Talk:Judaism's view of Jesus
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Judaism's view of Jesus article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Judaism's view of Jesus received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|Threads older than 2 weeks may be archived by.|
The sourcing for last sentence in this section needs work. There is no citation for the claim, and the Wikilink is to a later section in the same article. I for one would rather have a 'see below' than a disguised link that is also thin on objective sourcing.--DeknMike (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This section needs major work. The few sources are either placed in a way to suggest more weight than is warranted by the source, or are irrelevant to the topic. For example, the discussion on [Yeshu] does not make the case that the references are actually about Yeshua (Jesus), and if that connection is severed, there remains no other reason to discuss yimach shemo, which is most often used to refer to Haman. The quotes from Maimonides are interesting, but show a disdain for the acts by Christians in the 12th century CE more than a perspective on Jesus himself.--DeknMike (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- One source I've been reading is 'Christianity in Talmud and Midrash' by Robert Travers Herford . He notes in the Intro (p14) points to the concept that Rabbinical Judaism adjusts itself to the times through the writings of the rabbis, but Protestant Christianity rejects tradition as authority and focuses more on the meaning of the original texts. Since most Messianic strains/denominations were influenced in their beginnings by evangelical protestants, this is then one distinction between Messianic theology and mainstream Judaism. Herford notes much of what is known about Jesus was written in the second, third and fourth centuries CE, and considers Jesus to be a minor figure, a person they call Yeshu the Nazarine (p57, etc). It is a helpful book (written 1903) in its research into rabbinical literature during the early days of the church.--DeknMike (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
What's with the double standard for knowledge on Wikipedia?
We see various recommendations on factual pages that they would be a better fit for a separate Wiki (not pedia). We see factual pages littered with Citation Needed and there never seems to be enough book or other references to reach the level of quality standard Wikipedia seems to require.
Here, I see lots of claims and generalisms about what jews believe, but there seems to be a complete lack of citations to support those claims.
If you think I'm someone looking to pick a fight with religion, look elsewhere. I just googled this to find out what jews believe and noticed how very different it looked from all the other pages. I just want answers to two questions:
1) Why is this on Wikipedia rather than on a Wiki that you recommend for similar articles?
2) Why is this exempt from the scrutiny regarding Citation Needed and the other quality requirements for Wikipedia, unlike a simple article on a person now living or a video game, for example?
Henrik Erlandsson 02:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)