Talk:Messiah in Judaism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Shituf

Jewish rejection of JC isn't based on Shituf, which has to do with idolatry.

A certain editor is trying to insert "see Shituf" into this article. His reasoning seems to be that since some Jewish rabbinical authorities view Christianity as being shituf, shituf is about Christianity. And since Christianity is about Jesus, and since Jesus was a messianic claimant... well, you can see the convoluted logic there.

Judaism's rejection of the messianic claims of Jesus are one issue. Judaism's view on whether Christianity is monotheistic or not is a completely separate one. But this editor seems to have an agenda, and it's getting harder and harder to see his edits as being in good faith. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Woops

Sorry had a brain fade there is mention at an end section - but because of its significance I'd still argue a mention of this early in the article. djambalawa (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Apocalypse of Gabriel

There was an interesting article in the New York Times about the apocalypse of Gabriel, an ancient jewish text uncovered by Israel Knohl which identifies the messiah as Sar hasarim. [1] This ancient text appears to have interested both ancient jews and early christians, and it may possibly be further explored by contemporary scholarship. 69.157.229.153 (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus

Surely any article about the Jewish Messiah should at least have a one line statement somewhere that the Christian religion believes Jesus was the Jewish Messiah? Yes I know this article should be from the Jewish point of view but it definately should make a mention of this significant fact about the Jewish Messiah when 100's of millions of people in the world believe this? (djambalawa (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

They believe he is the Messiah, period, and that Jews are wrong for not believing in him, but not that he is the Jewish messiah. -- Avi (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps then this article should be renamed, because the claim of Christianity is precisely that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. The title is potentially confusing. The other possibility is to include a line or two with a link to another article. Additionally, thousands of Jews believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Maybe the link at the top is sufficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.3.195 (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Messiahs in the historical, rather than eschatological, sense

If one were to judge people as messiahs by the standards of biblical history (in the sense that people like Cyrus the Great were), rather than eschatological parts, then one might think of people such as Theodor Herzl and Harry Truman (well, debatable) and the people who accomplished in 1948 what Bar Kochba couldn't several centuries earlier: establish a viable Jewish state. True, the Temple isn't restored, but there is an enormous open air Jewish synagogue on the Mount's footsteps and Jewish forces did take over the Temple Mount before voluntarily giving it back to the Muslims, as far as I know.192.12.88.7 (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Maimonides's view of Jesus

The last section on Maimonides's view of Jesus has no reference. It is not acceptable, because it that goes against all known sources about Maimonides's view of the subject.. He went as far as stating that Christians are "idolaters": Mishneh Torah, "Abodah Zarah", 9: 4. The above section should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.242.189 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The last section on Maimonides's view of Jesus has no reference. It is not acceptable, because it that goes against all known sources about Maimonides's view of the subject.. He went as far as stating that Christians are "idolaters": Mishneh Torah, "Abodah Zarah", 9: 4. The above section should be deleted.

^^^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.242.189 (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed section entitled "Maimonides's view of Jesus" is unverifiable as unsourced. It also does not seem to fit the article as it has no relation to the subject of Jewish messianism, being about a Jewish view of Christianity. It should be removed. Mweisenfeld (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This Article Needs a "Criticisms" section.

Sorry, it just does; I cliqued on it hoping for an opposing viewpoint to the idea of Messianism but, I was dissapointed.

67.148.120.87 (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)stardingo747

Maybe, maybe, but the article is so confused and lacks so many citations of the right kind (secondary), that it is equally important that it is properly referenced. F.ex. the section Scriptural requirements uses some Bible citations that IMHO cannot be connected to Messiah if read correctly, a shallow skimming gives Isaiah 2:4 (refs to God, no Messiah context at all) and 2:11-17 (claims nothing of that kind). Secondary sources needed! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction: the overwhelming majority of those primary references speaks of Lord God, not of a Messiah, so unless Messiah is Lord God, ... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

...in your opinion. However, this article does not reflect your opinion, it is to reflect the point of view of Judiasm. This is not the place for those who oppose the teachings of Judaism in this area to attempt to argue against them. This article reflects Judaism's views. Please evangelize elsewhere on your own time. 69.249.104.253 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC).

Capitalization or no

Crossposted to Talk:Messiah#Capitalization_or_no

In certain articles, the term "messiah" is given capitalization -in what appears to be particular to the Jewish messiah concept, to discern between Jewish and non-Jewish conceptions of "messiah." I think this presents a bit of a POV issue, as using capitals for the Jewish concept serves to give a kind of title to one particular conception. Ostensibly, it can be argued that the Jewish moshiach is a titular post one which deserves a titular capitalization. But we don't for example give title to a non-existent king as "King," unless that position has been filled and we are referring to a particular being. Discuss -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus considered to be the Messiah in Islam

From Jesus in Islam:

"`Îsâ Ibn Maryam ( Arabic: عيسى, romanized: ʿĪsā ), known as Jesus in the New Testament, is considered to be a Messenger of God and al-Masih (the Messiah) in Islam." Editor2020 (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Noted the references. I think to be pertinent here, though, a clarification of what al-Masih means in Islam and more specifically how it differs from the Jewish concept. In an article about Jewish messianism, it is not sufficient to cite the use of a similar word. In Islam, the term only refers to Jesus' healing powers, and is simply an identifier. While "messiah" means different things in Jewish and Christian theology, there is a consensus on a kingship implied by the anointing of the individual rather than he being the one doing the anointing.

I don't want to get into a reversion war with anyone, but I think the edit as it stands clouds rather than clarifies the issue. Mweisenfeld (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

this page does not take judaism's view into account

messiah means saviour, but the jewish concept or maschiach does not mean messiah or saviour. I am going to cite few sites that mashiach means something else and NOT messiah (translated saviour) . the real concept is maschiach, which means anointed, not messiah. so, you can look at them: I am quoting

The term "mashiach" literally means the anointed one, and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil... http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/mashiach.htm

or one more

The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

so, why is this page named "Jewish messianism" while what the jews say means something else other than messiah?! their view is anointed one, not messiah. name must be something like "jewish anointedness" but not messianism. even if the name can be messianism, the context must write something different, the author(s) of this page seems that they do not know the meaning and difference of saviour and anointed. amend it. --Sir artur (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The primary meaning of the English word "messiah" is also "anointed [one]". The usage is correct in this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah

Mweisenfeld (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

ok, thanks. seems I might have misunderstood. if this section is resolved, it can be deleted. --Sir artur (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Citations

There's a "this article has issues" box saying that "This article has an unclear citation style." What does that mean in the context of this article? What exactly is wrong with it? Gilded Snail (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Messiah in Judaism. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021220182918/http://www.moshiach.com/discover/tutorials/moshiach_ben_yossef.php to http://www.moshiach.com/discover/tutorials/moshiach_ben_yossef.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060118114058/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/afterlife/AE_Messianism_TO/AE_Messiah.htm to http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/afterlife/AE_Messianism_TO/AE_Messiah.htm

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) 09:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Messiah in Judaism. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150812001753/http://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/J_Transp/J05_Messiah.html to http://people.ucalgary.ca/~Elsegal/J_Transp/J05_Messiah.html

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) 13:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Second Temple period and apocalypticism

I think that this section needs some serious updating. Since the 2000's, scholars have argued that Christianity is deeply rooted in Jewish messianism. The aricle now says:

The majority of Second Temple texts have no reference to an individual end-time Messiah.

References

Compare this to:

• William Horbury (1998), Jewish messianism and the cult of Christ:

There were more messianic beliefs in Judaism at the time of Jesus than is commonly supposed.

Google Scholar 197 citations

• William Horbury (2016), Messianism Among Jews and Christians: Biblical and Historical Studies; Google Scholar 70 citations
• David Flusser (2009), Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Sages and Literature, chapter 18, Jewish Messianism Reflected in the Early Church
• Andrew Chester (2007), Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology, p.394-395):

...for Paul, Jesus is clearly a figure of the heavenly world, and thus fits a messianic category already developed within Judaism, where the Messiah is a human or angelic figure belonging…in the heavenly world, a figure who at the same time has had a specific, limited role on earth

• R. J. Zwi Werblowsky (1987), MESSIANISM: JEWISH MESSIANISM, Encyclopedia of Religion:

The messianic doctrines that developed during the second half of the Second Temple period from approximately 220 bce to 70 ce (also called the "intertestamentary" period)

• Larry Hurtado, Paul’s Messianic Christology:

the christology and devotional stance that Paul affirmed (and shared with others in the early Jesus-movement) was not a departure from or a transcending of a supposedly monochrome Jewish messianism, but, instead, a distinctive expression within a variegated body of Jewish messianic hopes. In this paper, applying text-critical categories as a model, I first propose that we view Paul’s “christology” and devotional stance as comprising a particular and remarkable variant-form of Jewish messianism among the diversity of messianic figures and beliefs reflected in second-temple Jewish texts. I then discuss features that made it a distinctive and noteworthy expression of Jewish messianism.

To use a text-critical analogy, just as there was a textual pluriformity in biblical writings in the second-temple period (evident in the biblical manuscripts from Qumran), so there was a pluriformity in Jewish messianic hopes and figures; and I contend that Paul’s beliefs about Jesus constitute an especially noteworthy instance of that diversity.1

[note 1]: See, e.g., John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995), who posits “four distinct messianic paradigms”: “king, priest, prophet, and heavenly messiah or Son of Man” (195). “There were different messianic paradigms, not one composite concept of Messiah” (196). But he also notes that there were occasionally instances of the merging of two or more of these paradigms, forming “a composite figure” (195). See also Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008); Andrew Chester, Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology (WUNT 207; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), esp. 191 -327, 329-63, who judged “it is not possible to speak of a single form of messianic expectation or concept . . .; instead, we have to reckon with a variety of different kinds of beliefs and figures” (355).

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Scriptural requirements

@Wallingfordtoday, PiCo, Epinoia, and Tgeorgescu: Messiah in Judaism#Scriptural requirements is about Christian interpretations, isn't it? Compare Moody Handbook of Theology. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

That entire section looks like OR to me. PiCo (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

- Sorry, but I am not well-informed enough on Messiah in Judaism to make any kind of significant contribution - but thanks for thinking of me - Epinoia (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Page needs rework

Dear Editors who read this,

Feel this page has way too much focus not on Judaism, but its relationship with christianity. Feel Jewish aspects should be turned up whereas christian aspects should be toned down. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Need for overhaul

Dear All,

As I see it, this page needs major overhaul. The information on this page was written by those with little understanding. See sections where it mentioned beliefs that gathering of Jews before building of third Temple. Correct order is building of temple and then gathering of Jews. With regard to those minor factual edits will be changing. With regard to more major decisions, such as removing content should probably wait a couble days before changing it.

Reason for these views is that messianism in Judaism is not well understood, even by the scholarly both secular and religious. The only text which compiled a systemic commentary on Maimonedes last two chapters which deal with Messiah and messianic era, just came out last year and is currently only available in hebrew. Maimonedes is the only authority in Jewish Law who rules on laws of Messiah and Messianic Era. The commentary is entitled "Dvar Malchus Chidushim U'Biurim Be'Hilchos Melochim Le'HoRambam Prokim 11-12" ISBN: 978-1-893855-09-0. I have been studying this for past year and have some familiarity with basic concepts. The previous writers had a general vague knowledge of some details, but lacked a systematic overview of the concept. I intend to address this in coming weeks with editing of just basic concepts such as Two periods in the Messianic era and other concepts. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yaakov Wa.– please support your changes with citations to reliable sources (WP:RS) – the content you added about, "enabling the Jewish people to observe all 613 commandments" is not supported by either of the sources cited – content without citations counts as original research, see WP:NOR – "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" per WP:VERIFY – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Epinoia,

Check Maimonides Hilchos Melachim 11:1 Where it states "Then in his days all the statutes will return to their previous state... according to all their particulars as described by the Torah". Translation from Moznaim/ Eliyahu Tougar. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Dear all (Especially speaking to frequent editors (in no particular order): Epinoia, Joshua Jonathan, Tgeorgescu, Warshy, Editor2020, 2600:8805:9200:11c0:d00a:2689:49bc:cddf.),

Since I am looking to do a major overhaul of this article in a couple of days there are a couple of points I want to be clear about.

1. I am not very knowledgeable about how to cite stuff. Meaning that when I do start to revamp sections there will probably be a lot of statements without sources yet, although not OR. Can you please ask me for the source in the talk section and I will provide it within approximately 24 hours (except for Shabbos and Jewish Holidays)? Along these lines, is it possible that you can help out be putting in the sources/references into wikipedia? It will be a enormous undertaking which I don't have the time to effectively accomplish yet.

2. Regards to how we are going to revamp the article: There are two ways which I have thought of so far.

2.1 We can blank out whole article and start adding section by section in. Advantages: We get cleaner and more organized info in. Disadvantages, a lot of info is concealed for time being.
2.2 We can start adding in sections and slowly replacing it. Advantage: It has info. Disadvantage: Will be extremely disorganized and messy. 

I am personally leaning towards option 1. Please give any feedback or suggestions as to how you believe the best process going forward is. I predict this overhaul will take about 1 month of work.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

– it would be best if you added citations as you went along – unsourced material may be regarded as WP:OR or WP:SYNTH and be removed – for help in citing sources see Wikipedia:Citing sources – please DO NOT add unsourced content to articles as it makes more work for everyone – it would be a good idea if you took some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and took some time to learn how to edit before undertaking the major revision of an article, there have already been a few warnings on your User Talk page – take care, Epinoia (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Overhaul

Dear All,

I propose we revamp article according to this format.

1. Brief description of Jewish Messiah.

2.Role of Messiah in Judaism.

2.1 Restoring Judaism's (613) commandments
2.2 Qualifications for Messiah
 2.2.1 Qualifications for Presumptive Messiah
 2.2.2 Qualifications for Definite Messiah.
 2.2.3 Disqualification factors for (Presumptive?) Messiah.
2.3 Messiah's effect on World.
 2.3.1 Effect on Jews
 2.3.2 Effect on non-Jews
 2.3.3 Effect on physical world

3. How does Messiah come/ Two-Eras of Messiah/ Two periods in Messianic Era (Not yet finalized exact wording)

3.1 Non-Meritorious State-by Year 6000
3.2 Meritorious state.

4. Importance of Messiah in Judaism

5. Mashiach Ben David vs. Mashiach Ben Yosef (Joseph?),

6. Etymology.

7. Put in history of Messiah according to Jewish biblical sources. (This is Messiah in Judaism, will have separate section for christianity).

8. Judaic Messianism and christianity

8.1 all the christian stuff
8.2 Judaism's rejection of Jesus as Messiah. 

9. Contemporary Jewish Views era).

9.1 Orthodox
 9.1.1 Hassidic/Chabad
 9.1.2 Non-Hasidic/Litvak.
9.2 Non-Orthodox
 9.2.1 Reform
 9.2.2 Conservative

10. See also

11. Notes

12. References

13. Sources

14. Further Readings

15. External Links

Please comment on any suggestions to this proposed structure.

Blessings,

Yaakov W.

p.s. If no comments by 2/23/21, will start overhaul process.

– there should be a "See also" section before Notes – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Epinoia,

Done Yaakov Wa. (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your suggested section 2 above, especially "2.1 Restoring Judaism's 613 commandments" - what is your Reliable Source for this initial statement, before anything else? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Warshy,

The source is Maimonedes Hilchos Melachim chapter 11:1. Where it states (translation from Moznaim/ Eliyahu Tougar) "In the future, the Messianic King will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will build the Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel. Then, in his days, [the observance of] all the statutes will return to their previous state. We will offer sacrifices, observe the Sabbatical and Jubilee year according to all their particulars as described by the Torah".

Blessings,

Yaakov W.

p.s. Take a look at this article where it briefly goes over this concept. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1122357/jewish/Resumption-of-Suspended-Mitzvot.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Wa. (talk • contribs) 19:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I had a suspicion you may be coming from Chabad sources, which for me are biased sources to begin with. As for the suggested "613 commandments" to begin with, Maimonides does not refer to them in this manner. The proper way to use Maimonides (which should be in the article, no doubt about that) is to directly quote Maimonides giving his complete description of the Messianic age in translation, precisely as you have done above. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Warshy,

Appreciate comment, however, when one looks at the hebrew term used in Maimonedes (All their particulars as described by the Torah ככל מצותה האמורה בתורה). It is a clear reference to the 613 commandments. See also Maimonedes Hilchos Melachim Chapter 11:3 "The main thrust of the matter is: This Torah, its statutes and its laws, are everlasting. We may not add to them or detract from them. Anyone who adds or detracts or who reveals false interpretations of the Torah to imply that the mitzvot are not to be understood simply is surely wicked and a non-believer." (Translation from Tougar, with uncensored portion from Yemenite manuscript added).

Blessings,

Yaakov W.

p.s. Regarding naming of section, could be renamed to "Restoring Commandments" or something along those lines. I want suggestions.

 Yaakov Wa. (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

For ease of reading of the section/discussion you should indent your replies using the ":" colon before you start your reply. For signing your posts all you have to do is to type four tildes "~" in a row, and the Wikipedia platform will automatically sign them for you. As for your suggested overhaul, my suggestion is to work in small increments, step by step, so it is easier for other editors to accept or reject your changes. I.e., instead of a big plan of a complete overhaul of the article, I'd prefer you try to work in small changes and increments. Note that nowhere Maimonides himself uses the number "613" for his definition of the commandments of the Torah. That number is found in a later rabbinical source, that does not necessarily need to be referred to here, where Maimonides own words should be used directly instead. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Warshy,

In regards to your suggestion about colon, appreciate you taking time to teach this to me.

In regards to suggested overhaul, your suggestion noted that you prefer smaller changes. Also, will see what other editors say before 2/23.

In regards to number 613 commandments, Maimonedes himself mentions in his Introduction to the Mishneh Torah (of which Hilchos Melachim is the conclusion), that "The number of Mitzvot which are incumbent on us at all times is 613. Of them, 248 are positive commandments; an allusion to their [number], the number of limbs in the human body. 365 are negative commandments (prohibitions); an allusion to their [number], the number of days in a solar year." (Translation from Tougar).

However, there may be justification to say restoring commandments instead of saying 613. Keep up your feedback Warshy!

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Just want to state my support for this project and gratitude. The article has indisputably been from a Christian frame of reference, and I welcome a corrective for this. newmila (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding placement of etymology

Dear Watchlonly,

Regarding the placement of Etymology, I would like to understand your reasoning for placing etymology first. I believe it should go later, but first I want to hear your perspective because I believe you have some legitimate points that I will be addressing.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Since Watchlonly got banned, I don't believe he will be replying to this.

The reason why I believe that etymology should be placed later rather than directly after lead in this case. Because, the idea is to explain the concept of Messiah. Although most scenarios where there is an etymology, it introduces an explanation for the term. In this case, it does not really define what Messiah in Judaism is. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If no response/rebuttal by end of week, will place etymology after main concepts. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I am currently working or re-working the Etymology section, since with all the strictly religious Chabad stuff that was lately added to the page all the reliable scholarly sources/references that were there are currently lost. In an Encyclopedic entry in a non-religious Encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, the Etymology section has to be the first section, since it explains the linguistic origins of the word/term, and how it developed in the Hebrew Bible. All the strictly religious stuff that is being introduced here comes only form Maimonides, not before. And after/since Maimonides (please learn how to spell his name correctly in English, and please correct all the places where you have currently misspelled his name in this article), the only source used by this religious editor is the deceased Rebbe of Chabad, who is not a scholarly/academic reliable source for a non-religious Encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. In my reworking of the Etymology section I will be primarily using the entry Messiah in the Jewish Encyclopedia, and also the paralled entry in the Encyclopaedia Judaica. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Overhaul

Dear All,

I propose we revamp article according to this format.

1. Brief description of Jewish Messiah.

2.Role of Messiah in Judaism.

2.1 Restoring Judaism's (613) commandments
2.2 Qualifications for Messiah
 2.2.1 Qualifications for Presumptive Messiah
 2.2.2 Qualifications for Definite Messiah.
 2.2.3 Disqualification factors for (Presumptive?) Messiah.
2.3 Messiah's effect on World.
 2.3.1 Effect on Jews
 2.3.2 Effect on non-Jews
 2.3.3 Effect on physical world

3. How does Messiah come/ Two-Eras of Messiah/ Two periods in Messianic Era (Not yet finalized exact wording)

3.1 Non-Meritorious State-by Year 6000
3.2 Meritorious state.

4. Importance of Messiah in Judaism

5. Mashiach Ben David vs. Mashiach Ben Yosef (Joseph?),

6. Etymology.

7. Put in history of Messiah according to Jewish biblical sources. (This is Messiah in Judaism, will have separate section for christianity).

8. Judaic Messianism and christianity

8.1 all the christian stuff
8.2 Judaism's rejection of Jesus as Messiah. 

9. Contemporary Jewish Views era).

9.1 Orthodox
 9.1.1 Hassidic/Chabad
 9.1.2 Non-Hasidic/Litvak.
9.2 Non-Orthodox
 9.2.1 Reform
 9.2.2 Conservative

10. See also

11. Notes

12. References

13. Sources

14. Further Readings

15. External Links

Please comment on any suggestions to this proposed structure.

Blessings,

Yaakov W.

p.s. If no comments by 2/23/21, will start overhaul process.

– there should be a "See also" section before Notes – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Epinoia,

Done Yaakov Wa. (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your suggested section 2 above, especially "2.1 Restoring Judaism's 613 commandments" - what is your Reliable Source for this initial statement, before anything else? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Warshy,

The source is Maimonedes Hilchos Melachim chapter 11:1. Where it states (translation from Moznaim/ Eliyahu Tougar) "In the future, the Messianic King will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will build the Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel. Then, in his days, [the observance of] all the statutes will return to their previous state. We will offer sacrifices, observe the Sabbatical and Jubilee year according to all their particulars as described by the Torah".

Blessings,

Yaakov W.

p.s. Take a look at this article where it briefly goes over this concept. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1122357/jewish/Resumption-of-Suspended-Mitzvot.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Wa. (talk • contribs) 19:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I had a suspicion you may be coming from Chabad sources, which for me are biased sources to begin with. As for the suggested "613 commandments" to begin with, Maimonides does not refer to them in this manner. The proper way to use Maimonides (which should be in the article, no doubt about that) is to directly quote Maimonides giving his complete description of the Messianic age in translation, precisely as you have done above. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Warshy,

Appreciate comment, however, when one looks at the hebrew term used in Maimonedes (All their particulars as described by the Torah ככל מצותה האמורה בתורה). It is a clear reference to the 613 commandments. See also Maimonedes Hilchos Melachim Chapter 11:3 "The main thrust of the matter is: This Torah, its statutes and its laws, are everlasting. We may not add to them or detract from them. Anyone who adds or detracts or who reveals false interpretations of the Torah to imply that the mitzvot are not to be understood simply is surely wicked and a non-believer." (Translation from Tougar, with uncensored portion from Yemenite manuscript added).

Blessings,

Yaakov W.

p.s. Regarding naming of section, could be renamed to "Restoring Commandments" or something along those lines. I want suggestions.

 Yaakov Wa. (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

For ease of reading of the section/discussion you should indent your replies using the ":" colon before you start your reply. For signing your posts all you have to do is to type four tildes "~" in a row, and the Wikipedia platform will automatically sign them for you. As for your suggested overhaul, my suggestion is to work in small increments, step by step, so it is easier for other editors to accept or reject your changes. I.e., instead of a big plan of a complete overhaul of the article, I'd prefer you try to work in small changes and increments. Note that nowhere Maimonides himself uses the number "613" for his definition of the commandments of the Torah. That number is found in a later rabbinical source, that does not necessarily need to be referred to here, where Maimonides own words should be used directly instead. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Warshy,

In regards to your suggestion about colon, appreciate you taking the time to teach this to me.

In regards to suggested overhaul, your suggestion is noted that you prefer smaller changes. Also, will see what other editors say before 2/23.

In regards to the number of 613 commandments, Maimonides himself mentions in his Introduction to the Mishneh Torah (of which Hilchos Melachim is the conclusion), that "The number of Mitzvot which are incumbent on us at all times is 613. Of them, 248 are positive commandments; an allusion to their [number], the number of limbs in the human body. 365 are negative commandments (prohibitions); an allusion to their [number], the number of days in a solar year." (Translation from Tougar).

However, there may be justification to say restoring commandments instead of saying 613. Keep up your feedback Warshy!

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Just want to state my support for this project and gratitude. The article has indisputably been from a Christian frame of reference, and I welcome a corrective for this. newmila (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding placement of etymology

Dear Watchlonly,

Regarding the placement of Etymology, I would like to understand your reasoning for placing etymology first. I believe it should go later, but first I want to hear your perspective because I believe you have some legitimate points that I will be addressing.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Since Watchlonly got banned, I don't believe he will be replying to this.

The reason why I believe that etymology should be placed later rather than directly after lead in this case. Because, the idea is to explain the concept of Messiah. Although most scenarios where there is an etymology, it introduces an explanation for the term. In this case, it does not really define what Messiah in Judaism is. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If no response/rebuttal by end of week, will place etymology after main concepts. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I am currently working or re-working the Etymology section, since with all the strictly religious Chabad stuff that was lately added to the page all the reliable scholarly sources/references that were there are currently lost. In an Encyclopedic entry in a non-religious Encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, the Etymology section has to be the first section, since it explains the linguistic origins of the word/term, and how it developed in the Hebrew Bible. All the strictly religious stuff that is being introduced here comes only form Maimonides, not before. And after/since Maimonides (please learn how to spell his name correctly in English, and please correct all the places where you have currently misspelled his name in this article), the only source used by this religious editor is the deceased Rebbe of Chabad, who is not a scholarly/academic reliable source for a non-religious Encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. In my reworking of the Etymology section I will be primarily using the entry Messiah in the Jewish Encyclopedia, and also the paralled entry in the Encyclopaedia Judaica. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding placement of etymology

Dear Watchlonly,

Regarding the placement of Etymology, I would like to understand your reasoning for placing etymology first. I believe it should go later, but first I want to hear your perspective because I believe you have some legitimate points that I will be addressing.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Since Watchlonly got banned, I don't believe he will be replying to this.

The reason why I believe that etymology should be placed later rather than directly after lead in this case. Because, the idea is to explain the concept of Messiah. Although most scenarios where there is an etymology, it introduces an explanation for the term. In this case, it does not really define what Messiah in Judaism is. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If no response/rebuttal by end of week, will place etymology after main concepts. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I am currently working or re-working the Etymology section, since with all the strictly religious Chabad stuff that was lately added to the page all the reliable scholarly sources/references that were there are currently lost. In an Encyclopedic entry in a non-religious Encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, the Etymology section has to be the first section, since it explains the linguistic origins of the word/term, and how it developed in the Hebrew Bible. All the strictly religious stuff that is being introduced here comes only form Maimonides, not before. And after/since Maimonides (please learn how to spell his name correctly in English, and please correct all the places where you have currently misspelled his name in this article), the only source used by this religious editor is the deceased Rebbe of Chabad, who is not a scholarly/academic reliable source for a non-religious Encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. In my reworking of the Etymology section I will be primarily using the entry Messiah in the Jewish Encyclopedia, and also the paralled entry in the Encyclopaedia Judaica. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

overhaul of the overhaul

I really did not intend to spend that much time on this issue. But since the new Chabad emissary here will not relent, I have no other choice. However this will have to be, for me, a very long project indeed. Now, by first just restoring the original sources of the original lede that were all lost and replaced with primary sources of less quality, I at least have access back to the main reliable/academic secondary sources that had originally been used to build the non-religious encyclopedia article. But, as there is a lot of technical learning involved, and also a lot of deep and difficult edit thinking to be done, it will be a long project. I am just getting started, but at least I have now recovered the main tools and sources that will be needed for this much needed, but also very slow and difficult, consolidation, condensing and rewrite process. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I would caution you to avoid letting your apparent antipathy toward Chabad Lubavitch (and believe me, it is beyond apparent) ruin the extensive labour other Wikipedians are engaging in. Those of us engaged in the overhaul are not all Lubavitchers, let alone meshichists (I'm not even Orthodox). I encourage you to do your part and assist with the efforts to improve this article, but if that would entail further anti-Chabad screeds, I respectfully ask that you take that vendetta elsewhere. newmila (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, so now there is more than one editor working on this so-called religious fundamentalist "overhaul" of this article, using strictly primary sources (Talmud and Rambam so far, plus some other pointers to the last Lubavitcher Rebbe writings, which are definitely not RS for any historical or encyclopedic material. I'd heard about only one declared such editor so far. I don't know who you are and what you are doing here, and I really don't care. I will care about the edits you make, if you make them. If you're "not even Orthodox," please explain why do you think this article, as it was before the current unstable editing began, needed any type of a so-called "overhaul."

I never tried to cover my opinions about Chabad or about any other issue for that matter, and I will express them whenever I feel they refer to the subject matter being discussed. I don't have any personal vendetta against anyone. Chabad views on messianism are definitely an issue that directly relates to the editing of the declared editor here so far, in my view, and that is what I wrote about. I will keep monitoring this page and working on it slowly along the lines I tried to define above, regardless of what your opinions are. In whose name, or under what authority do you dare "caution" me about any views I have expressed here? warshy ^(¥¥) 22:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Note to a note

In the "Lineage" section, the editor chose to put an interesting closing note:

However, the Messiah does not immediately need to have the legal status of a King.

Why would he feel compelled to put such a note or qualification, and refer it to a certain "legal status?"

"Legal Status" according to what "legal" code? The issue here, both for the impartial observer and for the non-religious encyclopedia editor, must be first and foremost an issue of religious belief, not a "legal" issue. The note or qualification is also superfluous from the point of view of a non-religious encyclopedia, since the truthfulness, not the legality, of the so-called "messiah" is obvious: if he gathers the exiles in the land, and if he re-establishes the commonwealth and the temple, and he also defends and guarantees the continued physical existence of the new establishment against its enemies, then he obviously is the so-called messiah. And in the Jewish post-Biblical eschatological tradition that messiah is a king.

The Rambam was definitely a great thinker, philosopher, and writer, and he did not feel compelled to add such a note. His text is clear, and it explains it all much more clearly and better than the obscure note by a lesser qualified writer that was put there by the editor, without the appropriate translation. The sentence and the note are completely unnecessary from the point of view of a non-religious encyclopedia and they will be removed, because they are also not from a reliable secondary source. But before that happens, let the editor provide an appropriate translation, that when compared to the original text from the Rambam himself, will prove my point. As the Hebrew saying goes (hamevin yavin), the notified (person) will certainly understand. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 00:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Maimonides does not say that the messiah must have the "Halachic status" of a King. Your Rebbe is the source, and he is the only one saying that. But he is definitely not a Reliable Source on that, especially not in messianic matters, which he seems to be definitely pushing here. The still missing appropriate translation will also definitely make my point. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Schneerson's Likkutei Sichot is not an RS for Wikipedia, and any reference to it will only stay if attributed directly, and with translation. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Opportunity for collaboration

Dear all,

In regards to the overhaul of this page, several questions were asked. In this meeting, every interested editor will have the opportunity to ask questions and get a response.

Blessings,

Yaakov W.

p.s. If you were unable to make it to the 12-1 pm meeting. There is another meeting tonight 8:20-9:00 PM. See you soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Wa. (talk • contribs) 18:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yaakov W. is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: Messiah in Judaism Time: Mar 10, 2021 12:00-1:00 PM as well as 8:20-9:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting https://stevens.zoom.us/j/91690797689

Meeting ID: 916 9079 7689 Passcode: Moshiach

One tap mobile +19292056099,,91690797689#,,,,*27287435# US (New York) +13126266799,,91690797689#,,,,*27287435# US (Chicago)

Dial by your location

       +1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
       +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
       +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
       +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
       +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
       +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)

Meeting ID: 916 9079 7689 Passcode: 27287435 Find your local number: https://stevens.zoom.us/u/aoF657nXL

Join by SIP 91690797689@zoomcrc.com

Join by H.323 162.255.37.11 (US West) 162.255.36.11 (US East) 221.122.88.195 (China) 115.114.131.7 (India Mumbai) 115.114.115.7 (India Hyderabad) 213.19.144.110 (Amsterdam Netherlands) 213.244.140.110 (Germany) 103.122.166.55 (Australia Sydney) 103.122.167.55 (Australia Melbourne) 209.9.211.110 (Hong Kong SAR) 149.137.40.110 (Singapore) 64.211.144.160 (Brazil) 69.174.57.160 (Canada Toronto) 65.39.152.160 (Canada Vancouver) 207.226.132.110 (Japan Tokyo) 149.137.24.110 (Japan Osaka) Meeting ID: 916 9079 7689 Passcode: 27287435 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Wa. (talk • contribs) 00:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Collaborative editing is expected to occur at this article's talk page. WP:CONSENSUS is important and the talk page history, other than the article's, also serve to assess it. There were two obvious problems with the recently proposed edits: they were unattributed, presented in Wikipedia's voice, but also lacked a scholarly source citation (WP:CITE). —PaleoNeonate – 21:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Role of Messiah in Judaism

The opening sentence of the current section on the so-called "Restoring of Commandments" states:

Currently, many of the 613 commandments cannot be done until the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the universal resettlement of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel.

The entire stress of this co-called Chabad Lubavitch "Orthodox" religious "overhaul" of this page is on this matter, as if this is central role of the so-called "Messiah" in Orthodox Judaism. But this is really a red herring. That's because 365 of the so-called "613" commandments (more than half of all the so-called "613"!) are "negative" commandments (lo-ta'aseh), i.e., they are rather prohibitions, or religious enjoinments for the person not-to-do a certain act. Many of these negative commandments or religious precepts only refer to the land of Israel or to the temple. I.e., if the people are not living in the land and are rather in exile (galut), then they don't have to be dealt with at all. Now, with the return today of a considerable number of Jews to the supposed ancient land, the question really regards only a few very specific negative commandments that refer specifically to acts that are done in the temple, if it exists. I.e., just the return of the people from exile to the land itself is not enough anymore. In order for all these presumptive negative commandments to be even considered or thought of, the temple itself must be in existence and operating (with sacrifices, for example, etc.). So now, for these believing Jews, the temple must be rebuilt in Jerusalem and become operative. However, the temple cannot be rebuilt by simple people, or the secular political decision of a state's authority or government. The rebuilding of the temple is really the central task of this so-called "Messiah." So again, the real task, and the stress of this page, of the "Messiah in Judaism" should be the ingathering of the exiles, and the rebuilding of the temple. All the other specific questions about specific commandments are really secondary, and dependend on the first two initial roles and tasks. So this entire supposed "re-writing" of this article from a Chabad religious messianistic perspective is really a complete obfuscation of the purpose of messianism in the Jewish religion. The real question here is why is this red herring, this obfuscation being perpetrated here now in the English Wikipedia, before our very eyes? warshy ^(¥¥) 17:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Warshy,

In regards to the Messiah's main role being the restoration of the 613 commandments, this is explicitly stated in the beginning of Maimonides description of the Messiah: "In the future, the Messianic king will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will build the Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel. Then, in his days, the observance of all the statutes will return to their previous state. We will offer sacrifices, observe the Sabbatical and Jubilee years according to all their particulars as described by the Torah."

In regards to the question about Lo Taase (Negative Precepts). There is a concept of fulfilling a negative commandment. See Tanya chapter 27 (https://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7906/jewish/Chapter-27.htm). This concept is mentioned in other places as well, since my daily study schedule involves Daily Chumash, Tanya and Maimonides so this is where I mainly quote from.

In regards to Mitzvot dependent on the Land of Israel being possible to do. Remember the Yuval (Jubilee) year which is possible only with complete gathering of Jews in Land of Israel. As said by Maimonides, "observe the Sabbatical and Jubilee years" (Hilchos Melachim 11:1).

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You know, I never really related seriously to the freakish fundamentalist religious behavior of Chabad followers which, I have nonetheless witnessed throughout my entire life. I also witnessed some live TV appearances of their late deceased 7th Rebbe toward the end of his life, in the previous century. And in spite of the huge hullaballoo his followers always made about those appearances, to me they never looked like more than cult followers trying to make much more hay of the simple appearance and behavior of a very old, shaky, and very senile (probably already in advanced stages of dementia caused by age) man they worshiped, than what it really was.

Over the more recent years, every time the Chabad question arose somewhere on Wikipedia, I also wondered anew about all their political and economic power, the effects of which I have witnessed around throughout my entire life. In other words, I am just acknowledging that I do think about the phenomenon from time to time.

However, it was not until today, that I snooped around a bit on Wikipedia, and I found out that the deceased 7th Rebbe never fathered any children. Now, we know that these Chassidic sects are all dynasties, where the leadership mantle is always automatically inherited by the son or by the closest male next-of-kin relative, pretty much like kings and monarchs do everywhere. And we also know what type of turmoil arises in "kingdoms" when the king does not have a male heir to inherit the throne. I had never realized, until today, that that is the reason that Chabad has never named a new Rebbe to succeed the deceased 7th since his death in 1994.

All this also clarifies to me a lot regarding the latest turmoil raised in this page about the supposed "Jewish" definitions of a messiah, and of all the detailed qualities that would qualify or disqualify someone as such... Very interesting indeed. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Status of this page

OK, it is about time we stop any wholesale proposed "overhauls" here, and assess the status of this page before we continue.

I am still comparing the overall quality of the page as it stands at this moment, and the quality of the version/page before Yaakov Wa. started editing here. Overall, I believe the quality of the page and of the sources was not significantly improved since, maybe the opposite. This is because this editor has introduced a eminently religious and believing POV to the overall structure of the page, and to the sources used to support this extremely biased POV. This means that this page as it stands at this moment is a non-neutral page, edited with a strong slant toward a religious orthodox POV. But even more than that, it is an extreme fringe POV even among orthodox religious Jews, because it is clear that the main source he is using are the very controversial notes of the deceased Chabad Rebbe Schneerson.

Since he started editing here this editor has used either primary sources, such as Talmud and Maimonides, or extreme and fringe non-neutral sources such a the controversial deceased Chabad Rebbe. I am studying the two versions side by side, and after I study them carefully I may propose we just go back to the original version, before this POV editor started editing here. But at the moment, I am still studying the two versions side-by-side, and I suggest that we stop any wholesale additions and changes at this point, until we can come to a conclusion as the comparison of the two versions is concerned. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the version I am currently reviewing, to determine what was lost and what was gained in comparison to the current version. This in order to decide if my recommendation is to go back to that version, and start from scratch with regards to the current Chabad attempt to rewrite this page. warshy ^(¥¥) 20:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Placement of content on Christianity

Before the high volume of edits over the past month, this page grouped the content on Christianity in a single subsection under the "Origins and history" section, examining Christianity only in its early context as a breakaway Jewish sect that eventually departed completely from Jewish teaching and tradition. At present, this content has been moved into the sections "Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah" and "Jewish views". The former, being a level-two section, places undue weight on Jesus, who is not relevant to this article, except for the effect of early Christianity on Jewish history and on later Jewish polemicists who sought to clarify Jewish teaching on messianism. The latter, being a survey of modern Jewish views, is not an appropriate place for a treatment of Christianity, because ancient Jewish Christianity is not part of modern Judaism.

In the short term, I suggest the content on Christianity go back to the history section, where it is properly contextualized as an aside in the Second Temple period. In the long term, it would be ideal to expand this section with information about the messianic beliefs of other contemporary Jewish movements of similar standing, such as the Essenes and Zealots. Ibadibam (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Following from Editor2020's edit, and realizing that a proper section about all the proposed/claimed messiahs would overburden the history section, I've created a "Claimants" section around the Christian stuff, and moved the subsection on Meshichism there. This section could be exposed with summaries on the Sabbateans, Frankists, and other major claimants. Ibadibam (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Temporary pause

Dear all,

Due to Jewish Holiday of Pesach, will be taking approximately 2 week hiatus from this overhaul. Thanks to all editors who put in a lot of work, time and effort over this past month!

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear all

Was going to continue my Pesach vacation until Editor2020 decided to prepare for Shavuos with 49 Edits :)!

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

Dear All,

Before restructuring content, is it possible to first lay out plan by the Proposed Overhaul section? The above proposal was done with feedback.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

p.s. For reference up until a week ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Messiah_in_Judaism&diff=1013721479&oldid=1013720392

Are you suggesting that every time an editor intends to reorganize the page, they first propose a draft outline here on the talk page? Ibadibam (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Also please don't revert vast swaths of page history just because you need time to look at them. You can use the edit history tool to review everything and raise any concerns on the talk page here. Here is the diff showing all the edits while you were out. Ibadibam (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yaakov Wa.: please stop immediately and revert to the newest revision. If there are specific edits by Editor2020 or myself you would like to discuss, please discuss them here. Even undo those specific edits in the meantime if you feel there are egregious problems. But rolling back all the edits while you were gone, only to repeat the edits yourself, is not good form and is not how we approach consensus here. Ibadibam (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Effects of Messiah

Yaakov Wa., Wikipedia does not permit Original Research, while you have sourced your edits, it is not clear that the text supports the descriptions you have provided. Slywriter (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yaakov Wa., one of these days I'll ping correctly Slywriter (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Sw,

In regards to source, take a look at Maimonides Hilchos Melachim 12:5: "The occupation of the entire world will be solely to know God." The whole world includes non-Jews. However, when read in the original Hebrew, the concept is clearly conveyed.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

p.s. On further reflection, this concept is even more clearly stated in 12:1, "They will all return to the true faith and no longer steal or destroy." As a continuation on discussion of state of Gentiles in Messianic Era. Will add this as a source. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yakov Wa., have you read WP:PRIMARY. You can’t interpret Maimonides like that. If you use it as a source you can only cite it for what he literally says. Also, in that section thre’s this sentence: “Will remain as non-Jews/Non-Jews will still exist in Messianic Era.” That seems like a non-grammatical note and is incomplete. Did you put that there? if so, you’ll need to correct it or take it out. DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

p.p.s. Don't know why I did not quote this yet, but better nate than lever. Maimonides 11:4 "He will then improve the entire world, motivating all the nations to serve God together, as Tzephaniah 3:9 states: 'I will transform the peoples to a purer language that they all will call upon the name of God and serve Him with one purpose.'"

I hope this is clear enough. However, the concept is far more clear when read in the original hebrew. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear SW, DeCausa, and all other editors,

Thanks for your comments! In regards to use of Maimonides, WP:Primary states "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I believe the description given in Effects of Messiah is a straightforward, descriptive statement of what Maimonides says. However, I can understand why DeCausa may not fully agree. This may be because I am basing my writing off the Original Hebrew text, whereas DeCausa has access to only a translation (I am assuming DeCausa is not fluent in Hebrew, preemptive apologies if this assumption is incorrect). Unfortunately, the English translation loses a lot of the meaning, which is only accessible to individuals fluent in Hebrew. I believe that understanding the Hebrew language is not "further, specialized knowledge". Hopefully, editors fluent in Hebrew can weigh in on this.

Attaching Hebrew text below for easier reference. 11:4

וִיתַקֵּן אֶת הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ לַעֲבֹד אֶת ה' בְּיַחַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי אָז אֶהְפֹּךְ אֶל עַמִּים שָׂפָה בְרוּרָה לִקְרֹא כֻלָּם בְּשֵׁם ה' וּלְעָבְדוֹ שְׁכֶם אֶחָד):

12:1

עִנְיַן הַדָּבָר שֶׁיִּהְיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹשְׁבִין לָבֶטַח עִם רִשְׁעֵי עַכּוּם הַמְשׁוּלִים כִּזְאֵב וְנָמֵר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ירמיה ה, ו) "זְאֵב עֲרָבוֹת יְשָׁדְדֵם וְנָמֵר שֹׁקֵד עַל עָרֵיהֶם". וְיַחְזְרוּ כֻּלָּם לְדַת הָאֱמֶת.

12:5

בְאוֹתוֹ הַזְּמַן לֹא יִהְיֶה שָׁם לֹא רָעָב וְלֹא מִלְחָמָה. וְלֹא קִנְאָה וְתַחֲרוּת. שֶׁהַטּוֹבָה תִּהְיֶה מֻשְׁפַּעַת הַרְבֵּה. וְכָל הַמַּעֲדַנִּים מְצוּיִין כֶּעָפָר. וְלֹא יִהְיֶה עֵסֶק כָּל הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לָדַעַת אֶת ה' בִּלְבַד.

Blessings,

Yaakov W.

p.s. the above p.p.s. was intended to address both SW need for sourcing, as well as DeCausa's questions about Primary sources.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

References

@Yaakov Wa.: Firstly, please stop typing your name to sign your posts. That’s not how we do it - it doesn’t leave a time stamp for instance. Only type 4 tildes (~~~~), nothing else. Wikipedia will take care of your signature then. Secondly, could you highlight the point in the cited Maimonides text which supports “The nations Will remain as non-Jews because Non-Jews will still exist in the Messianic Era.” Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yaakov Wa.:, even after accepting that the Hebrew may be more descriptive than the English translation, it is hard to see the linguistic leap for the translations you are providing. It would appear that you engaging in original research, possibly unintentionally, with your attempt to apply the language of Maimonides to modern times.

What I would ask is to please provide on this talk page a translation of the sections of Maimonides writings that you wish to cite in the article and any explanation you can provide of why that translation differs from the generally accepted translations that are hosted in numerous places including by Chabad.

While none of us can read the Hebrew, we can evaluate the translation you provide and see if the paraphrasing for the article goes too far.

As it stands I have read what is available in English and I have reviewed several other language wikis with the same article and none of them align with the definitive nature of statements that you are providing in the article. Slywriter (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Yaakov Wa. Slywriter asked me to look into this content dispute because I'm fluent in Hebrew. The problem is that my knowledge of the religious world (Judaism, other world religions, etc.) is much less than that of, erm, I suppose I'll call it the secular world. I looked at the contested edit in question, and my first impulse is that it looks off, especially the un-sourced "Stages of effects" subsection. Also, my sense is that overreliance on literature based on Chabad messianism is likely to be problematic because the movement's... well, messianic nature. For example, I recently wrote a blip of a stub for the Mamre Institute — I wonder what the view of its Talmidey Chachamim be on the matter and how it would mis/align with that of Chabad. Just as a passing thought. Anyway, the point is that for wiki-voice, the mainstream view in Judaism (even if less-than-unified) is the one which ought to be represented, and be represented alongside 2ndry (and tertiary, but far less so primary) sources of the highest possible repute. Does that make sense? בברכה, El_C 14:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear El_C, SW, DeCausa and others,

Have removed part of that section on thinking over your feedback! Thanks so much for taking the time to look at it and think it over. I want in particular to commend SW for taking a look at other translations and doing your best to understand the topic!

Blessings,

Yaakov W.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Gentile nations in the Messianic era

The chief primary source for the doctrine that the gentile nations will "stream to learn" from the Jewish people in the latter days, is Isaiah 2. "Isaiah 2". Sefaria. How do the other commentators read this verse? It seems Maimonides does not use this passage as a source for Kings and Wars ch. 11-12. Perhaps he should have; it seems prior to Zephaniah 3, which he expounds at length.

וְהָיָ֣ה ׀ בְּאַחֲרִ֣ית הַיָּמִ֗ים נָכ֨וֹן יִֽהְיֶ֜ה הַ֤ר בֵּית־יְהוָה֙ בְּרֹ֣אשׁ הֶהָרִ֔ים וְנִשָּׂ֖א מִגְּבָע֑וֹת וְנָהֲר֥וּ אֵלָ֖יו כָּל־הַגּוֹיִֽם׃ In the days to come, The Mount of the LORD’s House Shall stand firm above the mountains And tower above the hills; And all the nations Shall gaze on it (stream to it) with joy.

The text as written in the article possibly underepresents Isaiah, which typically leads to his being misrepresented (or ignored) as in christian messianism. It is "Torah" specifically which is learned as the ethical life ("divine wisdom" is presumably expected as a result) Also - the peoples will stream to the "house of the LORD" (presumably, the Jewish people will be there as "A Kingdom of Priests" (Exodus 19) to teach it)

וְֽהָלְכ֞וּ עַמִּ֣ים רַבִּ֗ים וְאָמְרוּ֙ לְכ֣וּ ׀ וְנַעֲלֶ֣ה אֶל־הַר־יְהוָ֗ה אֶל־בֵּית֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י יַעֲקֹ֔ב וְיֹרֵ֙נוּ֙ מִדְּרָכָ֔יו וְנֵלְכָ֖ה בְּאֹרְחֹתָ֑יו כִּ֤י מִצִּיּוֹן֙ תֵּצֵ֣א תוֹרָ֔ה וּדְבַר־יְהוָ֖ה מִירוּשָׁלִָֽם׃ And the many peoples shall go and say: “Come, Let us go up to the Mount of the LORD, To the House of the God of Jacob; That He may instruct us in His ways, And that we may walk in His paths.” For instruction (Torah) shall come forth from Zion, The word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Jewish messianism should be distinguished here from Nicene Christianity and other contemplative neo-platonic cults, which expect "divine wisdom" without Torah, or even through the negation of it. "Torah" can and perhaps should be translated as "instruction" in some places, but its other sense of "law" isn't denied thereby.

4וְשָׁפַט֙ בֵּ֣ין הַגּוֹיִ֔ם וְהוֹכִ֖יחַ לְעַמִּ֣ים רַבִּ֑ים וְכִתְּת֨וּ חַרְבוֹתָ֜ם לְאִתִּ֗ים וַחֲנִיתֽוֹתֵיהֶם֙ לְמַזְמֵר֔וֹת לֹא־יִשָּׂ֨א ג֤וֹי אֶל־גּוֹי֙ חֶ֔רֶב וְלֹא־יִלְמְד֥וּ ע֖וֹד מִלְחָמָֽה׃ (פ)Thus He will judge among the nations And arbitrate for the many peoples, And they shall beat their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning hooks: Nation shall not take up Sword against nation; They shall never again know war.

An adequate exposition of this prophecy (also given in Psalm 96-99 - "sing a new song") should come prior to dealing with Isaiah's more hermeneutically difficult prophecies about the "wolf and lamb", and with Maimonides naturalistic interpretation of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe (talk • contribs) 06:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source that discusses this? This isn’t the way to use WP:PRIMARY sources. It looks like you’re engaging in WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course we should only WP:USEPRIMARY without analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis, such as the ones I offered here. My "OR" should NOT be included in the article, and are relevant in talk only insofar as they help to find secondary sources who give commentary on this, which are generally considered WP:RS, such as Rashi, Nachmanides, et al. My question is per WP:DUE - what do the commentators say about Isaiah 2, in addition to the passages expounded by Maimonides? I'm surely not the first one to do this "research". Also, per WP:DUE we should have some post-Haskalah schools of thought in addition to Chabad, although thank you Yaakov Wa. for bringing this. Kind regards.Jaredscribe (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

How does this Sound? Want feedback before inputting into article.

Mashiach Ben Yoseff

Although "The term Mashiach unqualified always refers to Mashiach ben David (Mashiach the descendant of David)", there is a concept of a Mashiach Ben Yossef. Mashiach ben Yoseff is primarily attributed of having a politico-military nature. However, according to R. Saadiah Gaon, If the Jewish people attain enough merit, Mashiach Ben Yoseff may not appear and Mashiach Ben David will be the only redeemer. The Lubavitcher Rebbe makes note of the fact that Maimonides entirely omits any mention of Mashiach Ben Yossef and suggests that Maimonides is of the view that the traditional Messianic role will be fulfilled solely through Mashiach Ben David.

Halachically, there is no definite description of the role of Mashiach Ben Yossef. Therefore, due to the non-definite nature of Mashiach Ben Yoseff, R. Chasdai Crescas advises that since "no certain knowledge can be derived from the interpretations of the prophecies about Mashiach ben Yossef, nor from the statements about him by some of the Geonim;" there is no point, therefore, in elaborating on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Wa. (talk • contribs) 20:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Reliability criteria

Yaakov Wa., you recently argued that this writing by Jacob Immanuel Schochet is a reliable source because he is "A Phd and Professor of Philosophy at Humber College". Please note that being written by someone who has a PhD or professorship does not in itself qualify something as a reliable source on WP. Rather, other factors also come into play, such as:

• that the source is independent (a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective): probably not the case for a Jewish rabbi writing on a Jewish religious topic.
• that it is not self-published: is the source in question published elsewhere than on the Chabad website? If not, then it is at least quasi self-published.
• that it has been subject to editorial oversight: this is part of the reason why the publisher is an important element, and again the Chabad website does not inspire confidence.
• that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Now, a biased source such as Schochet can at times be acceptable, but only in very specific contexts and when the other criteria for reliability are met, which does not seem to be the case here. Finally, even if this source were to be considered as reliable, it would clearly be putting undue weight on the Chabad view to base our discussion only on this source.

In general, I strongly suggest that you start listening to other editors when they try to explain core content policy to you. I appreciate that you are used to critically analyze concepts and ideas by reference to historical religious sources and their interpretation by modern religious writers. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that in itself, but none of this stuff belongs on Wikipedia. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, consider looking for secular academic sources (yes, just limit it at first to anything published by 'X University Press') on the subjects that interest you. They may not only provide you with something you can cite at Wikipedia, but you might actually find it interesting to learn how religious topics can also be approached from a disinterested point of view, and how this can complement rather than contradict the purely religious approach. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 19:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Overhaul

Dear All,

I propose we revamp article according to this format.

1. Brief description of Jewish Messiah.

2.Role of Messiah in Judaism.

2.1 Restoring Judaism's (613) commandments
2.2 Qualifications for Messiah
 2.2.1 Qualifications for Presumptive Messiah
 2.2.2 Qualifications for Definite Messiah.
 2.2.3 Disqualification factors for (Presumptive?) Messiah.
2.3 Messiah's effect on World.
 2.3.1 Effect on Jews
 2.3.2 Effect on non-Jews
 2.3.3 Effect on physical world

3. How does Messiah come/ Two-Eras of Messiah/ Two periods in Messianic Era (Not yet finalized exact wording)

3.1 Non-Meritorious State-by Year 6000
3.2 Meritorious state.

4. Importance of Messiah in Judaism

5. Mashiach Ben David vs. Mashiach Ben Yosef (Joseph?),

6. Etymology.

7. Put in history of Messiah according to Jewish biblical sources. (This is Messiah in Judaism, will have separate section for christianity).

8. Judaic Messianism and christianity

8.1 all the christian stuff
8.2 Judaism's rejection of Jesus as Messiah. 

9. Contemporary Jewish Views era).

9.1 Orthodox
 9.1.1 Hassidic/Chabad
 9.1.2 Non-Hasidic/Litvak.
9.2 Non-Orthodox
 9.2.1 Reform
 9.2.2 Conservative

10. See also

11. Notes

12. References

13. Sources

14. Further Readings

15. External Links

Please comment on any suggestions to this proposed structure.

Blessings,

Yaakov W.

p.s. If no comments by 2/23/21, will start overhaul process.

– there should be a "See also" section before Notes – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Epinoia,

Done Yaakov Wa. (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your suggested section 2 above, especially "2.1 Restoring Judaism's 613 commandments" - what is your Reliable Source for this initial statement, before anything else? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Warshy,

The source is Maimonedes Hilchos Melachim chapter 11:1. Where it states (translation from Moznaim/ Eliyahu Tougar) "In the future, the Messianic King will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty, restoring it to its initial sovereignty. He will build the Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel. Then, in his days, [the observance of] all the statutes will return to their previous state. We will offer sacrifices, observe the Sabbatical and Jubilee year according to all their particulars as described by the Torah".

Blessings,

Yaakov W.

p.s. Take a look at this article where it briefly goes over this concept. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1122357/jewish/Resumption-of-Suspended-Mitzvot.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakov Wa. (talk • contribs) 19:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I had a suspicion you may be coming from Chabad sources, which for me are biased sources to begin with. As for the suggested "613 commandments" to begin with, Maimonides does not refer to them in this manner. The proper way to use Maimonides (which should be in the article, no doubt about that) is to directly quote Maimonides giving his complete description of the Messianic age in translation, precisely as you have done above. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Warshy,

Appreciate comment, however, when one looks at the hebrew term used in Maimonedes (All their particulars as described by the Torah ככל מצותה האמורה בתורה). It is a clear reference to the 613 commandments. See also Maimonedes Hilchos Melachim Chapter 11:3 "The main thrust of the matter is: This Torah, its statutes and its laws, are everlasting. We may not add to them or detract from them. Anyone who adds or detracts or who reveals false interpretations of the Torah to imply that the mitzvot are not to be understood simply is surely wicked and a non-believer." (Translation from Tougar, with uncensored portion from Yemenite manuscript added).

Blessings,

Yaakov W.

p.s. Regarding naming of section, could be renamed to "Restoring Commandments" or something along those lines. I want suggestions.

 Yaakov Wa. (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

For ease of reading of the section/discussion you should indent your replies using the ":" colon before you start your reply. For signing your posts all you have to do is to type four tildes "~" in a row, and the Wikipedia platform will automatically sign them for you. As for your suggested overhaul, my suggestion is to work in small increments, step by step, so it is easier for other editors to accept or reject your changes. I.e., instead of a big plan of a complete overhaul of the article, I'd prefer you try to work in small changes and increments. Note that nowhere Maimonides himself uses the number "613" for his definition of the commandments of the Torah. That number is found in a later rabbinical source, that does not necessarily need to be referred to here, where Maimonides own words should be used directly instead. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Warshy,

In regards to your suggestion about colon, appreciate you taking the time to teach this to me.

In regards to suggested overhaul, your suggestion is noted that you prefer smaller changes. Also, will see what other editors say before 2/23.

In regards to the number of 613 commandments, Maimonides himself mentions in his Introduction to the Mishneh Torah (of which Hilchos Melachim is the conclusion), that "The number of Mitzvot which are incumbent on us at all times is 613. Of them, 248 are positive commandments; an allusion to their [number], the number of limbs in the human body. 365 are negative commandments (prohibitions); an allusion to their [number], the number of days in a solar year." (Translation from Tougar).

However, there may be justification to say restoring commandments instead of saying 613. Keep up your feedback Warshy!

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Just want to state my support for this project and gratitude. The article has indisputably been from a Christian frame of reference, and I welcome a corrective for this. newmila (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I have added wikicode at the top to delay archiving for 14 days. Slywriter (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Restore old revision?

Would someone with some background knowledge of this subject please compare this revision of the article with the current revision (what exactly was changed can also be tracked in this diff)? I suspect that the now-banned user Yaakov Wa. made many detrimental changes in the past few months, to the point where it may even be desirable to restore the older revision and implement the few changes that were constructive? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 17:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow! I did not know the guy has finally been banned. How and when did this happen? In any case, I have been advocating here the restoration of the old stable version that existed before he started editing basically since that happened, as you can see above. I will check if the version you are proposing be restored is the same I am proposing above, but barred that check, I definitely think we should restore the old stable version ASAP. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You missed this. I’ve just tried to do a ‘compare’ with when he started with the article. Problem is Editor2020 and Ibadibam made substantial edits during the period (other than reverts). I’m not sure whether they were just trying to remediate what Yaakov Wa. was doing or making other edits. But they probably better weigh in on this before rolling back. DeCausa (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The edits by the banned editor were primarily in sections that have now been removed, so no major rollback is necessary. I will check on a few wording changes elsewhere in the article to ensure NPOV changes don't stand. Ibadibam (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I've checked, and I believe it is right. The version being proposed by Apaugasma above is the same version I have proposed twice, above and at ANI, to go back to. The permalink given by the Admin (Bitton) at ANI, following my proposal was this one, which I believe is the same as the one given by Apaugasma above. This version and the current version are radically different, because the current version was substantially messed up by the banned editor. Just look at the 2 refs in the lede of the current version, which were introduced by him and should not be there by any means. I believe the only substantial contribution made since the mess begun was by Editor2020 on the Etimology section, and I think we can definitely restore the old stable version, and then re-add Editor2020 new contribution to the section, if it is better than what was there to begin with. In any case, this would be my recommendation. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

To get a better idea of how much the old stable version of this article was messed up by the banned editor, just compare the lede between the two versions, including all the refs that were there in the original lede, and that were also used later, in other sections in the article. As I suggested, unless Editor2020 opposes the restoration of the old stable version given by Apaugasma above, we should definitely re-start from there. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I’m convinced by that but like to hear from Editor2020. DeCausa (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The changes are indeed sweeping: the old lead contained vital historical context that has been replaced by a non-encyclopedic religious-centric perspective; newly added sections like 'Role in Judaism' and 'Two periods in Messianic Era' are entirely original research, almost all sections were changed and moved around, etc., etc. If the lead is anything to go by, the current revision may be substantially worse than the old one. I agree with Warshy that restarting from the old revision is highly recommended, but the constructive edits which were made since then should also be restored if possible. This can only be done by the editors who made these constructive edits, or by someone with a good knowledge of the subject (better than mine at least) and some time to go through both versions. Not going to also ping Editor2020, but yes we would appreciate your input? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 19:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Do whatever you think is best for Wikipedia. Editor2020 (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Editor2020. I have just compared the beginning of the Etimology section in both versions, and they are pretty close. In other words, you succeeded in bringing that crucial section of the article to more or less the level it was before the whole mess. Again, you should be commended for all the serious and difficult work you do on Wikipedia. As for this article, I definitely think we should go back to the original stable version and start from scratch again. I make a personal commitment that I will continue to methodically work on the first two paragraphs of the Etimology section (without all the undue messianic religious activism pressure that we suffered through recently here) until it incorporates all the best suggestions of both versions. It may take me more than a few days, but I'm confident we can get there. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the old revision. Ibadibam, do you agree with this? Can you look through your recent edits on this article and reinstate whatever might have been removed by restoring the old revision? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 21:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll work on restoring rolled back edits it in the next few days, sure. Ibadibam (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)