Talk:Johann Andreas Eisenmenger

Created Article
This article currently consists of the Jewish Encyclopedia text. There is an image in the public domain that could be used for the article here. Caption: Title page of Eisenmenger's "Entdecktes Judenthum," Königsberg, 1711. I'll download it when I get time unless someone else does first.--DieWeibeRose 12:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews and Their Lies
In case anyone is monitoring this page, I'd appreciate that interested parties go to the article on the Martin Luther book above, in which a scholar is quoted as claiming that Eisenmenger, not Luther, is really the father of modern anti-Semitism. Is that a widely held viewpoint among scholars? I noted that he is not mentioned as such in this article.--Mantanmoreland 13:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Title
Some anonymous I/P editor prefers 'Judaism Discovered' to 'Judaism Unmasked'. Both terms are current in the secondary literature, though I have found the latter term in my own arbitrary knowledge of the secondary literature on anti-Semitism, more frequent. 'Entdecktes' probably would best go in English as 'uncovered' here, but that is not for an editor to decide. 'Discovered' has lost its old sense, (unmasked), and Eisenmenger hadn't 'discovered' anything, since earlier works in this genre existed. Secondly his polemical approach suggests that he had in mind an 'unmasking' operation as much as a declaration of 'discovery'. Unless a strong reason can be found for changing the established text to 'Discovered', I suggest we keep with this term, particularly since it is the term favoured by the original article on which this wiki article was based, i.e., that in the Jewish Encyclopedia Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Unmasked" is a good translation to use because it coordinates with the later work by Pranaitis, the English title of which is "Talmud Unmasked". Pranaitis in his testimony at the Mendel Beilis trial praised Eisenmenger and copied some of his terminology, using it incorrectly in a prepositional phrase.  Article I of Pranaitis' Christianus im Thalmude is basically chapter II of Eisenmenger.  I have been pointed to sources that identify Pranaitis' debt to Eisenmenger: Louis Marshall in 1913, See  The Responsa of Professor Louis Ginzberg (New York, 1996), p. 231; B.Z. Bokser, "Talmudic Forgeries: A Case Study in Anti-Jewish Propaganda,"  Contemporary Jewish Record 2:4(1939), p. 11.

71.163.114.49 (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Original Hebrew?
“Of the many polemical works written by non-Jews against Judaism, Eisenmenger's has remained the most thoroughly documented one. Precisely because of its extensive citations of original sources, in the original Hebrew with facing translations, it has long furnished antisemitic journalists and pamphleteers with their main arguments."

What original Hebrew? Talmud is written in Aramaic. Only this year (2010) the first ever complete translation to Hebrew (48 volumes) is about to be completed. It has not been translated to any other language.

If this most basic fact is wrong, why should anyone trust the thoroughness and veracity of Eisenmenger's documentation?

This part must be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.81.97 (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Fyi:

Within the Gemara, the quotations from the Mishnah and the Baraitas and verses of Tanakh quoted and embedded in the Gemara are in either Mishnaic or Biblical Hebrew. ... Overall, Hebrew constitutes somewhat less than half of the text of the Talmud.

Eisenmenger's sources
Having read chapter 2 of this work, I know that Eisenmenger did NOT use exclusively Hebrew sources. He cites to Buxtorf who did not write in Hebrew but in Latin and not from a Jewish standpoint but from a Catholic one. Whoever claims Eisenmenger only used Hebrew sources is wrong, therefore, and also the comment above is correct that Talmud is written partly in Aramaic. 71.163.114.49 (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite right. I thought this had been fixed, since I vaguely recall when editing Paul Lawrence Rose's remarks, that his impression the Talmud was in Hebrew that it would have to be changed, or rather paraphrased so that his slip no longer appeared. Anyway I've adjusted, and taken the opportunity to add some more details.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

crosslink
Would it be valuable to point out that Pranaitis' Christianus im Talmude, his 1892 thesis that the St. Petersburg Catholic academy rejected for misuse of scripture, plagiarized Eisenmenger? 71.163.117.143 (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have an academic source for this, by all means. I thought that Pranaitis plagiarized August Rohling, who of course plagiarized Eisenmenger, and if so, the plagiarism of Eisenmenger was at second hand. But of course I stand corrected if you can show the link is direct.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)