Yeshu refer to Jesus or not? Your reference to "Christians" is troubling: I hope you are not suggesting that these articles can only cite Jewish scholars? I concur that there may be some bias, but it goes both ways: some Christian scholars may wish to find proof of their messiah's historical existence; yet some Jewish scholars may wish to defuse the antisemitism associated with the alleged insults towards Jesus. Some of the references that are studied (Ben stada, Miriam, etc) have nothing to do with the word "Yeshu". You seem to be concerned that including "Jesus" in the title will do something bad ... I'm not sure what it is? Are you concerned that it may spark antisemitism because some of the references to Yeshu are alleged to be insults? If that is your concern (and I cannot tell for certain if it is) you should be aware of WP:Not censored. Of course the Google hits are important statistics: WP policy is to name an article with the name that is most commonly used in the English-speaking community: the Wikipedia:Article titles policy is very clear on that. The scholarly research uses "Jesus" in their book and article titles ten times more than they use "Yeshu", plus "Jesus" is more understandable to users. As a compromise, what do you think of a title that has both, as in"Yeshu and Jesus in ..."? --Noleander (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are some sources on this topic:

Kai Kjaer-Hansen, An Introduction to The Use Of The Names: Joshua, Jeshua, Jesus, Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism, 1992

Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). p. 74-76.

Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007

Jesus Christ in the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and the Liturgy of the Synagogue, by Gustaf Dalman

Jacob Z. Lauterbach, "Jesus in the Talmud” in Rabbinic Essays, Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1951 (

Maier, Johann, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Uberlieferung.

Jesus outside the New Testament, Robert E. Van Voorst

Studying the historical Jesus: evaluations of the state of current research, Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans BRILL, 1998

R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (KTAV), 1975

Frank R. Zindler, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the Quest of the Historical Jesus in Jewish Sources, American Atheist Press, 2003

A Jesus Passage in the Talmud Re-Examined", Samuel Tobias Lachs, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 59, No. 3 (Jan., 1969), pp. 244-247

"The stern master and his wayward disciple: a Jesus story in the Talmud and in Christian hagiography", S Gero - Journal for the study of Judaism in the Persian, 1994, vol. 25, no2, pp. 287-311 (52 ref.), 1994

"Review: Once More: Jesus in the Talmud", David Goldenberg, Reviewed work(s): Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung by Johann Maier, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 73, No. 1 (Jul., 1982), pp. 78-86

From rebel to rabbi: reclaiming Jesus and the making of modern Jewish culture, MB Hoffman - 2007

The historical Jesus in context, AJ Levine, DC Allison, JD Crossan - 2006

Jesus: The Great Debate, Grant R. Jeffrey, Random House, Inc., 1999

Yeshu: Tosefta, Talmud, Toledot Yeshu, Gospel of Barnabas, Apocalypse of Zerubbabel, Jacob the Min, Eliezer Ben Hurcanus, The True Word, Heresy in Judaism, Lambert M. Surhone, Miriam T. Timpledon, Susan F. Marseken, Betascript Publishers, 2009

Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History, David Klinghoffer, Random House, Inc., 2006, p 142

Christianity and the Roman Empire: background texts, Ralph Martin Novak, p 18

Jesus: A Life, A. N. Wilson, W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, pp 76-77

Note: some of the sources above that do not have "Jesus" in the title, but have a page number because on that page the author identified Yeshu with Jesus, and the theme of the book is Jesus/Christianity. These should indicate the trend of how this topic is titled in the academic world. --Noleander (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My point about Christians was ONLY to explain why Jesus gets more hits than yeshu. That was plain in the context of my comment and if it doesn't make sense to you, sorry. As for all these sources, what counts is the quotations from these sources that tell us that Yeshu refers to the historical jesus.

"This is an English encyclopedia, and the word "Yeshu" is incomprehensible to 99.99% of the readers." Big friggin' deal. This is an encyclopedia. If people want to learn about Yeshu, they will have to reaqd an article on Yeshu. If people want to learn about Jesus, they can read about Jesus in that article. to claim we should translate Yeshu as Jesus because Jesus is English and yeshu isn't is the most absurd thing I have ever read here. No major historian considers the Talmud a reliable source on jesus. Provide the quotes from the books you cite where the author comcludes that Yeshu refers to the historical Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Maier for example rejects the identification of Yesu with Jesus. How many of these books have you read? Any? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You are getting confused. The point is NOT whether editors such as you or I believe J=Y, or whether scholars conclude J=Y. The question we are discussing is: what to title the article? I have not read Maier, but the point is his work is titled "Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Uberlieferung" and his title includes "Jesus" not "Yeshu". Same with the vast majority of works on the subject. --Noleander (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't read the books you listed, the list is pointless. I have said repeatedly: delete the article. The view that Yeshu or any of these references in the Talmud refers to the historical Jesus is a fringe position. If you had read these books you would know it. How interesting by the way that you leave off the most important contemporary historians writing on the historical Jesus: Vermez, Sanders, Fredricksen and Ehrman. None of them use the Talmud as a source. It shouldn't surprise anyone that scholars in the 19th century or even early 20th century, still the early years of modern historians looking at Jesus asked whether the Talmud was a reliable historical source. But the consensus is no. When you have had time actually to read a book, tell us what it actually says. Certainly by 1950 the idea that any of these passaes has any reference to the historical Jesus is a fringe view. You would know that .... if you had actually read the books. ince it is a fringe view this article should be deleted. it has nothing of value to merge with the Yeshu article. Anyone who wants to know about what the Talmud says can read that article. We can redirect "Jesus in the Talmud" to that article. That the title is Yeshu, a word that does not google well because it is not an English word, is neither here nor there. It probably is not even a name but an acronym. In any event, it is what the Talmud uses, and there is no convincing evidence, as countless scholars have said, to suggest it refers to the historical Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Good people can often disagree. I will not take offense if you nominate the article for deletion. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

SiRub: I have read many of those sources, and the vast majority of the scholars do assert that at least some of the references are to Jesus (sometimes the historical individual; but more often referring to the messiah in a generic/polemic sense ... you seem to be focusing on the "historical individual" aspect, but as you know, most scholars do assert that Yeshu refers to J as the messiah of Christianity, in the polemic sense). But, again, you are missing the point, which is: what do the sources call this topic? The list of sources above which discuss this topic overwhelmingly use "Jesus" in their title (and "Yeshu" is notably absent from the titles). The Wikipedia:Article titles policy requires that this article use the terminology most commonly used by the scholars/authors. The above list shows that "Jesus in the Talmud" (or a variant) is the most common wording. To support the "Yeshu" title, we'll need 10 or 15 sources (book/article titles) on this topic that include the word "Yeshu" in the title and omit "Jesus". Can you supply such sources? --Noleander (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@Ret. Prof. - this is not "your" article. NO article I ever wrote is "my" article. no article at Wikipedia belongs to anyone. No article has an "author." We are all contributors on a collective project. (But you are of course correct that good editors can often disagree; I don't mean to disparage your efforts to help the encyclopedia)

@Noleander - I am focusing on the "historical Jesus" because when we wish to communicate clearly and accurately, we should be as precise as possible. Do you disagree? In my first or second comment I stated explicitly that many scholars believe these stories are about Chirtianity, i.e. means for rabbis to comment on Christian claims about a Jew who became a messiah or even a deity. Have I ever disputed this? If you want to write an article on how the Rabbis commented on "Christ" in a rhetorical/polemical sense, well, by all means do so but be very clear about this. The mainstream view is that these stories are about a mythical or fictional character through which the Rabbis were commenting on the kinship between Christianity and Judaism as well as the wrongness of Christianity; the view that these are reliable historical sources on the historical Jesus is a fringe view. Any article that does not make this clear to readers is deceiving them. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, also, see the line I added to my original message which I should have put there before. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@Slrubenstein - You are correct: this is not "my" article. No article has an "author." We are all contributors on a collective project. And thanks for the line added to your original message.- Ret.Prof (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@Noleander - You are also correct:

1. References are paramount at Wikipedia:

Google-Books stats for <Jesus Talmud> = 257,000 hits; <Yeshu Talmud> = 3,700 hits.

Google-Scholar stats for <Jesus Talmud> = 27,100 hits; <Yeshu Talmud> = 1,340 hits.

And the scholarly works on the topic nearly all contain the word "Jesus" in the title, but rarely "Yeshu". Google books also has "Jesus in the Talmud" as an important topic in regards to the historical Jesus with lots of reliable sources. see Jesus in the Talmud.

2. Wikipedia:Article titles policy: This requires that this article use the terminology most commonly used by the scholars/authors. The above list shows that "Jesus in the Talmud" (or a variant) is the most common wording. To support the "Yeshu" title, we'll need 10 or 15 sources (book/article titles) on this topic that include the word "Yeshu" in the title and omit "Jesus". The list of sources above which discuss this topic overwhelmingly use "Jesus" in their title (and "Yeshu" is notably absent from the titles).

Also, The title "Jesus in the Talmud" does not draw any conclusions: it is neutral, and can include "yes, it is Jesus" and "no, it is not Jesus" or "maybe".

3. Wikipeda: English Language policy: Most English language users refer to Jesus as Jesus not "Yeshu" or Christus etc. Indeed the argument can be made that Yeshu and Jesus are not the same. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@The soft voice of Judaism - You are also correct. I think we all appreciate the effort you are putting in to ensure this article reflects all the scholarship and is NPOV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

SiRub: Okay, so it sounds like there was a bit of a miscommunication: you were focusing on the historical individual of Jesus, and I was thinking of Jesus as the figurative messiah of Christianity. So what you are saying is that you would be comfortable with two articles: one on "Yeshu", and a second on how ancient Judaic texts such as the Talmud sometimes contained polemic material about Christianity? What names would you suggest for the latter article? Maybe Christianity in the Talmud? Or Anti-Christian polemics in the Talmud? --Noleander (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we agree almost completely on this, I am glad that we are clearing up the miscommunication. I think that the Talmud contains much material that is polemical against Christianity (as they knew it, remember the Rabbis had virtually no direct contact with Christians) ... not all of it is entirely critical of Christians though. Noleander, I know you have already done a lot of research on this but if you do not mind I would assk - really (but personally) urge - you to read one more book before deciding how to handle this: Daniel Boyarin's Dying For God. Boyarin is a Talmud professor at UC Berkeley - he is one of the really cutting edge (non-Orthodox) Talmud scholars today, and his work benefits from the grounbreaking historical research of Jacob Neusner and Neusner's students - in critical (i.e. non-Orthodox) Talmud scholarship there are a couple of real crucial moments and Neusner was one of them - there is just no comparison in historical integrity and sophistication between work before Saul Leiberman, David Halivni Weiss, and Neusner, and work after them. Dying for God is all about Rabbinic views of Christians and Christianity and the scholarship is impeccable. I do not have time to add content from it and I read it many years ago, but if this topic matters to you you will want to read this book before further editing this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the book suggestion. I'll head down to the library later this week and request it on inter-library loan and read it before doing any editing. Regarding the title of this (polemic/Christianity) article, what is your opinion of "Jesus in the Talmud" vs "Christianity in the Talmud" vs "Anti-Christian Polemics in early Judaic literature" vs "Christianity in texts of Judaism" vs " .... ? --Noleander (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would not limit it to the Talmud, which is a very complex sixty-three volume work composed over hundreds of years by hundreds of authors. It's like "Christianity in Wikipedia." What I would favor is a historical approach. Historians of the Jews distinguish between the history of Israel (up to the exile); the Second Temple Period, which itself can be broken down to the Babylonian exile and then the Hellenistic periods; the Rabbinic period (200-600); the Middle Ages, Modernity. I think that relations between Jews and Christians during the Second Temple/Hellenistic period are very different from later relations, because Christianity began as a Jewish sect and had not fully broken from Judaism. It seems to me that the sensible thing - in terms of Jewish historiography - is an article on relations between Jews and Christians during the Rabbinic Period. Yes, the Talmud would be the principle source for this, but it would discourage original research on a primary source and encourage people to read more history books from the period. That is how I would approach it. A complementary article might be Jewish-Christian relations at the time of the Church Fathers, or whatever article might encompas the views Christians had of Jews and Judaism after the Nicene Creed but before Charlemagne (or the 7th Ecumenical Council - whatever marks an important historical break in the degree of contact and equality/inequality between Jews and Christians or in the development of Christianity), for example. Anyway, these are the lines I would take. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

When good people disagree

First let me say that I think both of you are great editors. I have listened to your arguments with an open mind but I have not been convinced.

@Slrubenstein states, "I would propose that this article be deleted. I see little of value in it, whereas the Yeshu article is for the most part very well-researched." Also "I proposed a deletion because I see no material in this article that ought to be merged into the better Yeshu article"

@Noleander's position is in favor of a merge.

@Ret.Prof. My position is a Strong Keep. It is strong because I believe the References demand it. References are paramount at Wikipedia: Google-Books stats for <Jesus Talmud> = 257,000 hits; <Yeshu Talmud> = 3,700 hits. Google-Scholar stats for <Jesus Talmud> = 27,100 hits; <Yeshu Talmud> = 1,340 hits. And the scholarly works on the topic nearly all contain the word "Jesus" in the title, but rarely "Yeshu". Google books also has "Jesus in the Talmud" as an important topic in regards to the historical Jesus with lots of reliable sources. see Jesus in the Talmud

The fact is that we are deadlocked. Also, I think the issues are important enough that we need to seek consensus from the wider community. Therefore the proper way to proceed is AfD. Respectfully - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: my position was not "in favor of merge". What I said was that the two articles have a lot of overlap, and could be merged, and (if a different set of editors were looking at this) they may come to a merge conclusion. But I also said that two different articles could be sensible: one on the proper name "Yeshu", and one on how ancient Judaic texts (primarily the Talmud) treated Christianity/Jesus/the Messiah (often in a polemic manner). Those two articles would perhaps have some overlap, but are not identical. For instance, the latter article may include material outside the Talmud; and it may include material on Mary/Miriam ... just to give two examples. Anyway, I see no reason to do an AfD. I think a better solution is for interested editors to do more research on the latter topic, and gradually start to flesh out this article (by the way, although not a requirement, it is best if every single sentence has a footnote, citing an academic source). As the research proceeds, the best title for this article will naturally emerge. --Noleander (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You have won me over. I agree that the solution is for interested editors to do more research on the latter topic, and gradually start to flesh out this article. Your suggestion that ever single sentence has a footnote, citing an academic source is brilliant (but a lot of work). I also agree that as the research proceeds, the best title for this article will naturally emerge. Some of my sources are by way of inter library loan, therefore, I hope you will be patient. Also it is important that we try to read each others references in an attempt to find the common ground. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I repeat that the number of google hits are not useful here. Nor is a simple list of books that have the words "Jesus in the Talmud" or some varient in them. What matters is what those books say. A hundred books that look at Jesus in the talmud and conclude that the Talmud is not a reliable source for learning anything about the historical Jesus, for example, or a hundred books that look at Jesus in the Talmud and conclude that these stories probably do not even refer to the being known to Christians as Jesus (i.e. Christ), would not support such an article.

I am not saying that there should NOT be an article - I agree with ret. Prof. that what matters is the sources. When I said I thought this article should be deleted, I meant this article as it currently stands, because anything close to genuine scholarship is already in the yshu article, and a simple redirect would handle people who are familiar with Jesus but not Yeshu (we do redirects like this all the time). However, if enough works of scholarship justify an article on Jesus in the Talmud, so be it. But I continue to insist that you will not proove this via google hits or a simple list of titles of books, no matter how long the list. We need to know what the views of the authors of those books are, and what weight those views are given by contemporary scholars. Then we can decide whether an article is justified.

And as I suggested above, if an article is justified, I think it should have a different title 9(see above). Ret. Prof., your comment comes right after my 18:21, 7 October 2010 comment. Why are you not convinced by my 18:21, 7 October 2010 comment (which by the way is open to alternatives)?Slrubenstein | Talk 16:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems quite clear to me that the Yeshu article is the only one in which most of this material really belongs; any of the rest would like simply be summarized in Historicity of Jesus#The Talmud. The alleged historical references in Jewish texts to Yeshu, who may or may not be Jesus of Nazareth, encompass much more than the Talmud - indeed, a large majority of these references are from outside the Talmud. In addition, the title "Jesus in the Talmud" pre-supposes that the references in the Talmud are in fact references to Jesus, which is an inherent WP:NPOV violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You may want to read the Talk page discussion above and catch-up. First, there is a huge amount of scholarly material that discusses the fact that many of the references to Ben Stada/Yeshu/Miriam were generic references to the messiah of Christianity inserted as part of an inter-sect polemic (this is distinct from the topic of whether the Talmud refers to Jesus as a historical individual): the goal is to make this article summarize that "Jesus in talmud as a polemic" information (which does not yet appear anywhere in WP); (2) "Yeshu" wouldn't contain any information about Ben Stada or Miriam (or if it does, it should be renamed); (3) if you refer to article Antisemitism in the New Testament you'll see a comparable topic, and how it is covered (4) the Yeshu article is ostensibly a content-fork from the section Historicity of Jesus#The Talmud, yet the name "Yeshu" bears no resemblance to that parent section/article's name; (5) the article name "Yeshu" is meaningless to 99.99% of English WP readers and seems to have been deliberately picked to obfuscate the topic. (6) the article name "Jesus in the Talmud" is no more POV than any other intersection article, WP policy does not require qualifying words like "Allegations that Jesus appears in the Talmud" or "Scholarly claims that Jesus is in the Talmud"; (7) All scholarly study of the name "Yeshu" studies it in relation to Jesus - the absence of the word "Jesus" in the title is misleading. --Noleander (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I already read the material above, and my comment was a response to that. The fact that some scholars argue that the Ben Stada/Yeshu stories are generic anti-Christian-messiah polemics is not particularly relevant to my statement, since others insist they are unrelated to Jesus or Christiniaty. It's a basic violation of NPOV to create articles that pre-suppose an identity or relationship (i.e. "Jesus in talmud as a polemic") when that is not agreed to by scholars. And, considering the huge size of the Talmud and the thousands of obscure stories in it, it's also a WP:UNDUE issue. Wikipedia is not a specialist encyclopedia on the Talmud or Aggadah, it's a general encyclopedia. The Yeshu article is not a "content-fork" of anything, and hand-waving statistics about what is "meaningless to 99.99% of English WP readers" and bad faith comments about the name being "deliberately picked to obfuscate the topic" are the kind of statements that are in appropriate and not arguments, and which will undoubtedly never be repeated on Wikipedia by any editor familiar with WP:TALK and WP:AGF. I will add that the fact that the term "Yeshu" gets almost 20,000 Google Books hits means that it is in no way obscure. And if an article on "Yeshu" should not contain any material on Ben Stada or Miriam, then obviously an article on "Jesus in the Talmud" should not either. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to read some of the sources. The overwhelming number of scholars do assert that the various references in the Talmud do relate to Christianity (usually as a polemic) or Jesus (historical individual or messiah); and the vast majority of academic sources include the word "Jesus" in their title (I have only found a single source that includes "Yeshu" but not "Jesus"; but even if more were found, it would still be a small minority). In any case, since you say that "Yeshu" is not a content fork of the of the Historicity of Jesus#The Talmud, then we are in agreement, and this article can be such a content fork. There are dozens and dozens of sources on the topic (almost all with the word "Jesus" in the title), and that small section in Historicity of Jesus cannot possibly summarize their contents. There are editors working on this article, and they are just starting to dig into the sources, so we should wait and see what they come up with. --Noleander (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read the sources, and I think you need to stop making pejorative assertions about individuals, and start addressing arguments instead.
Wikipedia should not have any "content forks"; do you mean a sub-article? If so, that is quite a different thing.
An article about "anti-Christian polemics in the Talmud" would not be an article about "Jesus in the Talmud"; these are also different topics, though they might overlap in places.
The "editors working on this article" who "are just starting to dig into the sources" have been at it for 5 weeks now, and so far the large majority of the material in this article is merely copied directly (and in violation of the GFDL) from the Yeshu article. The rest is indeed a poorly-written POV-fork of the Yeshu article.
The "Yeshu is too obscure a term" argument has been refuted by the 20,000 Gbook hits.
The problem of the title failing WP:NPOV has not been addressed.
The problem of the material itself violating WP:UNDUE has not been addressed. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, I think you are profoundly misreading Jayjg, or misconstruing WP policy. no one contests the fact that several scholars hold this view. The point remains: that these stories revfer to Jesus rather than someone else is a view and not "the truth." Since they are one view among others, other views must be included. But then to give the artiicle the title that suggests that the article is about Jesus in the Talmud, is to take ONE view and make it the only view, or privileged view, or to treat it as truth rather than as a view, and this violates NPOV. It is simple: YES we include this view (so you do not have to keep arguing that there are lots of sources) but NO we cannot treat the view as truth. It does not matter how many google hits there are, or that more people know about Jesus than about Yeshu - I already explained, since more people are Christians than Jews, it is a no-brainer that more people have heard of Jesus than of Yeshu. And I do not blame Christians for being interested in the Talmud or asking if Yeshu = Jesus ... so of course there will be lots of google hits. Nevertheless, this remains a view and not the truth' and the title of the article cannot favor one view over another. period. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I must say that you were a bit harsh with Noleander. If you look at the references re "Jesus in the Talmud" they break down as follows:

"Jesus in the Talmud" means "Jesus is in the Talmud"
"Jesus in the Talmud" means "Jesus is not in the Talmud"
"Jesus in the Talmud" means "Jesus may be in the Talmud"

Yet I do disagree with one statement however, "The article name "Yeshu" is meaningless to 99.99% of English WP readers and seems to have been deliberately picked to obfuscate the topic". It is only meaningless to those searching for information on Jesus in the Talmud.

However I do agree with his suggestion on how to proceed. The solution is for interested editors to do more research on the topic, and gradually start to flesh out this article. Every single sentence needs a footnote, citing an academic source. I also agree that as the research proceeds, the best title for this article will naturally emerge. Also, it is important that we try to read each others references in an attempt to find the common ground. I am planning to edit using the sources mentioned below and would appreciate your input. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a better solution: just have "Jesus in the Talmud" redirect to Yeshu. People interested in Jesus in the Talmud who do not yet know about Yeshu would then be directed to the article that discusses all the passages that scholars say (1) is Jesus, (2) may be Jesus, (3) is not Jesus, in an article whose title is entirely agnostic on the matter. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the title "Yeshu" is way too misleading for a single article on that broad topic; and no sources on the topic are named "Yeshu"; and virtually no one understands what "Yeshu" means; and the parent article is titled "Historicity of Jesus"; and there is a similar article Antisemitism in the New Testament which is titled in plain English. Also, it is not accurate to reduce the topic to "Does Yeshu refer to Jesus or not?" because that excludes the material about "Do references to yeshu/miriam/benStada/etc refer to Christianity and its messiah". Repeatedly reframing the topic as limited to the "historical indivdual" is very misleading. I will ask for the tenth time: Name some sources that discuss "Yeshu" without referring to Jesus/Christianity. Answer: there are none, therefore the article title (if there were a single article) should reflect that connection. Or, we could have two articles: one on the proper name "Yeshu", and one on "Jesus/Christianity in the Talmud (in a polemic or historical sense)". --Noleander (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You are missing my point. If youwant to write an article on Jesus, fine. But if you want to write an article on the Talmud, you face this problem: the name Jesus does not appear in any language in the Talmud.

You think I am fixated on the historical Jesus. I am not; you must be misunderstanding me. You suggest that you want an article on a "broad" (your word) topic and I do not object to that. In fact, I have suggested alternative titles for the "broad" topic you seem to wish to address. I offered them as compromises but you just seemed to ignore them, without even trying to offer a compromise of your own. I suggest Jewish views of Christianity during the Rabbinic Period (with the possibility of a complementary article, Christian views of Judaism during the period of the Church Fathers or Christian views of Judaism from the Nicene Creed to the Seventh Ecumenical Council). I wouldn't object to Jewish-Christian relations during the Rabbinic Period although some might consider that Jewish-centric (but then again, so is anything focusing on the Talmud ... but you said you want something "broad" and this is broader than the title of this article, yet seems to get at what you are interested in. I do not see why you have no interest in a compromise.) Slrubenstein | Talk 14:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I lost track of the discussion on alternative titles. To be clear: I am not insisting on "Jesus in the Talmud" as a title. And I am a big proponent of compromise. In fact, I proposed several alternative titles above including Christianity in the Talmud, Anti-Christian polemics in the Talmud, Anti-Christian Polemics in early Judaic literature, and Christianity in texts of Judaism. And also, I recommended the title Antisemitism in the New Testament as a model. Looking back, you were receptive to alternative titles, but somehow we got diverted into other issues. So, lets start a new section with some candidate titles: --Noleander (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this comment and the range of possible titles below are a big step forward. I have one comment. I sense a desire for an article that complements or balances the article on antisemitism in the NT, that an article on Rabbinic polemics against Christianity would be complementary. I do not think though that these topics are truly symmetrical. Here is why: As Jews see it, Christianity (certainly up until the 1960s when different Churches revised their positions) is premised on a complete rejection of Judaism (by which i mean the religion of the Jews - I am not trying to get into an argument over what is the correct interpretation of Isaiah). So Jews are pretty much left with little choice but to reject Christianity completely. Note: i am not talking about Christian anti-Semitism. Theree are debates about what parts of early Christianity would later fuel or justify anti-Semitism, and most Jewish scholars consider some passages of the NT to be anti-Semitic, period, but most of these scholars distinguish between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. Rabbinic polemics against Christianity do not really parallel anti-Semitism in the NT, they parallel Paul's epistles in which he rejects Pharisaic beliefs, and in which he rejects the pharisaic interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. Paul was arguing against the Pharisees, and the Rabbis are arguing against Paul and his followers, in most Rabbinic (and medeival) polemics against Christianity. That would be symmetrical. But personally I see it as pointless - we do not have an article on the Pauline critique of Judaism because the contents would be so close to the contents of articles on Christian belief. And if you ask any Jew what s/he thinks of Pauline Christianity, there is not much more to say besides "it is wrong."

I would propose two things, if you really want to cover these issues in an encyclopedic way. First, beef up articles on very specific debates. Tortosa Disputation is an example - do more research and really lay out the Christian and Jewish arguments in detail, if you really want to get at the meat of the polemics. A series of articles on specific debates or specific books with single authors who are explicitly presenting a polemic (like the Kuzari) is in my opinion the best way for Wikipedia to cover jewish polemics against Christianity. take these articles that already exist and beef them up, and write new articles on similar works.

But once you move beyond specific books and debates, to "rabbinic" or "the Talmud," I think it is a very bad idea to focus on polemics against Christianity. I do not think one article on "Rabbinic polemics" could cover it and do any justice to the topic since there is so much ground to cover and polemics developed over a period of time through specific actual debates. And certainly, an article just on the Talmud would I think be very hard to handle encyclopedically since the talmud is such a complex text and it is not a work of systematic theology and it does not have one coherent unified view of Yeshu, Jesus, or Christianity. All secondary sources on the topic are either highly synthetic and consequently somewhat speculative, which does NOT mean they are unimportant (indeed this is what makes them interesting) it just means that they are very much the author's own interpretation of a reconstruction ... other works instead of trying to synthesize a coherent position (i.e. a position you could call a "polemic against") explore the multiple interpretations of any passage and explain the complexities of the text - this is the most sound scholarship on the Talmud but it goes in a different direction than "what is the Rabbinic view of Christianity?" The short answer is that "it is wrong" but if you want to know the Talmud's view of Christianity you are really asking what is the view of hundreds of different Rabbis who lived over the course of three or four centuries and whose views are never recorded in their entirety.

If you want the article to be about "the Rabbinic view" or "the Talmudic view" (which as I said is really the view of hundreds of different people over hundreds of different years) i think the only way to go is something more open, like "Rabbinic views of Christianity" because this title allows for views that are not purely negative or polemical, which is the only way to represent the Talmud in an NPOV and accurate way. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Candidate titles

Here are some candidate titles:

And, for reference, complementary articles:

Looking at these, are there any that jump out as complementary to Yeshu? Specifically, what title would best describe (1) the sources that talk about the inter-sect rivalry, and how polemics found their way into religious documents; and (2) the sources that discuss the search for historical evidence of Jesus (quite possibly a failed search) in early Judaic documents? --Noleander (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comment in the above section timestamp 14:37, 13 October 2010. In short: articles on anti-Christian polemics need to be very careful if they are to be encyclopedic. Instead of trying to reconstruct or synthesize the views of hundreds of different people living over hundreds of centuries - and I know some smart people have tried to do this - if you want WP to cover polemics accurately and in an encyclopedic way I would take articles on actual specific and expicit polemics, like Tortosa Disputation and Kuzari, and expand these articles with much more detail as well as how historians analyze these texts/events. If however you want to write an encyclopedic article on the Talmudic ro Rabbinic view, it has to be views, and they will not just be polemical, or there are texts that some people will claim are polemics and others will argue are not, so such an article would have to be more open (e.g. just "Rabbinic views" rather than Rabbinic polemics) to be NPOV and encyclopedic. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In that regard: What do you think of using Antisemitism in the New Testament as a model? I see you have edited it several times, and it has been around for many years. --Noleander (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a bad model, and that is what I was trying to explain in the section preceding this one. Polemics against Christianity cannot be compared to anti-Semitism. There may well be Jews who hate Christian in a way that anti-Semites hate Jews, but polemics against Christianity are theological debates. None of those polemics against Christianity try to justify killing Christians, or converting Christians to Judaism, or suggest that Christians will go to Hell. Polemics against Christianity are generally counter arguments against Christian arguments that Judaism is wrong, that Jews are going to Hell, that Jews should convert to Christianity. I do not see how you could compare Rabbinic polemics against Christianity to Christian anti-Semitism. I can distinguish between Christian anti-Semitism and Christian anti-Judaism - can't you? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, that article, in the lead, says that there is a trend to redefine that topic as "anti-Judaism" ... in fact, several of the sources in that article have "anti-Judaism" in their titles. So the sources don't seem to make that distinction when it comes to the New Testament topic. In any case, the point is that there is an article, that you have edited, that focuses on a single religious text and its negative attitudes. Would you suggest that that article be re-scoped to include positive attitudes as well? and to include other texts as well? --Noleander (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you claiming that all of Paul's arguments for Christianity are anti-Semitic? i ask, because the antiSemitism in the NT article does not. The NT is filled with polemics against the Pharisees and the Rabbis. Most of these are not viewed by most scholars as anti-Semitic, so they are not in the anti-Semitism article. Christians make may arguments against Judaism which are not antisemitic. I repeat; Rabbinic polemics against Christianity do not say Christians will go to hell or should convert to Judaism. If you cannot tell the difference between a theoligical debate and anti-semisism, I don't know where to begn with you. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I cannot parse what you are saying. Anyway, back to the title issue for the Talmud/Christianity/Jesus article: what title would you suggest for the hypothetical article we are discussing, as you conceive it? --Noleander (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And I do not understand how anyone could equate Rabbinic polemics against Christianity with anti-Semitism. And you haven't answered my request for an explanation.

Titles: I have suggested several already. Are you trying to bait me? Just read the suggestions I already proposed. I am not going to repeat myself. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind repeating your "request for explanation"? I re-read the text above, and cannot find the specific question you are referring to (sorry to be so dense!). As for the candidate titles, it looks like we have a good list. Since you don't have one specific title you think is best, I suppose the next step is to go through the sources and see what their key themes are. Collating those themes should help determine which of the candidate titles are best. We should also review the Historicity of Jesus and Judaism's view of Jesus articles, and see what terminology they use in their text and section names, so we can be consistent, since the new article(s) will inevitably be sub-articles of one or both of those. --Noleander (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I was requesting an explanation for why you would equate Rabbinic polemics against Christianity with anti-Semitism in the New testament. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

My explanation is manifold: (1) The Antisemitism in the New Testament article itself (and the sources it relies upon) assert that the negative assertions of the New Testament may be anti-Judaism polemics, rather than (or in addition to) anti-semitism; (2) Some sources have described the two-way criticisms that the two branches of Judaism (Judaism and Christianity) levied at each other during the first few centuries after Jesus, and how those polemics found their way into their texts such as the Talmud and New Testament; (3) Some sources suggest that the criticism in the New Testament was not levied at Jews as a culture or ethnicity, but rather at Judaism as a rival sect ("my faith is better than your faith", etc) ; (4) Even assuming that there is no correlation whatsoever between the polemics & antisemitism, the Antisemitism in the New Testament article still is a good model for this article because it is an article about the negative views expressed in an ancient religious text towards something (in one case: The New Testament's negative views towards Jews/Judaism; in the other case: The Talmud's negative views towards Christianity and its messiah). --Noleander (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is: Christianity came into existence through a repudiation of Judaism. Judaism did not come into existence through a repudaiation of Christianity. So the relationship is asymmetrical and one should not always expect good parallels. Moreover, the Church had power over Jews after Constantine and many Jews and some important historians think that the anti-Semitic parts of the NT were put into the Gospels after Christians began seeking alliances with Rome. According to the leading scholarship in anthropology and sociology, racism typically develops when one group has power over another. After 135, Christians were way more popular with Romans than Jews were, so the development of anti-Semitism during that period shouldn't be such a big surprise. Jews have been out of power for a long time. Now that Jews have their own state, and power, again, we could predict that racism would develop (and it is happening but directed more at "arabs" than at "christians."

That said you are quite right that there are anti-Christian polemics in Jewish history. But I have repeatedly pointed out that the talmud is not a good source for them. Christians historically have made the talmud an object of study, critique, sometimes desecration, because it is along with the Tanakh the most sacred work of Judaism and if one wants to attack Judaism one attacks the Talmud. But if you want to know what rabbis and sages thought of Christianity (or Jesus) the talmud is not a good source. Most of it was written in Babylon, where there were very few Christians (and most of them were Nestorians), and the Christians in the Empire were concentrated in the West, whereas the major Talmudic academies were in the east, so there was not a great deal of contact. Finally whatever the Rabbis knew of Christianity was largely Nestorian Christianity, which I think rejects the Virgin Birth though I admit I am not an expert on this) - more significantly, THE religion the Rabbis had to grapple with, think about, argue against was not Christianity but Zoroastrianism, the dominant religion of the time.

I am getting mixed signals from you and other editors here. if you want a general article on Jewish-Christian relations during a certain historical period I have no objection to that but this article is a lousy attempt at that with a lousy title.

On the other hand, I get the sense that some of you want an article on Jewish polemics against Christianity. I have no objection to that, but for reasons i just spelled out the Talmud is not the place to go if you really want to learn about this. it doesn't matter how many Christians have tried to discern something by reading the Talmud. i am a well-=educated and informed editor and I am just telling you: it is not the right place to go if you are looking for polemics. If you are looking for polemics the single most important one is Judah ha Levi's Kuzari. Also, during the Middle Ages the Church sometimes sponsored debates between Church leaders and Jewish leaders and here is another place you will find explicit, detailed, anti-Christian polemics, one of the most famous is the Tortosa Disputation. Now, neither of these articles go into a hell of a lot of detail, and neither of them really explore the scholarship on the book/these events. So I would tell any editor who thinks that Jewish anti-Christian polemics are under-represented at Wikipedia: here are two articles that are really in need of improvements and would enable readers to know exactly what leading Jewish authorities thought of Christianity. In the case of the disputations we can provide both sides of the debate. The Tortosa is the most famous but there are a few others. Jews still study the Kuzari in Jewish philosophy classes. No Jewish historian today denies the importance of the disputations. So, these would be the appropriate articles for explicating Jewish anti-Christian polemics. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary: AfD?

First let me say again that I think all of you are great editors.

@Slrubenstein states, "I would propose that this article be deleted. I see little of value in it, whereas the Yeshu article is for the most part very well-researched." Also "I proposed a deletion because I see no material in this article that ought to be merged into the better Yeshu article"

@Noleander's states, Just to clarify: my position was not "in favor of merge". What I said was that the two articles have a lot of overlap, and could be merged, and (if a different set of editors were looking at this) they may come to a merge conclusion. But I also said that two different articles could be sensible: one on the proper name "Yeshu", and one on how ancient Judaic texts (primarily the Talmud) treated Christianity/Jesus/the Messiah (often in a polemic manner). Those two articles would perhaps have some overlap, but are not identical. For instance, the latter article may include material outside the Talmud; and it may include material on Mary/Miriam ... just to give two examples. Anyway, I see no reason to do an AfD. I think a better solution is for interested editors to do more research on the latter topic, and gradually start to flesh out this article (by the way, although not a requirement, it is best if every single sentence has a footnote, citing an academic source). As the research proceeds, the best title for this article will naturally emerge.

@Ret.Prof. My position is a Strong Keep. It is strong because I believe the References demand it. References are paramount at Wikipedia: Google-Books stats for <Jesus Talmud> = 257,000 hits; <Yeshu Talmud> = 3,700 hits. Google-Scholar stats for <Jesus Talmud> = 27,100 hits; <Yeshu Talmud> = 1,340 hits. And the scholarly works on the topic nearly all contain the word "Jesus" in the title, but rarely "Yeshu". Google books also has "Jesus in the Talmud" as an important topic in regards to the historical Jesus with lots of reliable sources. see Jesus in the Talmud

The fact is that we are deadlocked. Also, I think the issues are important enough that we need to seek consensus from the wider community. Therefore the proper way to proceed is AfD. Respectfully - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is deadlock. I think that interested editors need to continue the research (I have two books on inter-librarry loan request now, recommended by SiRub). It will take me at least a month to digest the material and come back with detailed suggestions (and it sounds like you are also in the middle of some research). An AfD would be disruptive. An alternative is the WP:Request for comment process which is simpler and less draconian. Better is just to wait a month or two and see what the research turns up. --Noleander (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We are only deadlocked as long as you claim that we either keep this title or delete the article. I have suggested other possibilities, including different titles for a broader coverage of the theme. We might not be deadlocied if you were willing to compromise. See my comment just made, above. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Jumping in a bit late here but I would go with Slrubensteins fisrt suggestion at the top that the article should be deleted, the Yeshu article covers the subject very well and from a neutral POV taking into account Christian interpretation of the evidence, traditional Jewish commentary, modern liberal religious studies and skeptical science writers. This article comes across as a POV fork. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. However good people can and do disagree. Would you be kind enough to do the "honors" and nominate this article for deletion? I believe the time has come. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC) PS I also strongly believe that in a fair AfD that the result will be Keep. But I am a good Wikipedian and will accept consensus even when it goes against what I think is right.

WP suffers from too much drama sometimes (well, all the time :-). I suggest that we hold-off on an AfD since there is still substantive discussion underway. If we need input from "fresh eyes" a WP:RFC is a good option. --Noleander (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. . . and I should wait for my books to arrive. It would be great if we could think outside the box and find a solution. For me, the central issue regarding title, is access. In other words, if person wants to find out what the Talmud says about Jesus (if anything), will our title lead him to the article? In any event ~~the Talmud wasn't written in~~ Rome wasn't built in a day. Going slow and being reasonable will never harm Wikipedia. All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

For me the central issue is neutrality which means taking into consideration what traditional Jewish scholarship says and what skeptical science writers have to say, not only the views of the Church and modern liberal theology scholars (who typically just repeat the Church view in more polite terms). Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That is no problem for me. Actually traditional Jewish scholarship & ~~skeptical science~~ critical writers have very, very strong positions. ~~I would say there is about a 70% probability they are right.~~ The way I would write a NPOV article is:

Fully and fairly present the scholarship of "the Church and modern liberal theology scholars (who typically just repeat the Church view in more polite terms)" but fully referenced.
Then present why "traditional Jewish scholarship & ~~the skeptical science~~ critical scholars" believes this position is is not supported by the evidence.
Any other referenced scholarship should be added.
Try to find sources that fairly present all views. Take a broader, fuller view.

I believe when editing Wikipedia, that we must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions. The best editors are those who are so very unbiased in their writing that it is hard to tell what their POV is on a particular topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ret. Prof, i do not think the way you are phrasing this is constructive. I do not know if this is just what I perceive to be sloppy phrasing, or a substantive difference. First of all, there is no point in any discussion about what percentage of any position is "right." Wikipedia is not about truth or being right, and in my experience even wondering who is "right" leads to unconstructive if not disruptive edits, or just wasted talk. Secondly, you seem to assume that "traditional Jewish scholarship & the skeptical science" believe that this position is not supported by the evidence. First of all, Jewish scholarship and skeptical (or critical) scholarship often disagree. Secondly, skeptical or critical scholars often disagree, and religious scholars often disagree. If you want to make a list of all the peopel you have read who reject a particular position, fine. But it sounds like you are categorically assuming that these two groups of scholars agree with one anothe and disagree with Christian scholars and we should not be making that assumption. Third, Neutral Point of vView is achieved by bringing in all views. It does not assume that there are just two views, for and against. Finaly, some of the source smay be neither for nor against "this position" you are thinking of. To classify views as being against a certain position already biases the article and violates NPOV because that position defines the article. My point is, if there is a passage of the Tklamud that some people say is about Jesus, and other scholars say it is not about Jesus, I do not think it serves NPOV simply to say that those scholars say it is not about Jesus. We have to say what they do think it is about.

If you think my last point would lead to an article going in too many directions, they I would say, get away from an article on the question "Are these stories about Jesus?" That is a leading question. A truly neutral question would be "what are these stories about?" This is why I, Jayjg and KG have all questioned the neutrality of this article - its title and current state. I think Noleander's approach, to take a broader view, is far more constructive. If the question is, "How did the Rabbis view Christianity," well, maybe that is not the way to phrase the title of an article but it is a neutral question. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read what you said and reflected upon it. I have moderated my position accordingly. (See above.) I do not think we are that far apart and I agree Noleander's approach, to take a broader view, is far more constructive. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead Paragr suggestions

Ret Prof: You've got some good sources there, in the lead paragraph. They way you are providing sources (footnotes) for each sentence is a good way to go: not only is it informative for readers, but it helps dampen debates on the Talk page. If I can make a suggestion (based on the conversations above in the Talk page): It looks like this article, eventually, will cover a few topics, such as (1) Scholars discussing how some Talmudic authorities were somewhat hostile to the Christian "offshoot sect" in 200 CE -> 700 CE, and how they may have (say scholars) incorporated "anti Christian" polemics into their works, such as the Talmud; (2) How some scholars, particularly Christian scholars, have attempted to find proof of historical Jesus's existence, via possible references in the Talmud (and how some modern scholars claim the proof is not strong, based on chronological and other evidence); and (3) censorship - both voluntarily and dictated by Catholic leadership. I think the lead paragraph should briefly address all those topics, since that is what the WP style guideline says lead paragrs should do: summarize. At the moment, the lead focuses mostly on topic (2). Following the lead paragraph, there could be three large sections, on each of the topics 1,2, and 3. I understand this is a "work in progress", so I don't mean to sound negative, I'm just trying to give you some positive feedback. Keep up the good work! --Noleander (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus in the Talmud, by Jacob Zallel Lauterbach

This article found in Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, Jewish expressions on Jesus: an anthology, Ktav Pub. House, 1977. gives a balanced view of the topic. I have given links and hope it helps with some of your concerns. As you can see, I like his style and used it in the lead. I see your point and it is important to stay on topic. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

DO YOU HAVE TO SHOUT? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how to take that? Did you take offense at my use of Capital letters in the title? In any event us old guys are hard of hearing. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a good source, though I've never read it. It is from 1951, so it may be a bit dated. Some newer sources that may incorporate more up-to-date scholarship include:

Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition).
Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007
Hyam Maccoby, Judaism on Trial, 1993

But there are lots more, including some listed above in this Talk page, and those mentioned by SiRubenstein that are sure to be worthwhile. PS: Ignore M. Price, it sounds like he just woke up on the wrong side of the bed :-) --Noleander (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud

I think this one of the most important works on topic. It should form the base of our article. Do you have any concerns about his research? - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That book is written by Peter Schaefer (author) .. and you can see his credentials at his link here . Also, it is published by Princeton University Press, so the content is certainly accurate in an academic sense. Google books has some excerpts from it online here, so you can look at it before getting the hardcopy. Because it is so recent (2007) it has won't be too dated. My recollection is that it does talk about both Jesus as a historical individual, and polemics agasint the non-specific Jesus as the messiah of the rival sect Christianity. So it could be used to get material on that polemic material, which is more or less missing from Wikipedia now, and needs to be in this article. I think SiRubenstein made the point above that, if the article includes material from sources that conclude that the Talmud does include evidence of a historical individual, the article is also obligated (for reasons of balance) to also include sources that draw the opposite conclusion (the section Yeshu#Critical scholarship lists some sources that conclude that the Talmud holds little evidence of a historical individual) (plus, this article should not be overly duplicative of Historicity of Jesus). But to answer your question: yes, that is a good source, and with a few other sources, should form the basis of a great article. --Noleander (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

YES I have concerns about his work. They are summarized above but since this is a long discussion I will resummarize. Two of his sources are Laible and Herford, both of which I read after downloading free from the web. Neither one of them proves their point. Either they don't try, or they use fallacious arguments, or Talmud and Midrash (much of Midrash records statements by the same rabbis as Talmud) contradict them. All of Schaefer's work based on them is suspect. I had an email exchange with him in which he states that a phrase refers to Jesus, but I showed him that there is no supporting material for it anywhere in Talmud or Midrash. I don't care what his credentials are, if he can't support his argument except from suspect sources and if he considers the meaning of a text to always be identical with interpretations imposed on it by other scholars, particularly suspect ones, his book is not a credible source. I learned when studying for my bachelor's in legal studies that just because a case contains statements that agree with your position doesn't mean it's going to help you in court. That's what I'm saying about Schaefer, Laible, and Herford. 4.249.63.158 (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Jesus in the Talmud; His Personality, His Disciples and His Sayings

by Bernhard Pick, BiblioBazaar, 2009

This work has stood the test of time and remained in print for over 100 years. Are there any major objections to it? -Ret.Prof (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that book, so I cannot really comment on it in detail. It looks like it was published in 1913. I would say this: Since that book has been published, there has been a lot of academic research on the early history of Jesus and the Christian church. If there are newer books that cover the same ground, the newer books should be used. Using older books, when newer books are available, is doing a disservice to the readers. The only time I would use a book 100 years old is if it had some historical significance (e.g. was a breakthrough book) and even then I would clearly identify the book's age in the article, so readers are warned about the "stale-ness" of the book. On the other hand, there are some "classic" books that do stand the test of time. One good test would be to see if Pick's book is still referenced and cited by modern works? Or is it now ignored by modern scholars? Some other works that won't be subject to "out of date" problems include:

The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide - Theissen
Jesus in the Talmud, by Shaefer.
Jesus outside the New Testament, Robert E. Van Voorst
Studying the historical Jesus: evaluations of the state of current research, Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans
Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, R. Travers Herford
Jesus and Judaism by Sanders (recommended by SiRubenstein)
Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: by Fredricksen
Jesus, apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium by Ehrman (he also has other books)

I'm sure these books will be more up-to-date and more useful than the Pick book. Some of them can be previewed at Google books here so you can get a feel for them before getting the hardcopy. --Noleander (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. Therefore I will take care not to use anything that contradicts modern scholarship or is dated. Being an old guy, I must say I do not share the view that newer is always better. I am presently reading Van Voorst and find he blends the old with the new quite well. Ehrman I find, writes from a strong anti Christian POV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point about blending old and new. I think a good way to proceed would be to see if modern sources reference Pick's book. If they do: do they disagree with it? or agree with it? Then go from there. --Noleander (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Noleander cites some realy great books on Jesus, but only one with the word "Talmud" in it. If you want the article to be about the Talmud - to whatever degree merits the Talmud being in the topic - why ignore all the most cutting edge research on the Talmud? Just look at the article on the Talmud. Aside from Orthodox Jewish scholars it mentions many other recent, critical scholars of note. A guy named Rubenstein (no relation) wrote a book on the Talmud for the St. Paul Press (I think that is what it is called) series on "classics in Western Spirituality" - surely one of you knows the series I am talking about, they publish books on many works by the Church Fathers, for example. And he is just a very recent scholar - there is a great deal of critical scholarship on the Bible and any article relating to the Talmud would be lacking in a neutral POV or balance if it did not take into account what critical scholars now believe about the history of the talmud, the process through which it was composed, the reliability of existing editions, and so on. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Name change

For the article title to stay as-is, i.e. considering with google stats and Wikipedia:Article titles, in this case is in contradiction with WP:NPOV.

WP:NPOV calls for neutrality. Hence, calling the article as-is implies a bias towards the opinion that Jesus and Yeshu are one and the same.--The soft voice of Judaism (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus of scholars is that the references in the Talmud are to Jesus as the messiah of Christianity (although not necessarily to Jesus as a historical individual). There are a large number of scholarly works entitled "Jesus in the Talmud" (or similar) including Maier's work, which concluded that the references were late additions to the Talmud that did refer to Jesus as the messiah of Christianity (although Maier did conclude that they were not references to the historical individual). Other scholars, such as Schafer, conclude that the references to Jesus (as the messiah of a competing sect/religion) were incorporated into the Talmud at an early period (4th century). There is a large amount of material on how the references are anti-Christian or anti-Jesus polemics, and how the references were censored (often by insistence of the Christian church). The title doesn't have a "point of view" problem, since scholars discuss "Jesus in the Talmud" routinely, and refer to the topic as "Jesus in the Talmud". Is the article O. J. Simpson murder case POV because, in fact, he was found not guilty? No, because readers are expected to read articles and learn more about the topic. As long as this article contains material that is within scholarly works with titles along the lines of "Jesus in the Talmud", it is an acceptable title. --Noleander (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Distribute "Scholarly debate" material up in the primary sections?

The material in the "Scholarly debate" seems like it would be better off above in the sub-sections that introduce and explain the reference being discussed. There doesn't seem to be any benefit to the reader to segregating the "debate" material away from the other material. --Noleander (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

New section "In the context of Christian-Judaic polemics"

I'm working on a new section titled "In the context of Christian-Judaic polemics" that - according to the sources - will end up being a significant part of the article. I've marked it as a "stub" section for now, but it should get filled out soon. --Noleander (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You are doing great work. I am enjoying it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sholhur (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC) **INCORRECT TEXT** For some reason there is a reference to "Br'er Rabbit" and a hyperlink to that article in the subsection "Ambivalent relationship" here - someone inserted it as a joke of sorts, I imagine; anyone know what the text should read? (I just googled this sentence, "Boyarin has suggested that this was the Jewish version of the Br'er Rabbit approach to domination, which he contrasts to the strategy of many early Christians, who proclaim their beliefs in spite of the consequences (i.e. martyrdom)" and there are a number of Wikipedia pages with the same text! And, there are numerous sites around the internet that quote this exact text!) I deleted this entire sentence from the text here and also in other articles across Wikipedia since it seems that the original text makes perfect sense without it.

Do not delete material from notable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

ben Stada/pandera needs citations & rewrite?

The ben Stada/Pandera sections are problematic. They dont read well (they are aimed for an advanced reader, not a layman), and they have virtually no citations. On the whole, they seem informative, but I'm not sure the content is all that precise and neutral. I'm considering just deleting the whole mass (much of it is available in the Yeshu article anyway) and starting over from scratch, based on reliable sources. Any comments? --Noleander (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm forging ahead with a re-write, so I deleted the un-sourced text. New material (with citations) will be provided soon. Any help or sources is appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've finished restoring the section so it is now supported by sources. It still needs a lot of word-smithing, and it could be expanded (e.g. it has no material on etymology/meaning), but at least it has sources now. --Noleander (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Good Work

I am truly amazed. Great work. You have written a learned and scholarly article from a NPOV. Just out of curiosity, how many hours have you put in writing and researching this article? - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know, but it was quite educational. I think the article still has a long way to go, because I took a conservative approach and directly paraphrased all the reliable sources I could find. But it lacks the flow of a truly excellent article, so it could use a bit more word-smithing. If I get some spare time I may take a stab at that. --Noleander (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the one major problem with this article is that there is no sense that the scholarship on Jesus in the Talmud itself has a history. I understand th appeal of dividing the article into topical sections, but doing so ends up mixing up scholars who wrote at different times. Imagine if a physics or biology article did this! Here are two important questions the article elides: have the questions scholars have been asking changed over time? Have the answers scholars have concluded changed over time? We'd know the answer if the article were organized historically. But even if the article is not entirely organized hisorically, I think we need to know he diferences between scholars who wrote during or in the immediate wake of th Enlightenment, scholars who wrote during the formative years of Wissenschaft des Judentums as well as critical scholarship on the Bible (.g. Gunkel, Wellhausen, and followers), and later periods - events in Jewish history, like the Holocaust and the foundation of the State of Israel, had a transformative effect on Jewish scholarship. Trends in history and comparative literature in th 1960s and 1970s, like reader-response theory and deconstruction, again transformed the study of the Talmud. I would not take or granted that scholars during these diferent times use the same methods, had the same interests, etc.

The above points are meant to show how the aticle could add a great deal more nuance, but very simply by making the historical context for the scholarship already in the article clear. But for me, here is the bottom line: an interpretation of the Talmud made in 1850, 1900, or 1950, cannot be presented as conclusive unless we know that Talmud scholars today still share these conclusions. By mixing up views from diferent periods, a false impression may be made. There is a cumulative elment to scholarship, in which sholars of each generation test and reconsider the work of those who came before them. This article ould be a lot stronger if readers could distinguish btween old views and current views. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point, but to fix it you would run into the problem of "original research". This article reflects what the "references" say about Jesus in the Talmud. I must say again Noleander has done a good job in difficult area. In any event Happy New Year! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Good Work without a doubt you saved this article! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Consolidate two similar sections?

Ret Prof: there are two very similar sections: one is the "Summary" section, in the "Specific References" section. The other is the "Controversial passages" section that someone recently added (reproduced below). I think they should be combined. I think all the info from the new "Controversial" section is already in the article, although perhaps spread around a bit. Here is the Controversial section (below). --Noleander (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversial Talmudic references

There are several Talmudic passages that are said to be referring to Jesus. The following are among the those considered the most controversial, contested, and possibly the most notable. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

Our rabbis taught Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples, and these are they: Matthai, Naqqai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah. ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7]

The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray. ^[8] ^[9] ^[10]^[11]

"Jesus son of Stada is Jesus son of Pandira?"
Rav Hisda said, "The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandera."
"But was not the husband Pappos son of Yehuda and the mother Stada?"

No, his mother was Miriam, who let her hair grow long and was called Stada. Pumbedita says about her: "She was unfaithful to her husband." ^[12] ^[13] ^[14]^[15]

On (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover, Jesus the Nazarene was hanged and a herald went forth before him forty days heralding, "Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry. Whoever knows anything in defense may come and state it." But since they did not find anything in his defense they hanged him on (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover. Ulla said: "Do you suppose that Jesus the Nazarene was one for whom a defense could be made? He was a mesit (someone who instigated Israel to idolatry), concerning whom the Merciful [God] says: Show him no compassion and do not shield him (Deut. 13:9). With Jesus the Nazarene it was different. For he was close to the government. ^[16] ^[17] ^[18]^[19]

^ Google Link
^ Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p v-ix
^ Edgar V. McKnight, Jesus Christ in history and Scripture, Mercer University Press, 1999. pp 28-29
^ Google Link
^ Talmud Sanhedrin 43a
^ Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007. p 75
^ Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p 116
^ Google Link
^ Talmud Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah 47a
^ Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007. p 35
^ Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p 114
^ Google Link
^ Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a
^ Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007. p 18-19
^ Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p 117-120
^ Google Link
^ Talmud Sanhedrin 43a
^ Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007. p 64-65
^ Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p 115

I put in these sections to raise their profile. If you look at the links they are notable, well referenced and when they stand alone quite powerful. Also by having them stand alone without any POV pushing, one way or another, provides NPOV balance. I think you realize I am not being redundant. I think you know what I am doing. Now the issue is, am I being fair? Besides preferring the "spread out fashion", do you have any reasons for deleting the well referenced material and links. Well, I will let you decide if the reader should be allowed to read them in my formatted fashion. I will not take offense if you delete. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

By moving them, you lower their profile. I disagree but can see your point. In any event we could use your diplomatic skills at the Ebionites. Still a fan. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, you are providing translations, often selected by Christian sources. What is the original Aramaic? We cannot make any decisions about these passages without reeally knowing what they say. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Yeshu

The history of these two article suggests that Yeshu was first with one POV informed more by religious sensitivities about medieval persecution than any verifiable encyclopaedic foundation, and this article came next as a POVfork, to a more mainstream POV, but somewhat tinged with Christian POV too, but with not much better WP:sources - chunks of text in quotes are fine but need secondary modern refs. As it stands Yeshu is an breach of a policy I read somewhere that articles should be in English. About 70% of the content is in fact on Jesus in the Talmud, some of it better written/sourced than here. A small amount that remains is a WP:DICDEF on the Hebrew name Jesus in a few other Christianity related Hebrew texts, medieval, Sephardic, modern, which would be better off moved to Yeshu (name) on the model of Isa (name). Propose a bulk cut paste of all Jesus in the Talmud material from Yeshu, leaving a mainlink and umbrella stub there. :And propose the Yeshu cut paste material goes ahead of the somewhat Christianish material here till someone merges them. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Yeshu article presents numerous points of view, that of the Church, that of traditional Jewish commentators (which is thus the view of Orthodox Judaism), that of esotericists, that of modern liberal Judaeo-Christian scholarship and that of skeptical science writers, so your statement that it was "one POV informed more by religious sensitivities" is simply not correct. This "Jesus in Talmud" article by virtue of having been started after the Yeshu article and by virtue of pushing only one POV is in violation of Wikipedia policy WP:POVFORK. Since this article has the non-neutral POV name, the sensible thing to do is merge any relevant information that is in this article into the Yeshu article. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kuratowski's ghost.

This article does not have a "non-neutral POV name" it has the name that is appropriate since all modern academics recognise that some manuscripts of the Talmud contains some references to Jesus of Christian traditions. Numerous points of view are irrelevant, only sourced views may be used on Wikipedia.

Incidentally, the edits you just made to Yeshu (deleting Ben Yehuda's dictionary and claiming that Elias Soloweyczyk's translation of Matthew was based on Toledoth Yeshu) were incorrect, unsourced and have been reversed. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I too oppose the merge. The topic is notable, and is substantial enough to stand on its own. - Ret.Prof (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Material for merge

The Talmudic accounts in detail {{Merge to|Jesus in the Talmud|discuss=Talk:Jesus in the Talmud#Merger proposal|date=July 2011}}

Yeshu ben Pandera

Tosefta and Talmud references

In the Tosefta, Chullin 2:22-24 there are two anecdotes about the min (heretic) named Jacob naming his mentor Yeshu ben Pandera (Yeshu son of Pandera).

Chullin 2:22-23 tells how Rabbi Eleazar ben Damma was bitten by a snake. Jacob came to heal him (according to Lieberman's text^[1]) "on behalf of Yeshu ben Pandera". (A variant text of the Tosefta considered by Herford reads "Yeshua" instead of "Yeshu". This together with anomalous spellings of Pandera were found by Saul Lieberman who compared early manuscripts, to be erroneous attempts at correction by a copyist unfamiliar with the terms.)

The account is also mentioned in corresponding passages of the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2:2 IV.I) and Babylonian Talmud (Avodah Zarah 27b) The name Yeshu is not mentioned in the Hebrew manuscripts of these passages but reference to "Jeshu ben Pandira" is interpolated by Herford's in his English paraphrasing of the Jerusalem Talmud text. Similarly the Rodkinson translation of the Babylonian Talmud account interpolates "with the name of Jesus".

Chullin 2:24 tells how Rabbi Eliezer was once arrested and charged with minuth. When the chief judge (hegemon) interrogated him, the rabbi answered that he "trusted the judge." Although Rabbi Eliezer was referring to God, the judge interpreted him to be referring to the judge himself, and freed the Rabbi. The remainder of the account concerns why Rabbi Eliezer was arrested in the first place. Rabbi Akiva suggests that perhaps one of the minim had spoken a word of minuth to him and that it had pleased him. Rabbi Eliezer recalls that this was indeed the case, he had met Jacob of the town of Sakhnin in the streets of Sepphoris who spoke to him a word of minuth in the name of Yeshu ben Pandera, which had pleased him. (A variant reading used by Herford has Pantiri instead of Pandera.)

Avodah Zarah, 16b-17a in the Babylonian Talmud essentially repeats the account of Chullin 2:24 about Rabbi Eliezer and adds additional material. It tells that Jacob quoted Deuteronomy 23:19: "You shall not bring the fee of a whore or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord your God in fulfillment of any vow." Jacob says that he was taught this by Yeshu. Jacob then asked Eliezer whether it was permissible to use a whore's money to build a retiring place for the High Priest? (Who spent the whole night preceding the Day of Atonement in the precincts of the Temple, where due provision had to be made for all his conveniences.) When Rabbi Eliezer did not reply, Jacob quoted Micah 1:7, "For they were amassed from whores' fees and they shall become whores' fees again." This was the teaching that had pleased Rabbi Eliezer.

The surname ben Pandera is not found in the Talmud account. (Rodkinson's translation drawing on the Tosefta account paraphrases the reference to Yeshu having taught Jacob by "so taught Jeshu b. Panthyra", in this case not translating "Yeshu" as "Jesus".) The name is found again in the Midrashic text Kohelet Rabba 10:5 where a healer of the grandson of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is described as being of ben Pandera. The source of this account is Shabbat 14:4-8 and Avodah Zarah 40 in the Jerusalem Talmud, but there ben Pandera is not mentioned. The word Yeshu is however found as a secondary marginal gloss to the first passage in the Leiden manuscript which together with the Midrashic version show that the account was understood to be about a follower of Yeshu ben Pandera. (Herford again takes liberty and adds "in the name of Jeshu Pandera" to his translation of the Talmud passages despite these words not being in the original text. Schäfer similarly provides a paraphrased translation mentioning "Jesus son of Pandera" which he admittedly has constructed himself by combining the Talmudic and Midrashic texts and the marginal glosses.^[2]) Kohelet Rabba also relates the account of Rabbi Eliezer (Kohelet Rabba 1:24) in this case some copies mention Yeshu ben Pandera as in the Tosefta passage but others instead read peloni a placeholder name equivalent to English "so-and-so".^[2]

Jeffrey Rubenstein has argued that the accounts in Chullin and Avodah Zarah reveal an ambivalent relationship between rabbis and Christianity. In his view the tosefta account reveals that at least some Jews believed Christians were true healers, but that the rabbis saw this belief as a major threat. Concerning the Babylonian Talmud account in Avoda Zarah, Dr. Boyarin views Jacob of Sechania as a Christian preacher and understands Rabbi Eliezer's arrest for minuth as an arrest by the Romans for practising Christianity (the text uses the word for heretic). When the Governor (the text uses the word for chief judge) interrogated him, the Rabbi answered that he "trusted the judge." Boyarin has suggested that this was the Jewish version of the Br'er Rabbit approach to domination, which he contrasts to the strategy of many early Christians, who proclaim their beliefs in spite of the consequences (i.e. martyrdom). Although Rabbi Eliezer was referring to God, the Governor interpreted him to be referring to the Governor himself, and freed the Rabbi. According to them the account also reveals that there was greater contact between Christians and Jews in the 2nd century than commonly believed. They view the account of the teaching of Yeshu as an attempt to mock Christianity. According to Dr. Rubenstein, the structure of this teaching, in which a Biblical prooftext is used to answer a question about Biblical law, is common to both the Rabbis and early Christians. The vulgar content, however, may have been used to parody Christian values. Dr. Boyarin considers the text to be an acknowledgment that Rabbis often interacted with Christians, despite their doctrinal antipathy.^[3]

Meaning and etymology of Pandera

The meaning and etymology of this name are uncertain:

Besides the form Pandera, variations have been found in different Tosefta manuscripts for example Pantiri and Pantera.^[4] Saul Lieberman's investigation of Tosefta variations revealed Pandera to be the original form. (Some authors such as Herford spell it Pandira in English.)

Celsus in his discourse The True Word gives the name as Panthera in Greek.^[4] This name is not known from any graves or inscriptions, but the surname Pantera (a Latin rendering) is known from the 1st century tombstone of Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera.^[5] Origen (c. 248 CE) responded to Celsus' claim by saying that Pantheras was the patronymic of Joseph the husband of Mary on account of his father, Jacob, being called Panther. An alternative claim was made in the Teaching of Jacob (634 CE) where Panther is said to be the grandfather of Mary.^[6] Friedrich August Nitzsch (1840) suggested that the name may refer to a panther being a lustful animal and thus have the meaning of "whore", additionally being a pun on parthenos meaning virgin.^[2] Herford also considered the Greek pentheros meaning son-in-law,^[4] however he dismissed all of these forms including Celsus' Panthera as spurious explanations of the Hebrew Pandera as they do not match phonetically. He noted that Hebrew would have represented the sounds correctly if any of these were the origin.^[4] The interpolated form Panthyra appearing in the Rodkinson translation of the Talmud suffers the same problem.

Neubauer understand the name to be Pandareus.^[7] The Toldoth Yeshu narratives contain elements resembling the story of Pandareus in Greek mythology, namely stealing from a temple and the presence of a bronze animal.

Robert Eisler ^[8] considered the name to be derived from Pandaros. He also argued that it may not have been a real name but instead as a generic name for a betrayer. He notes that in the Iliad, Pandaros betrays the Greeks and breaks a truce confirmed by solemn oath. He argues that the name came to be used as a generic term for a betrayer and was borrowed by Hebrew. The name is indeed found in Genesis Rabba 50 in the expression qol Pandar (literally "voice of Pandaros" denoting false promises of a betrayer) used as a derogatory placeholder name for a judge of Sodom. The -a at the end of the form Pandera can be understood to be the Aramaic definite article.^[4]

Yeshu the sorcerer

Sanhedrin 43a relates the trial and execution of Yeshu and his five disciples. Here, Yeshu is a sorcerer who has enticed other Jews to apostasy. A herald is sent to call for witnesses in his favour for forty days before his execution. No one comes forth and in the end he is stoned and hanged on the Eve of Passover. His five disciples, named Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah are then tried. Word play is made on each of their names, and they are executed. It is mentioned that leniency could not be applied because of Yeshu's influence with the royal government (malkhut).

In the Florence manuscript of the Talmud (1177 CE) an addition is made to Sanhedrin 43a saying that Yeshu was hanged on the eve of the Sabbath.

Yeshu summoned by Onkelos

In Gittin 56b, 57a a story is mentioned in which Onkelos summons up the spirit of a Yeshu who sought to harm Israel. He describes his punishment in the afterlife as boiling in excrement.

Yeshu the son who burns his food in public

Sanhedrin 103a and Berachot 17b talk about a Yeshu who burns his food in public, possibly a reference to pagan sacrifices. The account is discussing Manasseh the king of Judah infamous for having turned to idolatry and having persecuted the Jews (2 Kings 21). It is part of a larger discussion about three kings and four commoners excluded from paradise. These are also discussed in the Shulkhan Arukh where the son who burns his food is explicitly stated to be Manasseh.

Yeshu the student of Joshua ben Perachiah

In Sanhedrin 107b and Sotah 47a a Yeshu is mentioned as a student of Joshua ben Perachiah who was sent away for misinterpreting a word that in context should have been understood as referring to the Inn, he instead understood it to mean the inkeeper's wife. His teacher said "Here is a nice Inn", to which he replied "Her eyes are crooked", to which his teacher responded "Is this what your are occupied in?" (This happened during their period of refuge in Egypt during the persecutions of Pharisees 88-76 BCE ordered by Alexander Jannæus. The incident is also mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud in Chagigah 2:2 but there the person in question is not given any name.) After several returns for forgiveness he mistook Perachiah's signal to wait a moment as a signal of final rejection, and so he turned to idolatry (described by the euphemism "worshipping a brick"). The story ends by invoking a Mishnaic era teaching that Yeshu practised black magic, deceived and led Israel astray. This quote is seen by some as an explanation in general for the designation Yeshu.

According to Dr. Rubenstein, the account in Sanhedrin 107b recognizes the kinship between Christians and Jews, since Jesus is presented as a disciple of a prominent Rabbi. But it also reflects and speaks to an anxiety fundamental to Rabbinic Judaism. Prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70, Jews were divided into different sects, each promoting different interpretations of the law. Rabbinic Judaism domesticated and internalized conflicts over the law, while vigorously condemning any sectarianism. In other words, rabbis are encouraged to disagree and argue with one another, but these activities must be carefully contained, or else they could lead to a schism. Although this story may not present a historically accurate account of Jesus' life, it does use a fiction about Jesus to communicate an important truth about the Rabbis. Moreover, Rubenstein sees this story as a rebuke to overly harsh Rabbis. Boyarin suggests that the Rabbis were well aware of Christian views of the Pharisees and that this story acknowledges the Christian belief that Jesus was forgiving and the Pharisees were not (see Mark 2:1-2), while emphasizing forgiveness as a necessary Rabbinic value.^[3]

Ben Pandera and ben Stada

Another title found in the Tosefta and Talmud is ben Stada (son of Stada). However in Shabbat 104b and Sanhedrin 67a in the Babylonian Talmud, a passage is found that some have interpreted as equating ben Pandera with ben Stada. The passage is in the form a Talmudic debate in which various voices make statements, each refuting the previous statement. In such debates the various statements and their refutations are often of a Midrashic nature, sometimes incorporating subtle humour and should not always be taken at face value. The purpose of the passage is to arrive at a Midrashic meaning for the term Stada.

Shabbat 104b relates that a ben Stada brought magic from Egypt in incisions in his flesh. Sanhedrin 67a relates that a ben-Stada was caught by hidden observers and hanged in the town of Lod on the Eve of Passover. The debate then follows. It begins by asking if this was not ben Pandera rather than ben Stada. This is refuted by the claim that it is both, his mother's husband was Stada but her lover was Pandera. This is countered with the claim the husband was Pappos ben Yehuda (a 2nd century figure elsewhere remembered as having locked up his unfaithful wife and visiting R. Akiva in jail after the Bar-Kokhba revolt) and that the mother was named Stada. This is then refuted by the claim that the mother was named Miriam, the dresser of women's hair, but that she had gone astray from her husband (a Miriam the daughter of Bilgah, is mentioned elsewhere as having had an affair with a Roman soldier). In Aramaic, "gone astray" is satat da, thus a Midrashic meaning for the term Stada is obtained. Real historical relationships between the figures mentioned cannot be inferred due to the Midrashic nature of the debate. Pappos and Miriam might have been introduced simply as a result of their being remembered in connection with a theme of a woman having gone astray.

Ben-Stada is also mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud. In Shabbat 12:4 III he is mentioned as having learnt by cutting marks in his flesh. In Sanhedrin 7:12 I he is mentioned as an example of someone caught by hidden observers and subsequently stoned. This information is paralleled in the Tosefta in Shabbat 11:15 and Sanhedrin 10:11 respectively.

^ http://talmud.faithweb.com/images/jnarr6.JPG
^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference Schafer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference ReferenceB was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Cite error: The named reference Herford was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Marcello Craveri, La vita di Gesù, Feltrinelli, Milano, 1966
^ Hugh Joseph Schonfield, According to the Hebrews, Duckworth, 1937
^ Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles and Chronological Notes, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1887-1895
^ Robert Eisler, Alexander Haggerty Krappe trans., The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist according to Flavius Josephus' recently rediscovered 'Capture of Jerusalem' and other Jewish and Christian sources. The Dial Press, 1931

In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

None of Tosefta, Genesis Rabbah, Kohelet Rabba, Shulkhan Arukh, The True Word etc. are in the Talmud, so they'd be excluded from this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Attempting to add references

I was in the process of adding academic references to a section. They've been deleted before I could get beyond the author names (though it should be evident which books are intended given the subject). I'm finding it difficult to keep up with the speed with which academic sources are deleted when approaching this subject. And it seems that even a full author title ISBN page no, citation will also be deleted, so something of a discouragement to attempt adding sources to begin with. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, only you have deleted proper academic citations. Don't do it again, and don't re-insert that WP:NOR. Feel free, however, to add material with proper citations, not the things you managed to insert "Jeremias cited in Beckwith", "Meier; cf. Theissen", "Bauckham in Quarles", "Schafer; cf. Setzer", and "Schafer; cf. Horbury", none of which meet the requirements of WP:CITE. If you have time to add material, then take the time to add proper citations too. Wikipedia is not your sandbox, it's an encyclopedia; keep material that is not ready for the encyclopedia in your user space. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

>don't re-insert that WP:NOR< this sounds like a content dispute. You disagree with the content? I can assure you that it is well supported mainstream academic view.

Under normal circumstances the short refs would be undesirable, true. But these aren't normal circumstances, are they? You are deleting refs left right and centre that do not agree with your view. Do I have your word that you will cease deleting academic refs if the full titles and page numbers are given? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

23:51, 8 August 2011 Jayjg (talk | contribs) (66,066 bytes) (Reverted to revision 443760165 by Jayjg: don't remove proper academic citations. (TW)) (undo)

Do you want to explain exactly what purpose this copy paste of your lede-POV-sentence refs from Yeshu serves here? 3 of these 6 refs (Beckwith quoting Jeremias 1935 quoting Dalman 1922) show that 1 living person, someone who is not notable as a scholar on this subject area agrees with your view. And then what? Is that a reason to delete refs which don't agree with you? Do I have your word that you will cease deleting academic refs if the full titles and page numbers are given? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu, do you know what Jayjg's view is? I don't. You have quite a burden of evidence to prove that he is deleting sources because of their view. he is shown which WP policies and guidelines he is following. This is the wisdom of Wikipedia - one's own view is irrelevant (unless all you care is promoting your own views. You have actually admitted to this on the Yeshu page, but In ictu, do not project. Just because you think a certain way does not mean that others do). Many people are drawn to WP in the hopes of editing an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view (if you have not heard about this, please read wp:NPOV). Jayjg has made it abundantly clear that what he is concerned with is the quality of the citations. Anyojne here who cares about scholarly integrity will no doubt share his concern. In any event, it is simply a matter of compying with Wikipedia policies when editing Wikipedia. If you do not want to do that, you do not have to edit here. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, please review my previous comment and Slrubenstein's above. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein and Jayjg

I'm perfectly capable of adding full references when constant deletion isn't happening. The retyping naturally gets tiring.

I ask again, if I add here references fully sourced and page numbered but expressing modern scholarship's disagreement with your and Jayjg's wording for the lede sentence of the Yeshu article do you intend to delete them here as well? (and that includes reverting and copy pasting in a block of refs from that article) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu, I am not at all opposed in principle to your adding fully sourced material to this (or related) articles(s). My concern has to do with wp:point, and I think together we can solve this problem by discussing context. So i am asking you to propose the edit on the talk page before making the edit to the article. I am concerned that you might think I am insisting on giving or withholding permission, but this is not my motive or intention. I want to make sure that we agree on our understanding of the view of the author, and that the view is then added to the article in the location and in such a way as to make the author's view most clear. If you do not understand why I am saying this I will gladly explain further but I hope this sufficient. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you do not have WP:ownership of this page. And given that you don't know much about modern academic study of these passages it wouldn't be appropriate to make you the arbiter of what sources can be approved. Let me try and phrase it more simply and concretely: When I post a modern academic source that clearly disagrees with Yechiel of Paris, the Ramban, etc., let us say R. Travers Herford, Horbury or Klausner, part of those who Van Voorst describes as "maximinalists," will you delete them? yes/no? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You are not responding to any of my comments. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I merely want to know, when I post a modern academic source that clearly disagrees with Yechiel of Paris, the Ramban, etc., let us say R. Travers Herford, Horbury or Klausner, part of those who Van Voorst describes as "maximinalists," will you delete them? yes/no? It's a simple question. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What about my initial answer was unclear? I do not want to repeat myself, so please explain what part was unclear. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than pursuing this further I think the simplest thing to do is post an academic reference and see what you do. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

[1] Google Link

[2] Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p v-ix

[3] Edgar V. McKnight, Jesus Christ in history and Scripture, Mercer University Press, 1999. pp 28-29

[4] Google Link

[5] Talmud Sanhedrin 43a

[6] Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007. p 75

[7] Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p 116

[8] Google Link

[9] Talmud Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah 47a

[10] Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007. p 35

[11] Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p 114

[12] Google Link

[13] Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a

[14] Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007. p 18-19

[15] Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p 117-120

[16] Google Link

[17] Talmud Sanhedrin 43a

[18] Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press, 2007. p 64-65

[19] Bernhard Pick, The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007. p 115

[talmud.faithweb.com-20] ttp://talmud.faithweb.com/images/jnarr6.JPG

[Schafer-21] Cite error: The named reference Schafer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[ReferenceB-22] Cite error: The named reference ReferenceB was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Herford-23] Cite error: The named reference Herford was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[24] Marcello Craveri, La vita di Gesù, Feltrinelli, Milano, 1966

[25] Hugh Joseph Schonfield, According to the Hebrews, Duckworth, 1937

[26] Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles and Chronological Notes, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1887-1895

[Eisler-27] Robert Eisler, Alexander Haggerty Krappe trans., The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist according to Flavius Josephus' recently rediscovered 'Capture of Jerusalem' and other Jewish and Christian sources. The Dial Press, 1931

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]