Talk:Judeo-Christian

Reading some of the above comments, I have the impression that many seem to question the validity of the term. This misses the point: The term itself is valid; individual uses of it may not be. (For instance, I originally landed on this page after reading a blog entry where someone explicitly equated "Judeo-Christian" with "Jewish Zionist", which is a gross misinterpretation of what the term means.)

There is sufficient and significant overlap, as well as a historical connection, which more than justifies the term, just like "Eurasian" or "Anglo-American" are perfectly valid terms.

Attack misuse of meaning, irrelevant use, misleading use---but leave the term it self alone. Michael Eriksson (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The term is indeed misleading, since it's used to imply that there is some common ground between Judaism and Christ, when in Truth there isn't. You are either a real Christian or a Judaist, can't be both at the same time. Judaism rejects Christ and Christianity, while the NT-text clearly rejects proto-Judaism. I say proto-Judaism, because the Judaism of today is a later development. There is of course variants of and within Christianity and Judaism. And some of those may have some affinity. But Christian's that proclaim stuff like "The Jews are God's Chosen" people actually deny Christ. God's chosen are those *in* Christ and not anyone outside. Now the argument can be made that: Christians believe in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, while Jews believe only in the Old Testament. The later is actually untrue. If they believed in the Old Testament Text, if they really could understand it, they would be Christians. They are not, so they don't believe it... Otherwise Jesus was wrong on this. And to me it seems that the usage of the term got a malicious background as well. It's to prevent Christians from witnessing to Jews, from bringing them the gospel. And of course to garner support for "Israel" and 'Jewish causes'. "Christian"-Zionists are possible what 'Judeo-Christianity' represents. But using 'Judeo-Christianity' as a term to include those in Christ is wrong. 102.66.7.13 (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The term mostly exists so that closet Dominionists can call for Christian theocracy without calling it Christian theocracy. Instead they claim to be supporting the values held by multiple religions, despite the objective fact that Jewish and Christian moral traditions have many distinct differences. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, not just Dominionists. Christian conservatives in general use the term to make themselves sound more inclusive than they really are. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

it's also a code word for supporting Israel, which is central to conservative Christians in the US. Rjensen (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I want to read more about this claim in the opening section: “ The term became widely used in the United States during the Cold War to suggest a unified American identity opposed to communism.” What is the source? Theologian and author Arthur A. Cohen is mentioned directly after, is he the source? Sorry for being thick? JonesyPHD (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I second this question. The source would be interesting to read given historical and modern association of Jewish people *with* communism, not against. Fluxjupyter (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Because this statement is in the lead it summarizes material further down in the article. In this case, you'll find the attributions toward the bottom of the History section. Jno.skinner (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The article is on a specific term in use since the 1940s, and is NOT about the history of Christianity in the US before then. So I dropped the useless sections that did not use the term or the concept. Rjensen (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that some of the stuff that you thought was off-focus, mainly this edit, is on-focus... although you're right that it was WP:OR. But if we had a WP:RS that said the same thing, that "Jewish-Christian" had been in use as a proto-Judeo-Christian since 18whatever, I'd be for inclusion, as it's part of this worldview that the J-C term encompasses. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The term can be found in the 18th century referring to a different concept. This article is about a recent (since about 1940) ideas regarding 20th century morality that had zero to do with older discussions. (The older literature discussed events 1900 years ago). Rjensen (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see from this talk page already that much discussion has been had about the 'validity' and scope of the term Judeo-Christian. To add to this dialogue, I will say that the article should really stress that Judeo-Christian as a term is in fact a Christian term that refers to reflecting on the supposed Christian roots of their religion. (Opposed to other Christians who may want to: completely ignore the Old Testament, or a possible relationship with Judaism.) - What isn't being stressed (enough) in the article is that the term doesn't hold any weight in Jewish theology, or outlook (save for say Messianic Judaism, which some have argued isn't Judaism. But has it's own link for disambiguation anyway, so let's leave that be.). What is most confusing to me, is that section on 'Jewish responses' argues that its reception has been mixed. However the section fails to show that in any way there has been a 'warm' reception. As the 'evidence' is instead examples of interfaith attempts between the religion. The existence of interfaith support between Christianity & Judaism does not provide evidence that Judaism would ever see validity in the term Judeo-Christian. Instead it argues that there have been Jewish AND Christian projects with the aim of peace/cohabitation/multiculturalism/etc. in mind.

I would argue that the following should be wholly deleted:

"In the 1930s, "In the face of worldwide antisemitic efforts to stigmatize and destroy Judaism, influential Christians and Jews in America labored to uphold it, pushing Judaism from the margins of American religious life towards its very center."[12] During World War II, Jewish chaplains worked with Catholic priests and Protestant ministers to promote goodwill, addressing servicemen who, "in many cases had never seen, much less heard a Rabbi speak before." At funerals for the unknown soldier, rabbis stood alongside the other chaplains and recited prayers in Hebrew. In a much publicized wartime tragedy, the sinking of the Dorchester, the ship's multi-faith chaplains gave up their lifebelts to evacuating seamen and stood together "arm in arm in prayer" as the ship went down. A 1948 postage stamp commemorated their heroism with the words: "interfaith in action."[7]

In the 1950s, "a spiritual and cultural revival washed over American Jewry" in response to the trauma of the Holocaust.[7] American Jews became more confident to be identified as different."

As it has no bearing on the term Judeo-Christian, and instead should be saved for an article on Jewish-Christian relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiyu (talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it okay to list or link info anent the term"Judaeo-NWO"?

That is a) not a parallel term; b) a term that (spelled "Judaeo" or "Judeo") shows up on under 100 web pages. It seems not to be a significant term. So... no. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Judaeo New World Order?! Nat Gertler, you are far too nice. That is an unsigned comment from a lol troll! Sigh... these articles bring them out en mass.--FeralOink (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am removing the sentence that says "The observance of Passover by Jews is a tradition closely related to the Christian celebration of Easter." The two sources are a Wall Street Journal essay by R. R. Reno, which I don't have full access to but is an opinion piece that makes it clear from the opening that it is talking about similarities between the two holidays, which is also the topic of the archived other article (although it also covers differences.) Similarities are not a relationship. If one holiday were to have been derived from another, or if both holidays were derived from a third holiday, then yes, they would be related. But particularly in an article where supposed shared heritage is being discussed, we should not confuse similarity to relationship. (Also, even if they were related, the ordering of things so that it sounds like Passover is derived from Easter would be problematic.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, that sentence you removed and the remaining sentence "The Jewish Tradition of atonement has been borrowed by Christians and circumcision is a common Jewish tradition among Evangelicals" really don't fit in the opening paragraph of the article. I'd support removing that remaining sentence, possibly into a lower section. Jno.skinner (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, both of you! I am a Wall Street Journal subscriber. I read the essay (as Nat Gertler correctly stated). His inferences are correct. Next, the passage that Nat removed and Jno.skinner suggested be removed (or rephrased and placed in a later section) is probably incorrect without further detailed clarification and is likely to offend religious sensibilities of all involved (Jews, Christians, Evangelical Christians). It requires a citation from a highly reputable source at the very least! I will go have a look at the sentence now. You did the right thing. I appreciate that. This is important to me.--FeralOink (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC) I was wrong about what I wrote yesterday, so I struck it out but left visible per article talk page conventions.--FeralOink (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I made some edits, including to the sentence that Jno.skinner suggested be removed (or rephrased and placed in a later section) about atonement and circumcision. I moved those into the body of the article, and rephrased for greater objectivity. I also consolidated duplicate content about Nietzschean origin and usage.--FeralOink (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The external link section is currently there to provide a single link to a promo page for what is essentially a self-pubilshed book (published through a "publishing services" business) written by a music therapist. It's hard to see that page as a substantial source for this topic.

I have retired from article editing, but I request that someone else look at this and appropriately remove the link. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I've done this. Thank you! Jno.skinner (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I found a more suitable external link, at the website mediacentral.princeton.edu. I will include that. I found another, titled "What does ‘Judeo-Christian’ mean?" written by the person who was the focus of the 2015 Princeton interview. In the interests of accessibility, I will include both, as some will prefer a written article to a video. If anyone feels this is redundant, feel free to replace one or the other links with something better.--FeralOink (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC):::

If all we have to offer is Dennis Prager, I think we'd do just as well doing without. I'm not going to be delving through 100+ minutes of him to find out if they actually talk about the term "Judeo-Christian"; merely having a Jew talking to a Christian doesn't qualify. Is there anything of actual relevance in that long discussion? --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I listened to it. Given that "Judeo-Christian" is of interest to American political conservatives and evangelicals, and that the link is from Princeton University, it is less unreasonable to include it as an external link. You point is valid of course. Although I don't really want to spend another 77 minutes of my time listening to it again, I will do it for you, Nat Gertler, and determine if there are significant passages that ARE pertinent to Judeo-Christian. I do think it is important to have a link to a WP:RS such as Princeton. Alternatively, if you and/or anyone else has anything better to suggest, that would be great. I'm going to work on the non-localization part of the article for a bit before listening to the 77 minutes. (I sincerely apologize for re-involving you in Wikipediana, as I know you said on your talk page and elsewhere that you are no longer actively editing. If you choose not to reply, I will do my best to respond to your concerns rather than just ignoring them because you aren't here to remind me.)--FeralOink (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Princeton being a RS just means that we can count on them not to have messed with the video, not that they went through and verified and concurred with each thing said; there is nothing being said in Princeton's voice (one of its professors, yes). I am not asking you to watch it again; I was just uncertain whether you had watched it before (many editors have added things to external links based just on headlines.) As for the relevancy to evangelicals, I will note that neither of the people involved is one; George is a Catholic, Prager is Jewish (but his stances general fall outside that of the general American Jewish populace.) I will admit to having a bias against George, whatever his academic credentials may be, as he founded the anti-LGBT group National Organization for Marriage. If you say there's material of significant relevance to this article, I believe you, but that is still not reason to give Prager two shots in the External Links. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You're right. Prager should NOT appear twice in the External Links. I am going to chop the video and just leave the article. I will try to find a second external link to add for balance. Thank you for replying!--FeralOink (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The wikilinked term, philo-semitism, appears several times in this article. It is mentioned specifically in the context of the United States. When I navigated to Philosemitism, I found an article that is focused on its manifestation almost exclusively in Europe. (The article seems to have been translated from German Wikipedia, given the tagging. Nothing wrong with that at all but it is another reason why use of the term is misleading in passages of this article that are specific to religious and political trends in the USA, absent any explanation or citation.)

The only mention of the United States in the philosemitism article is this, which is the very opposite of "philo":

Mark Twain's essay Concerning the Jews has been described as philosemitic. Israeli scholar Bennet Kravitz states that one could just as easily hate Jews for the reasons Twain gives for admiring them. In fact, Twain's essay was cited by Nazi sympathizers in the 1930s. Kravitz concludes, "The flawed logic of 'Concerning the Jews' and all philo-Semitism leads to the anti-Semitic beliefs that the latter seeks to deflate".

I am going to remove those wikilinks and rephrase slightly differently. If anyone objects strongly, revert me. It would be nice to have an explanation as to why as a response here. FeralOink (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

An IP editor has been trying to add in statements about the original use of the term "Judeo-Christian", and refer to other uses of the term as incorrect. As we cover in the history section, the term has been used to several meanings over the years. That doesn't make any given usage of the term "incorrect"; as with many things in English, it has multiple meanings. The central topic of this article is the current primary use of the term. I have (twice) undone those edits (which also introduced a number of formatting problems.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

“term has been used to several meanings over the years. That doesn't make any given usage of the term "incorrect"; as with many things in English, it has multiple meanings.”

Then why can’t the Irgun of the word and author of the word be displayed in the article? All meanings of the word should be represented. איש מאמין (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It is in the article, right there in the section marked "History". (Whether it should be or not, as it's not the usage this article is discussion, nor even as spelled, is another question.) The introduction is a summary, and should not have every detail that's in the article below. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The word deserves the author to be known and every meaning the word carries to be displayed for all to see and free from harassment and bullying. איש מאמין (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The material you are trying to push into the introduction is already in the article, properly placed and cited. This actually is not a dictionary, it is not the place for every meaning to be displayed., and previous uses of similar terms for different meanings are worth as best an aside, just as an article on someone named Jeff Smith doesn't need to discuss in the introduction everyone else who was ever named Jeff Smith. I suggest you read WP:BRD to understand what should happen here if you make a change that is reverted; it's not to repeatedly make the same change. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ll continue to pursue truth and inject the author of the word into the article regardless of your bullying and harassment. איש מאמין (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You've now had more than one editor undo your additions, yet you persist. Playing this game of pretending you cannot see the information further in the article is not a winning argument for your stance that this aside-from-topic usage of a similar term needs to be so deeply covered in the introduction. If you wish to be concerned with bullying, take a deeper look into your own actions. If you wish to learn better how things work around here so that you can be productive in a cooperative environment, head on over to Help:Introduction. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

For anyone looking on: איש מאמין has now been indefinitely blocked. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

An IP editor has repeatedly removed material sourced to this Atlantic piece saying that the article is "opinionated" or "opinion based". However, WP:OPINIONATED makes it clear that we can use opinionated sources so long as they are reliable. The Atlantic is considered a generally reliable source, the author James Loeffler appears to be a respectable academic in a relevant field, and the material this is used as reference for (It is sometimes employed in a separate context in political attempts to restrict immigration and LGBT rights) are statements of fact, not of opinion, As such, it appears to be an appropriately source, appropriately used. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something important here, Loeffler is an expert on modern Jewish history. His article mentions studies on Jewish religious and political thought, and a notable published work on the relationship between the Jews and human rights during the 20th century. We are using him as a source on opposition to LGBT rights, which is not his typical area of study. Dimadick (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

We're using him as a source on the contemporary use of "Judeo-Christian", which would seem within his realm, though not dead-center. Would we need someone who handled both modern Judaism and LGBTQ rights for them to be an appropriate source? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Probably not, but we could use additional sources to confirm that implication. Dimadick (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you think this is a radical claim? Not hard to find examples. (oh, and just for fun, here's a Christian-Judeo.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Not at all, but the article in its current state uses a single source on the topic. Dimadick (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Potentially useful article here from the Religious News Service. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@NinjaWeeb: I appreciate that you are trying to enhance the article., However, the sources you are using do not appear to be appropriate. Sourcing anything directly to an Google Ngram result qualifies as original research, which is not acceptable on these pages. See WP:NGRAM for why ngrams are not a solid source, interesting and indicative though they may be. You also replaced the use of a book from a major academic press with a self-published site. While there are occasions when we can use self-published sites, the website of an accountant being used for this topic does not seem to meet them. I am undoing those edits. Please do not readd the same material without coming to talk and finding a consensus to do so. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@ChiruKondo: I appreciate that you have come back and added sources in an attempt to support your edits linking the October 7 attacks and events afterward to a decline in evangelical support for Israel. However, the sources you have used cannot be used for that. The Tel Aviv University source is based on studies done between 2018 and 2021, and might be able to support some noted decrease during that period, but that period ended years before the attacks. The [Arab Center DC source] is an opinion piece by a civil rights lawyer, it does not even have the backing of the Center itself (see the disclaimer at the bottom) and in any case falls under WP:NEWSOPED as not a good source for facts. I will be again undoing the addition, once limitations of WP:PIA have passed, unless usable sources are added in the meantime. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Rationale: this edit, see WP:AISIGNS; this user is blocked so cannot confirm Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)