Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:38, 12 June 2006 editDoright (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,743 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:58, 13 December 2024 edit undoAdakiko (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers88,136 editsm Reverted edits by 2600:100C:B0A1:5771:0:1A:DC69:DF01 (talk): nonconstructive edits (HG) (3.4.13)Tags: Huggle Rollback
(776 intermediate revisions by 80 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~calm~~ talk}}		{{talk header}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|
	* ]
			{{WikiProject Religion \|importance=Mid \|Interfaith=yes \|InterfaithImp= }}
	* ]
			{{WikiProject Jewish history\|importance=Mid}}
	* ]
			{{WikiProject Books }}
	* ]
			{{WikiProject Christianity \|importance=Low \|lutheranism=yes \|lutheranism-importance=Mid }}
	* ]
			{{WikiProject Germany \|importance=Mid}}
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive index
			\|mask=Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 6
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 2
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive %(counter)d
			}}

			== External links modified ==
	== The Campaign to Overvilify Luther ==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	I am appalled that there is an administrator, who has taken it upon him/herself to engage in this vilification of Martin Luther. It adds to the negative public image that Misplaced Pages has over the internet. This is biased propaganda that pushes a anti-Lutheran POV. I am appalled that this is the activity of an administrator. How despicable. This is as great an outrage to me as a Lutheran Christian as posting such inflammatory material would be to a Jewish person. How hypocritical. ] 12:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

			I have just modified 7 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	:Rather than simply being outraged, could you reply to my post above, please? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 12:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702190514/http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/luther/letters/LuthertoSpalatin.txt to http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/luther/letters/LuthertoSpalatin.txt
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051104181522/http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20Jews%20%28Web%29.htm to http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20Jews%20(Web).htm
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710100514/http://www3.baylor.edu/American_Jewish/everythingthatusedtobehere/resources/PowerPoints/Christian%20Anti-Semitism%20%28part%202%29.ppt to http://www3.baylor.edu/American_Jewish/everythingthatusedtobehere/resources/PowerPoints/Christian%20Anti-Semitism%20(part%202).ppt
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060321151237/http://elsinore.cis.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/04-29-46.htm to http://elsinore.cis.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/04-29-46.htm
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031226220638/http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2166 to http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2166
			*Added archive https://archive.is/20120729234239/www.elca.org/ecumenical/interreligious/jewish/declaration.html to http://www.elca.org/ecumenical/interreligious/jewish/declaration.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050513062432/http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Lutheran%20Witness/Apr04.pdf to http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Lutheran%20Witness/Apr04.pdf

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	::You have said that these pages were not ours. Well, they are not yours either to do with what you like. You do things unilaterally and push your POV with the inflammatory material you have added. You have reverted my edit that balances the matter. Now this article is POV. A Lutheran pastor is already as much of a scholar as a Jewish rabbi. He has had to graduate from college and grad school. So, the quotation is in order. May I suggest that you read the stuff that you have posted on your user page at the bottom, Ma'am. ] 12:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	:::Could you please tone down the rhetoric? The more you post in that tone, the less effective it becomes. I wouldn't quote a rabbi either if he was commenting on historians. It looks incredibly silly to say "historians are at a loss to find a link" and then in the very next sentence to quote a historian saying there's a link. It makes us look silly and the pastor look silly, particular as it's in the intro and therefore very noticeable. Either leave the intro as it is, or find a historian or some other scholar who comments. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 12:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 21:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
	::::Why not quote a rabbi, a rabbi is a scholar. I wonder whether you have a bias against clergypersons. Do you know the education required of Jewish or mainline Christian clergypersons? This article now is inflammatory and unbecoming Misplaced Pages. ] 12:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

			== Misrepresented claims pertaining "seven remedial actions" and other points of contention mentioned ==
	:::::Quit the rhetoric, please, or I will stop responding to you. Yes, I do know what education that entails. I am saying it would be preferable to use a scholarly quote. Rabbis and clergymen can be scholars too; I'm not ruling them out. I'm saying that an unknown pastor speaking at a meeting isn't a good source, especially not when the next sentence directly contradicts him. As for the intro, it is relevant to this book without question. It is your very strong POV on this matter that is telling you otherwise. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 12:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
			The following block quote comes from p. 39 of the English translation of Luther's text:
			{{Quote
			\|text="Now tell me, do they not have great cause to hate us cursed Goyim, to curse us and seek our final, thorough and eternal ruin?
			Now what are we going to do with these rejected, condemned, Jewish people?
			We should not suffer it after they are among us and we know about such lying, blaspheming and cursing among them, lest we become partakers of their lies, cursing, and blaspheming. We cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of God's wrath (as the prophets say), nor convert the Jews. '''We must practice great mercy with prayer and godliness''' that we might rescue a few from the flame and violent heat. '''We are not permitted to take revenge.''' Revenge is around their neck a thousand times greater than we could wish them. (emphases added)"
			}}

			While Luther's general criticism of Judaism and those who practice it is not at all hidden, among the questions to ask is: How, from reading this, can one possibly exegete any semblance of Luther arguing that Jews should "be shown no mercy and kindness"? When people selected sources about this text, did anyone bother to actually read it and examine whether or not such sources possess integrity in relation to the actual claims of the text itself?
	::::::Your behavior here bespeaks your strong POV on the matter. You are not impartial. I don't care if you ever respond to me. I am surprised that a Cambridge University grad would carry on as you do. ] 12:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

			The next following block quote from the same text comes from pp. 39-40:
	:: Civility, please, both of you! David, there is no need to go at Slim, no matter how strongly you feel about the issue. Slim, would you please stop belittling other users and their additions? Also, do not assume Bliese is unknown, simply because he is not known to you. Also, if you do not like your additions removed or edited without discussion, then show the same respect to others, please.
			{{Quote
	--] 13:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
			\|text="I will give you my true counsel:
			First, that we '''avoid their synagogues and schools and warn people against them.''' And '''such should be done to the glory of God and Christendom, that God may see that we are Christians''' and have not knowingly tolerated such lying, cursing and blaspheming of His Son and His Christians. For what we so far have tolerated in ignorance (I myself did not know it), God will forgive us. Now that we know it, however, and in spite should before our very noses tolerate such a building for the Jew in which they blaspheme, curse, spit upon and disgrace Christ and us, that would be simply too much, as if we did it ourselves and much worse, as you well know. '''Moses writes in Deuteronomy that where a city practiced idolatry, it should be entirely destroyed with fire and leave nothing. If he were living today he would be the first to put fire to the Jew schools and houses.''' (emphases added)"
			}}

			The article claims "remedial action" number one is, "to burn down Jewish synagogues and schools and warn people against them;" whereas all Luther recommends is, "avoid their synagogues and warn people against them." Luther clarifies his recommendation advising that it "should be done to the glory of God and Christendom, that God may see that we are Christians." Martin Luther never makes any direct recommendation to burn down synagogues. As for Luther's mentioning of Moses' scripture, would it not be more reasonable to interpret that as Luther's notoriously bold style of polemic, meant primarily to strengthen his general argument against the corruption he claims to witness in the Jewish community, stemming from his criticisms against corruption of religious institutions in general?
	:::Actually, it's the pair of you who need to calm down. Every page I've seen you on ends up full of hysterical instructions and accusations. I've found one publication by Briese from 12 years ago: ''Foundations of a Lutheran Theology of Evangelism'' (Regensburger Studien zur Theologie); that indicates that he is not a well-known scholar. If the position that "historians are at a loss as to find a link" is a majority or significant-minority position, you should be able to find someone else who maintains this. If it is a tiny-minority position, we don't include it. So can you please refer me to other scholars who have said this, or anything like it? Also, please bear my point in mind that we will make Briese look foolish by including this quote, then having a historian directly contradict him. It seems unfair to do that. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 13:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

			The rest of the seven points are basically correct; however, Martin gives detailed explanations for all seven. Therefore, it would definitely not hurt to at least provide brief summaries of what Luther argued for each prescribed remedy, in addition to correcting any misquotations or misleading uses of quotations interspersed among the article. --] (]) 23:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
	::::I see you've re-added it, CTSW, as you always do with drboisclair and Stan. You make both the article and Briese look absurd. We say the Nazis quoted it in their newspaper, we say it was cited at Nuremberg, we quote a historian saying it was the first step on the road to the Holocaust — and then we quote a Lutheran pastor saying historians are at a loss as to find a link! This is a classic case of a strong POV getting in the way of good writing and common sense. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 13:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

			:This is a continuation of a discussion above. I pointed to
	::: Please stop with the characterizations and personal attacks.

			:First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or a cinder of them_
	::: I suggest that, if you do not like the Bliese quote, we remove the Johnson one as well. --] 13:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
			:Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed....
	::::If you don't mind making Bliese look foolish, it's not for me to protect him. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 13:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
			:Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them
			:Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb_
			:Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews_
			:Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping....
			:Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow_
			:See also Wikiquote , , and the LA Museum of the Holocaust. and since it is really only the first that is challenged, . I don't understand the difference, although the sources I can find for the "avoid" version are generally ones we wouldn't touch. ] ] 16:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

			== "The Jews" ==
	:::::Adding the material is the only way, or one of the only ways to make this article NPOV. CTSWyneken, I commend you for your ability to deal with this matter impartially. I resent the accusations laid against you. ] 13:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

			Should this article use the phrase "the Jews", or just "Jews"? ] (]) 02:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
			:It really depends on the context. ] (]) 03:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
			::There actually weren't that many instances of "the Jews" in the article that weren't in titles or direct quotes. I changed most of them to "Jews" except for one which I changed to "Jewish people". ] (]) 03:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

	==~~Archived~~ ~~talk~~ ~~page~~==		== lawyer ==
	I tried to add the archive navigation button to both archive pages, but it got screwed up because there is no space after the word Archive and the #1?? So I left as is. See ] on how this works. Also, I noticed a break in the talk page editing from 3/27/06 to 5/8/06?? Why was this?? Thanks --] 16:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:The response to my question above got inserted as I was archiving so it appears at the botton of archive2, it seems that it was just quiet in here. (I find that REALLY hard to believe :) j/k ). --] 16:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Sorry Doright, I am now reading how you aren't happy that some of the discussion is only a day old. It seems that will ALWAYS be the case the way you folks are, er, "working things out" in here :). Anyways, can't you just make mention of it in a new header or referrence the old header and folks can go back and take a peak?? Anyways, with of friend SV on the sidelines (it BETTER be temporary in case she is lurking) I thought I would try to help out. Again, no disrespect intended. Thanks! --] 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I don't understand what you wrote. Nor do I understand why you and CTSWyneken insist on blanking this talk page of 100% of its content, including current discussions. Please review ]. ] 22:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Sorry Doright for not making sense. In the future, I will only archive part of the talk page, that does make sense and I didn't even think of it. If you like, just go above to where it says Archive2 and cut the part you want and paste it in here and then delete it from the archive. It may be a little messy, but no big deal. Is that OK? Or just continue the dilogue below. --] 00:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

			Paragraph 7 begins with, "Luther, a lawyer. . . ." Luther had plans to become a lawyer, but his plans changed when he entered a monastery. ] (]) 00:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
	== Direct Quotations from Martin Luther that Attacks Jews Specifically as a Race==

			== Does Luther advocate murder? ==

			In the article it says the following: "He also advocates murder of all Jews, writing "e are at fault in not slaying them"."
	In On The Jews and Their Lies,Martin Luther repeatedly attacks Jews as a race. Luther states:

			In the infobox, there's a link to the original German book on Google Books. On page 251 I found the text on which the aforementioned statement is based.
	<blockquote>"There, Jew, you have your boast, and we Gentiles have ours together with you, as well as you with us. Now go ahead and pray that God might respect your nobility, '''your race, your flesh and blood.'''"<ref <cite>Martin Luther.<cite/> On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)</ref></blockquote>] 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

			I took a screenshot and asked ChatGPT to translate it. This is what I got:
	<blockquote>"Therefore it is not a clever and ingenious, but a clumsy, foolish, and stupid lie when the Jews boast of their circumcision before God, presuming that God should regard them graciously for that reason, though they should certainly know from Scripture that '''they are not the only race''' circumcised in compliance with God's decree, and that they cannot on that account be God's special people."<ref <cite>Martin Luther.<cite/> On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)</ref></blockquote>] 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

			{{Quote\|text="It is no different; for, as mentioned above from Moses, God has struck them with madness, blindness, and a frenzied heart. And it is also our fault that we do not avenge the great and innocent blood that they poured out on our Lord and on the Christians for over three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that they still pour out on children (which, as it appears, can still be seen in their eyes and skin). We do not seek justice for this, we do not kill them. Instead, we let them sit freely among us, lie, curse, blaspheme, and desecrate us and all that is ours—our schools, houses, bodies, and property, which we protect and defend. We help them make themselves idle and safe, allowing them to suck our money and wealth from us, mock and spit on us, and grow mighty off our sins until they finally overcome us. And for such a great sin, we would all deserve death, for we take everything kindly, just as they daily beg and hope."}}
	<blockquote>"There is one thing about which they boast and pride them selves beyond measure, and that is their descent from the foremost people on earth, from Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and from the twelve patriarchs, and thus from the holy people of Israel. St. Paul himself admits this when he says in Romans 9:5 Quorum patres, that is, 'To them belong the patriarchs, and of '''their race''' is the Christ,' etc."<ref <cite>On the Jews and Their Lies,<cite/> Martin Luther, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)</ref></blockquote>] 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

			Does this really mean Luther advocates murder? To me it looks like Luther uses big words to express that he is annoyed by the fact Jews live peacefully among the Germans while, according to him, they deserve a harsh treatment for things they supposedly did.
	<blockquote>"Oh, that was too insulting for '''the noble blood and race of Israel''', and they declared, 'He has a demon' (Matthew 11:18) Our Lord also calls them a 'brood of vipers'; furthermore, in John 3:39,44 he states: 'If you were Abraham's children would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil.' It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today."<ref <cite>Martin Luther.<cite/> On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)</ref></blockquote>] 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

			In addition, on page 253 (just two pages later), he says the following: {{Quote\|text="We must practice a sharp mercy with prayer and fear of God, if we might yet save some from the flames and fire. We must not take revenge; they have vengeance upon them, a thousand times worse than we could wish upon them."}}
	<blockquote>"They are the boastful, arrogant rascals who to the present day can do no more than boast of '''their race and lineage''', praise only themselves, and disdain and curse all the world in their synagogues, prayers, and doctrines. Despite this, they imagine that in God's eyes they rank as his dearest children."<ref <cite>Martin Luther.<cite/> On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)</ref></blockquote>] 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

			Luther says they shouldn't take revenge on the Jews. He proceeds to list his 7 actions. Although the actions are harsh, murder is not one of them.
	<blockquote>"They boast of '''their race and of their descent''' from the fathers, but they neither see nor pay attention to the fact that he chose their race that they should keep his commandments."<ref <cite>Martin Luther.<cite/> On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)</ref></blockquote>] 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

			I'd like some more views on this. Preferably from a native German speaker.
	<blockquote>"They turned a deaf ear to us in the past and still do so, although many fine scholarly people, including some '''from their own race''', have refuted them so thoroughly that even stone and wood, if endowed with a particle of reason, would have to yield.<ref <cite>Martin Luther.<cite/> On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)</ref></blockquote>] 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

			As a sidenote, on the article Martin Luther and antisemitism it says: "He also '''seems''' to advocate their murder". To me, this sounds like a better observation. On the German Misplaced Pages I couldn't find anything related to this text. ] (]) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
	<blockquote>"Furthermore, as Gabriel says, he must have come from among their people, undoubtedly from the royal tribe of Judah. Now it is certain that since Herod's time they had had no king who was a member of '''their people or race.'''"<ref <cite>Martin Luther.<cite/> On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)</ref></blockquote>] 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

			:While viewing the history of this article I noticed 'seems to advocate' was changed to 'advocate' on June 8th 2023 and 'all Jews' was added on March 4th 2024. ] (]) 22:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
	<blockquote>"This was accomplished despite the fact that the other faction, the blind, impenitent Jews — the fathers of the present-day Jews — raved, raged, and ranted against it without letup and without ceasing, and shed much blood of '''members of their own race''' both within their own country and abroad among the Gentiles, as was related earlier also of Kokhba."<ref <cite>Martin Luther.<cite/> On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)</ref></blockquote>] 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
			::I see my second comment is ambiguous. Where I said 'this article' I'm referring to the article ''On the Jews and Their Lies''. ] (]) 23:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

			:::We need sources, eg which says "seems".
	==Attempt to ban h-antisemitism from Misplaced Pages==
			:::P219 "advocates their murder".
	Dear fellow editors: I've invited discussion of the reliability of h-antisemitism on the talk page of ]. Please drop by and comment ]. ] 23:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
			::: "systematic murder".

			:::It's pretty clear there are scholarly disagreements about this and we need to present both. {{re\|Hob Gadling}} ] ] 09:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	== Doright's revision of improvements ==

	For the record, user Doright added new quotations to the article whose citations were not correctly formatted, lacked pagination, and took a position in a debate between Luther scholars and Dr. Robert Michael (and possibly others). I corrected these as far as I was able at the moment, did some rearranging of the section. User Doright reverted the whole lot, characterizing it as a POV distortion.
	I have obtained a copy of the Lewis article and read enough to see the summary does not do it justice. I will report the results when time permits analysis and identification of the pagination of the selections in our current text. It would be nice if he would provide page numbers.

	Since I will not engage him directly, I would appreciate someone else weigh in on the issues involved.

	The diffs are:

	.

	.

	-- notice characterization in edit summary.

	.--] 14:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

	, deliberately removing added quotation, moving citation away from text it supports, undoing corrections in citation form, removing the context for a Michael quote, readding redundant heading and moving Lewis quote out of logical sequence. Anyone else want to comment? --] 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
	*Well, your changes look good to me; I'd like to see some explanation of what Doright thinks is "POV distortion". Could be, given the nature of the fussiness about this article, it would make sense to first say "Hey, this section needs some reshaping, here's my thoughts"; "be bold" is useful as a first suggestion, but "be careful of hornets" also is good. --]] 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

	:: Thanks, JP. To avoid an edit war, I'll leave it alone for now. I have just put up the verify flag on the section. I'll await the comments of others, since I do not talk with Doright. In the mean time, I will read the Lewis article, summarize my thoughts on it and report back.
	--] 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

	::: In addition to the problems above, some of which render this article inaccurate, pagination is missing for the Luther quotes in the body of the text and in the footnotes. Persumably the user has a copy of the text at hand and can supply them. Without them, the quotes remain unverified. --] 21:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Jpgordon, you say, "Well, your changes look good to me." Here are two of those changes (] and ] ). Both claim WP:OR as the rationalization for removal. The 1st deletes the sentence,"''See footnotes for additional race quotes.''" The 2nd deletes the phrase,"''while invoking a concept of race''" from the sentence, "In On The Jews and Their Lies, Martin Luther repeatedly attacks Jews while invoking a concept of race." Please identify the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that it is OR. Also, note that this "good looking" edit leaves the additional race quotes dangling in the footnotes without context or explanation. ] 05:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

	===Addition of the {Not verified} tag===
	CTSWyneken, Which citations are you claiming could not be verified? It may not be good practice to use this flag for material that you have not taken the time to read. It's probably better to reserve it for citations for which you have at least conducted some due dilligence. ] 21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

	:: Please note I do not reply to this user. --] 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Sorry CTSWyneken, if you continue to refuse to identify exactly what it is you claim could not be verified, your tag will be removed. Please see ]. It makes no sense to run up a red flag and then refuse to answer the simple question of "why?" Please review ]. Also, please do no use such tags as rhetorical devices or as a personal reminder that you have not yet had time to read the sources. ] 01:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::CTSWyneken, I've just discovered that you responded to my request, not in this section, but in the preceeding section. Some might interpret the placement of the response in a section preceeding the one containing the question as swizzling. Please do not embed your replies in random sections of the talk page.] 06:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::CTSWyneken, your rationalization does not support the application of the tag to the entirety of section 3 and all its subsections.] 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Same old Martin Luther talk page ==

	We had done good for a while, but I guess were back to the old ways of this talk page. Well, peace can't last forever. Good luck to all!!! ]] 06:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Reasons for Verify Tag ==

	For clarity's sake, the verify tag is up because I have identified and tried to correct the following inaccuracies, only to be reverted twice by the same user. In light of the way this user treats people who disagree with him (see ]), I have good reason to believe making the changes myself will result in an edit war. Therefore the tag is there to request other editors to review, as JPGordon has done, comment and perhaps make the same changes. The problems are as follows:

	# Note 15 on claims an article by ] supports the Halsall article. It does not. It supports the Siemon-Netto quote.--] 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
	# Notes 16, 17, 18 claim to be quotes from the physical copy of <cite>On the Jews and Their Lies</cite>, but do not cite pagination. They are likely from a third party source, possibly from one of the copyright infringing sources (see ]), in which case the citation should be to it, but cannot be (see ]). Since this user has misquoted this very work before, (]), the citations need to be paginated. --] 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
	# I have the Bernard Lewis article. The article cites the physical version of the article as its source, but does not paginate. Either the online version should be cited, or the page numbers included. In addition, the article states, among other things, "Racial antagoinsim represents a return to an earlier and more primative conception of identity... Modern ideological racism in the Wester world appears to derive from two historically recognizable sources. The first is the Christian reconquest and unification of the Iberian Peninsula, completed in 1492. First the Jews and then, a little later, the Muslims were given the choice of conversion, exile or death... forces conversion inevitably raises suspicion about its sincerity... So began the quest for what was called "purity of blood," by which alone, it was believed, the purity of the faith and Christian society could be safeguarded." (p. 21) At best, the summary of this article distorts Lewis' analysis.--] 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
	# The Michael quote which follows is from an email, which opens with the opinion of a scholar, with whom the balance of the message takes exception. Not summarizing that quote, which Michael felt necessary to include, removes the needed context. --] 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

	There are other issues with this contribution, but they deal with ] and writing style problems. --] 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

	:I looked at this and support your edits with one caveat. Instead of removing "while invoking a concept of race", I suggest replacing it with something like ", at times explicitly referring to them in racial terms", because it is very clear from the quotes that Martin Luther is bringing up the issue of their race, and that's what that particular paragraph is about. I support your removal of the Lewis article section since that article sees modern racism in the Christian world as being driven by events in the Iberian peninsula and new developments in the practice of slavery. The connection to Martin Luther is tenuous at best. - ] 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

	==== Is it OR to say that these quotes show Luther as racially antisemitic? ====

	(since this the following is on OR and NPOV in the latest posts, I've added a subheading to keep the subjects separate)

	:: Thanks for the opinion. As to your caveat, the problem is that it is not clear to the Luther scholars in the paragraph above this section, nor the scholar whose quote I added and Doright reverted out, nor five others documented in the last talk archive of this page. So, by saying something like this, we are a best engaging in ], taking it upon ourselves to interpret Luther's words in a way experts in his life and thought claim is inaccurate, or ] deciding whether these scholars or Dr. Michael are correct. But this issue is not a verify issue. --] 19:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

	::: Is it OR just to point out that Luther mentions race? He does so directly in the quotes. Is it really true that not a single one of the scholars referenced points out that he mentions race? - ] 22:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::: There are several issues here as I see it.

	:::: The first is whether or not these passages accurately reproduce the translation of <cite>On the Jews and Their Lies</cite> As I pointed out above(]), user Doright has quoted an online version of this work before that substituted the word "race" for the translator's word, "people." To be sure that the translator's actual words are quoted, someone will have to go through several hundred pages of this work to look for the quotations, since Doright has not provided page numbers.
	:::::I provided all the pages numbers and you claim to have verified them yourself.] 06:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::: Now, assuming that the word is used by the translator, the question really is what does the original German of the passages say? If, as was the case in the above inaccurate quotation incident, the underlying word is "Volk," what meaning did Luther have in mind for it? The primary meaning is "people." Now, as an encyclopedia, we are not qualified to make a decision on this matter. To do so is either OR or POV.
	:::::Now that you have confirmed for yourself that the translator uses the word "race" repeatedly in translating On The Jews and Their Lies, you are free to cite other authorities that claim the translation in Luther's Work vol 47 is wrong. As a scholar of Luther and a full time paid librarian of an important Lutheran institution, surely you can find many sources that show the translations of Luther in Luther's Works are wrong. After all, to my knowledge, this is the primary English language source for Luther.] 06:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::: Turning to those scholars, all of whom have studied Luther thoroughly, their opinions are quoted . One of them, Mark Edwards, has his specialty in Luther's polemics. It is his quote that Doright deleted. Because they state their opinion so definitively and so far only Dr. Michael has been quoted making a counter argument, we should not characterize the content of these quotes. --] 23:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::: OK you've convinced me. Doright, do you have a response? - ] 00:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::: You have also convinced me CTS. You had some very good points. ] 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::: I, too, am convinced.] 21:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

	Above, Merzbow asks: "''Is it really true that not a single one of the scholars referenced points out that he mentions race? - Merzbow 22:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)''" I find no answer to this question. How about it CTSWyneken, after all, you are providing the citations and it does tend to make one wonder about these quotes.--] 08:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	====Is it Original Research to dispute the quotations in the published "Luther's Works" without citing references that dispute the translation?====

	:::::Page numbers have been provided. BTW, it's a bit shocking that a Luther scholar and librian at a Lutheran institution does not have access to ] and is not aware of these particular quotes. It is CTSWyneken that is engaged in Original Research. I am merely quoting "Luthers Works." Perhaps when CTSWyneken publishes his own translation of "On The Jews and Their Lies," we can cite him. Alternatively, it would be helpful, if he can provide citations from scholars that dispute the translations of the specific quotations.] 18:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

	=== Doright Once Again Reverts, Removes Dispute Flags ===

	In light the above discussion, I the improvements. Doright once again the changes, removing the verify tag and the NPOV tag. In addition, he has now resorted to a personal attack.

	The only improvement he has made is finally to provide pagination, so that the quotations, contained in 169 page work can be checked. His summaries still ignore contexts and misrepresent the content, he still insists on making Siemon-Netto into a support for Halsall, deletes a quote from Mark Edwards and gives his opinion of Luther's words in the face of a number of scholars that insist Luther had racial motivation.

	Since he does not want to listen to me, to now three other editors, the flags must remain up. Since he will undoubtedly continue to revert my changes, would someone else comment, and, if you agree, make the changes again? --] 19:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

	:In light of the fact that Doright is making absolutely no attempt to provide specific criticisms of CTSWyneken's changes, which have been agreed to by three editors now, I have restored his changes. I did, however, keep Doright's enhanced quotes and references. - ] 21:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Make that 4 editors in total - CTSWyneken, Merzbow, jpgordon, and Thetruthbelow. You need to start engaging with us, Doright. - ] 21:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Make that five.] 21:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Six. --] 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	====Why are you deleting the section?====
	:Why are you deleting the section, "Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism" that has been part of the article since April?] 05:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	::Because you cannot quote any source that affirms that there was such a relationship in Luther's time except for that one email, vs. numerous other far more reliable sources that disagree. - ] 00:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::], in “Identifying the Historical Roots of Racism” points to the “purity of blood” doctrine of the 15th century by which it was believed “the purity of the faith and of Christian society could be achieved.” Lewis identifies it as a “historically recognizable source” of “modern ideological racism.” “ In this we may see the beginnings of anti-Semitism, properly so-called; that is to say, a new kind of hostility to Jews” which is based on “racial or ethnic differences.”<ref> Lewis, Bernard, "The Historical Roots of Racism," <cite>American Scholar</cite> 67 (1998) no. 1:17-25.</ref> Now, why are you deleting the section?--] 06:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::The Lewis quote is still in there, but under a less POV section name ("Anti-Semitism and race"). The original name ("Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism") implied there was such a relationship in Luther's writings (this, after all, being an article on one of Luther's works), a view that is not supported by the vast majority of the scholars quoted in the article. - ] 07:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::So you're saying that your preferred section name is POV, but somehow less so? One might ask why, in your preferred section title, Anti-Semitism is put into relationship with race and what this implies (this, after all, being an article on one of Luther's works). Perhaps we can avoid this debate, if we can "settle out of court" by adding the word Christian, because it is in fact Christian antisemitism that the section is talking about (no Islam here). So, the section title would read, "Christian Anti-Semitism and race." What do you think?--] 07:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I personaly have no problem with that title, but I can gurantee that CTS and other editors will. For now, I would just leave it as it is. ] 07:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::I'm glad to hear that you don't have a problem with it. Can you tell me why you are so sure that CTS will have a problem with it?] 08:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Analysis of Citations to <cite>On the Jews and Their Lies</cite> ==

	Looking at the citations added to the quotes Doright restored:

	# In version of the page, Notes 18-26 duplicate the quotes which follow in 27-35.
	# They are correctly transcribed, but only partially in context, as follows:
	# The quote from p. 141 reproduces a portion of the argument that the Jews were proud of their decent from Abraham and they did not like John the Baptist's criticism of that pride.
	# In the quote from page 149, Luther asserts that all people are born into sin, Jew and Gentile alike (p. 148) He then attacks them (p. 149) for what he believes to be their approach to God in pride. Gentiles should not be lured to convert to Judism, Luther warns, because this boast is futile.
	# Moving forward to 174, the next quote again attacks the supposed boast of Jews that they are descended from Abraham. Luther charges them with disobeying the very law they boast of. It misses a harsher charge from Luther in the next paragraph, where he expresses the opinion that the whole Jewish people is demon-possessed.
	# Moving back to page, Luther actually attacks the status of Jews as a unique people here.
	# Moving further back to page 140, here Luther is leveling the false charge that Jews think of themselves as the only noble people on earth and that the Gentiles are not human. He spends the next few pages attacking the uniqueness of the Jewish people with one slander after another.
	# Moving forward again, this time to page 156, Luther argues that Psalm 5 applies to all people, Jews and Gentiles, because, in his opinion they are... and issues this quote, plus similar ones.
	# Continuing to move forward, on 176, Luther complains that the Jews have not listen to him and other Christians, including converts, refusing to see what is, to him, conclusive evidence that the Messiah has come.
	# Further forward, on p. 250, Luther is arguing that the Angel Gabriel said that the Messian must come from the royal tribe of Judah, but that they have had no king of that tribe since the time of Herod.
	# Finally, on p. 298-299, Luther argues that many thousands of Jews became Christians, even though the leaders of the Jews shed the blood of many of their people.

	Having reviewed these, I come to two conclusions:

	# We can consider the quotations verified.
	# Scholarly interpretation is needed, because the wider context is not quoted in these passages. Neither Doright's opinion that they amount to modern racism, nor the opinion I've now come to, that Luther was arguing against considering Jews as a people and that the arguments of this book are thoroughly religious, should be in the article. If the quotes remain, they should do so either with scholarly commentary or now commentary at all. --] 21:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


	Having read “CTSWyneken Analysis of Citations,” here’s my point by point response:

	1. There is no duplication of text, merely that the same citations are identified. I have no objection to suggestions on how to improve the formatting so they retain their reference numbers.

	2. Thank you for finally admitting that all citations are correctly transcribed. CTSWyneken, it must have come to you as a great shock that there are so many instances of the use of the work race in Luther’s Works. Try reading the rest of the book. It’s interesting.

	3.-11. These are all entirely irrelevant. The quotes shows the use of the word "race" in On The Jews and Their Lies as published in Luther’s Works. You can try to divert attention from that simple fact by extending the quotes ad nauseum.

	Response to CTSWyneken’s “Conclusions:”
	1. Good.
	2. Another rhetorical attempt to poison the well by falsely claiming knowledge of my opinion. Nowhere do I state my opinion in the article, nor have I ever stated that opinion in talk. CTSWyneken’s beliefs regarding Luther or me are not relevant. This has nothing to do with the article.

	In conclusion, I find nothing helpful in CTSWyneken’s "analysis" or "conclusions."] 05:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


	::Doright, of course you would say'',"In conclusion, I find nothing helpful in CTSWyneken’s "analysis" or "conclusions"'' '''and''',''"Another rhetorical attempt to poison the well by falsely claiming knowledge of my opinion. Nowhere do I state my opinion in the article, nor have I ever stated that opinion in talk. CTSWyneken’s beliefs regarding Luther or me are not relevant. This has nothing to do with the article"''. However to directly contradict you, CTS's conclusions establish that we can consider the quotations to be correct, which clears up any controversy that might have related to them. For God's sake man, give CTS some credit. ] 05:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	::Doright, your opinion of the quotes is irrelevant, the quotes are a primary source and you are not allowed to analyze them in the article without references sources (see ]). You want to make a blanket statement that Luther attacks the Jews 'while invoking a concept of race'. All you have to support your opinion is an ''email'' by a single person, against multiple published sources that claim the opposite. We would be quite justified in knocking out this source alone just for being based on an ''email''. And even if the sources were evenly matched you would still not be justified in saying 'while invoking a concept of race' without also noting that many other scholars claim the opposite.

	::You might be surprised that I actually agree with you that Luther is 'invoking the concept of race'. But neither of our opinions mean jack squat in Misplaced Pages... you need to find some reliable sources for this. - ] 05:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	===Citations to <cite>Luther's Works</cite> Vol 47, p121-306===

	:Merzbow, again I have not stated my opinion, so please do not presume to know what it is. I suspect that it is far more complex and nuanced than you imagine. I’m sorry you have staked out such an extreme and in my view exceedingly odd position. I hope you are not married to it and will carefully consider the language. Your troubles may turn on a misunderstanding of “primary sources” and the epistemic differences between an original source (e.g., written in German) and a translation of that source (e.g., into English). I will assume that you have read the referenced treatise (On The Jews and Their Lies) in Luther’s Works, pages 121-306. I will also assume, at a minimum, you have read the intro of the main Martin Luther article ], the ] ,the ] and the OTJATL article.

	:Now, here is the text that you find objectionable: “In On The Jews and Their Lies, Martin Luther repeatedly attacks Jews while invoking a concept of race. For example, in his widely cited English language translation Luther states … .”
	:I assume that you take it as already properly established that in On The Jews and Their Lies, Martin Luther repeatedly attacks Jews. Thus, leaving as your sole objection the assertion that Martin Luther is “invoking a concept of race.”

	:You claim this is MY “analysis” and that I cite no source for it. First, it is not mine and secondly, it is not an analysis. I, in fact, provide nine citations of the highest scholarly standard that support the assertion that Luther invoked a concept of race. The point that you miss is that I am citing a TRANSLATION of Luther’s writings. The translator and editors of “Luther’s Works” are my source. I think we can agree that words have meaning and that translators are very keenly attuned to this. The purpose of words are to invoke concepts. In my above citations, the fact that the translator and editors undeniably (and now “confirmed” by CTSW) translate the meaning of Luther’s German words to be, in English, the word, “race,” settles my case that it is not I, but CTSW, that is engaged in Original Research by making the claim that the translator and editors misinterpret and therefore mistranslate Luther’s words. I merely cite the scholars and translator Martin H. Bertram and Franklin Sherman as my source justifying the assertion that Luther invokes “a concept of race.” QED. By the way, I think it is inconceivable that the translator and editors were oblivious to the German language and the meanings of the word “race.”

	:Now that I have addressed your issue, perhaps you will be kind enough to address one of mine. ] Cordially, ] 21:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	::The claim that a direct translation of a primary source is <s>still</s> not a primary source is just wrong. Accepting such a statement would open the floodgates in Misplaced Pages to people quoting translations of any of the major works like the Bible, Quran, etc. and adding reams of their own interpretations without end, simply referencing the translation. I've worked with many serious editors on the Islam articles, for example, and they adhere strictly to this standard - for example, see ]. Direct evidence why you are in left field is the fact that if it is so 'obvious' that Luther really is invoking the concept of race, ''why can you not cite a single scholar from a published source that supports your view''? Would you be willing to go to mediation on this to get more opinions? I'm sure CTSWyneken and Thetruthbelow would be willing. - ] 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

	::: I'm always willing to have others look in and weigh in on an article. I do not hold out much hope that it will help, however, since Doright has behaved in this manner since he arrived. That is why I do not address him directly anymore. --] 10:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::I did not make any claim whatsoever regarding the question of whether a translation of a primary source is (or is not) a primary source. Nor does my argument depend on such a claim. Rather, as I mentioned above, it depends on the “epistemic differences between an original source (e.g., written in German) and a translation of that source (e.g., into English).” You have not addressed this. Please do, since it is the core of my argument. Finally, regarding your claim of being in possession of “direct evidence,” I have provided the best of evidence which you seem to be ignoring, I cited the scholars and translator Martin H. Bertram and Franklin Sherman in what is possibly the most important English language source on Luther. On what basis do you refute them? I’m sorry if I seem dense, I just don’t get it.] 07:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Doright attacks again ==

	Please note that Doright once again has engaged in ] at --] 11:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	Note that Doright now also attacks Merzbow. He also mistakes moving text and deleting a sebsection heading with deleting a section. He then accuses this user of doing it, when, in fact, it was I who removed the heading and justified it above. --] 22:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	:For the record ] is Merzbow's edit. By reverting to your version, he is obviously doing everything you admit to having done in the edit. Since you have repeatedly stated that you refuse to engage in rational discourse with me, I ask him why he did it. I must say, my conversation with him has been refreshing to this point. ], you can see his response and the ensuing discussion. It is nothing like one would be led to believe from what at least one admin has referred to as your '''"hysterical accusations."''' I've asked you before to try to focus on the articles and not me personally and as others have warned you before, you could find yourself banned from editing these pages. Please stop while the choice is still your.--] 09:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Current ] ==

	The next improvements I suggest are the following:

	# Rewrite the summary of the Lewis article so it reflects what the scholar says accuratelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png
	Your signature with timestampy. I would do this myself, but have every reason to believe Doright will revert it.
	# Move the material that begins with... "In reply to Albert Lindemann, who said,..." through the end of the Michael quote so that it follows the Lewis quote. All of this is a general argument that racism existed before the 19th century, a conclusion that is controversial in itself. The counter argument, as the Michael email documents, should be researched and added here as well. This has the added virtue of restoring the flow of the section as it was before Doright added the material. In the light of new guideline ], look for higher quality sources for both views.
	# Where the line on Luther's repeated attacks, do a see reference with a wiki link to ]. Merge the quotes here into it. Eliminate notes 18-26, since they are not necessary in light of the full quotations which follow immediately. Look for commentary on any of these specific quotations, one way or another. In my previous exploration, I cannot recall having seen any. If no one can find such, ask if the words should be there at all.

	More work is needed, but that should get us started. --] 11:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	: This all sounds good, but don't worry yourself about who is going to revert what. There's multiple pairs of eyes on this article now. - ] 16:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	:: I made the move, the most modest of the changes proposed above. Let's see if it stays in place.
	--] 13:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Another inaccurate citation ==

	The link in Note 37 of version of the page takes us to a message log and not to the email that is the source of the quote. In addition, no message "Christian Racism, Part 2." Exists on this page. This reference needs to be corrected. --] 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Doright Please don't attack users ==

	First it was CTS, then me, now Merzbow. Please cease these uncalled for attacks. ] 00:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Merzbow, did I attack you?] 09:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Stop distorting my views, Doright ==

	Please actually read the 'Talk' page before editing again, Doright. Your attempt to re-insert the disputed language that six editors now disagree with by claiming that it's "Merzbow's language" is pure distortion, as I completely ] on it 4 days ago after seeing CTSWyneken's arguments, long before the vast majority of my edits to this page. The reason that "at times explicitly referring to them in racial terms" is POV is because the entire preceding paragraph in the article is full of scholars being quoted saying that Luther is not doing so! (For example, "Luther historian Mark Edwards adds: 'Luther identified a Jew by his religious beliefs, not by his race.'") I don't know how this can be any more clear. If you want to put language like this in, you're gonna have to say something like "but the majority of scholars disagree". Unless, of course, you can find a bunch that don't and quote them. - ] 06:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Thank you ] for explaining that to ] so plainly. I have been reverting his edits, and hopefully he will stop now. ] 06:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

	::To be fair to Doright, I don't see any problem with the additions of his that you reverted . ] 07:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::May I therefore assume that you will restore them, if an explanation is not provided? Please accept my apology for not keeping up to date with your changing views. After going back, I see you are right and no longer hold that view. My mistake. Sorry. However, the phrase you chose to express yourself "stop distorting my views" does tend to suggest that I have erred on your account more than this single time. If I have, please identify them for me and I will correct myself, otherwise I would appreciate you correcting this section title..--]

	==Request for explanation of reversions by Thetruthbelow==
	::Thetruthbelow, please explain your reason for reverting properly cited and relevant material. Also, please explain your deletion of my request for citation on other material.] 08:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:58, 13 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the On the Jews and Their Lies article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion: Interfaith Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Jewish history Mid‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Christianity: Lutheranism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on On the Jews and Their Lies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresented claims pertaining "seven remedial actions" and other points of contention mentioned

The following block quote comes from p. 39 of the English translation of Luther's text:

"Now tell me, do they not have great cause to hate us cursed Goyim, to curse us and seek our final, thorough and eternal ruin?
Now what are we going to do with these rejected, condemned, Jewish people?
We should not suffer it after they are among us and we know about such lying, blaspheming and cursing among them, lest we become partakers of their lies, cursing, and blaspheming. We cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of God's wrath (as the prophets say), nor convert the Jews. We must practice great mercy with prayer and godliness that we might rescue a few from the flame and violent heat. We are not permitted to take revenge. Revenge is around their neck a thousand times greater than we could wish them. (emphases added)"

While Luther's general criticism of Judaism and those who practice it is not at all hidden, among the questions to ask is: How, from reading this, can one possibly exegete any semblance of Luther arguing that Jews should "be shown no mercy and kindness"? When people selected sources about this text, did anyone bother to actually read it and examine whether or not such sources possess integrity in relation to the actual claims of the text itself?

The next following block quote from the same text comes from pp. 39-40:

"I will give you my true counsel: First, that we avoid their synagogues and schools and warn people against them. And such should be done to the glory of God and Christendom, that God may see that we are Christians and have not knowingly tolerated such lying, cursing and blaspheming of His Son and His Christians. For what we so far have tolerated in ignorance (I myself did not know it), God will forgive us. Now that we know it, however, and in spite should before our very noses tolerate such a building for the Jew in which they blaspheme, curse, spit upon and disgrace Christ and us, that would be simply too much, as if we did it ourselves and much worse, as you well know. Moses writes in Deuteronomy that where a city practiced idolatry, it should be entirely destroyed with fire and leave nothing. If he were living today he would be the first to put fire to the Jew schools and houses. (emphases added)"

The article claims "remedial action" number one is, "to burn down Jewish synagogues and schools and warn people against them;" whereas all Luther recommends is, "avoid their synagogues and warn people against them." Luther clarifies his recommendation advising that it "should be done to the glory of God and Christendom, that God may see that we are Christians." Martin Luther never makes any direct recommendation to burn down synagogues. As for Luther's mentioning of Moses' scripture, would it not be more reasonable to interpret that as Luther's notoriously bold style of polemic, meant primarily to strengthen his general argument against the corruption he claims to witness in the Jewish community, stemming from his criticisms against corruption of religious institutions in general?

The rest of the seven points are basically correct; however, Martin gives detailed explanations for all seven. Therefore, it would definitely not hurt to at least provide brief summaries of what Luther argued for each prescribed remedy, in addition to correcting any misquotations or misleading uses of quotations interspersed among the article. --199.8.13.180 (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a continuation of a discussion above. I pointed to

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or a cinder of them_

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed....

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

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb_

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews_

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping....

Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow_

See also Wikiquote , this sourcebook, and the LA Museum of the Holocaust. and since it is really only the first that is challenged, this OUP book. I don't understand the difference, although the sources I can find for the "avoid" version are generally ones we wouldn't touch. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

"The Jews"

Should this article use the phrase "the Jews", or just "Jews"? Editor2020 (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It really depends on the context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

There actually weren't that many instances of "the Jews" in the article that weren't in titles or direct quotes. I changed most of them to "Jews" except for one which I changed to "Jewish people". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

lawyer

Paragraph 7 begins with, "Luther, a lawyer. . . ." Luther had plans to become a lawyer, but his plans changed when he entered a monastery. 199.101.219.250 (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Does Luther advocate murder?

In the article it says the following: "He also advocates murder of all Jews, writing "e are at fault in not slaying them"."

In the infobox, there's a link to the original German book on Google Books. On page 251 I found the text on which the aforementioned statement is based.

I took a screenshot and asked ChatGPT to translate it. This is what I got:

"It is no different; for, as mentioned above from Moses, God has struck them with madness, blindness, and a frenzied heart. And it is also our fault that we do not avenge the great and innocent blood that they poured out on our Lord and on the Christians for over three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that they still pour out on children (which, as it appears, can still be seen in their eyes and skin). We do not seek justice for this, we do not kill them. Instead, we let them sit freely among us, lie, curse, blaspheme, and desecrate us and all that is ours—our schools, houses, bodies, and property, which we protect and defend. We help them make themselves idle and safe, allowing them to suck our money and wealth from us, mock and spit on us, and grow mighty off our sins until they finally overcome us. And for such a great sin, we would all deserve death, for we take everything kindly, just as they daily beg and hope."

Does this really mean Luther advocates murder? To me it looks like Luther uses big words to express that he is annoyed by the fact Jews live peacefully among the Germans while, according to him, they deserve a harsh treatment for things they supposedly did.

In addition, on page 253 (just two pages later), he says the following:

"We must practice a sharp mercy with prayer and fear of God, if we might yet save some from the flames and fire. We must not take revenge; they have vengeance upon them, a thousand times worse than we could wish upon them."

Luther says they shouldn't take revenge on the Jews. He proceeds to list his 7 actions. Although the actions are harsh, murder is not one of them.

I'd like some more views on this. Preferably from a native German speaker.

As a sidenote, on the article Martin Luther and antisemitism it says: "He also seems to advocate their murder". To me, this sounds like a better observation. On the German Misplaced Pages I couldn't find anything related to this text. AdrianEvex (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

While viewing the history of this article I noticed 'seems to advocate' was changed to 'advocate' on June 8th 2023 and 'all Jews' was added on March 4th 2024. AdrianEvex (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I see my second comment is ambiguous. Where I said 'this article' I'm referring to the article On the Jews and Their Lies. AdrianEvex (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We need sources, eg which says "seems".

P219 "advocates their murder".

"systematic murder".

It's pretty clear there are scholarly disagreements about this and we need to present both. @Hob Gadling: Doug Weller talk 09:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: