Talk:Jesus/Archive 41

message: The information below comes from: David Talshir, "Rabbinic Hebrew as Reflected in Personal Names" in Scripta Hierosolymitana: Publications of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew, vol. 37, edit. Moshe Bar-Asher (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press 1998).
Jesus's name is Hebrew, there is no equivalent Aramaic cognate name. The name is in fact the Classical Biblical Hebrew name Yĕhôshua יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, and Jesus is named after Yĕhôshua Ben Nûn (Joshua). Sometimes this classical name is spelled in the Tanakh with two vavs, יְהוֹשׁוּעַ (Deuteronomy 3.21, Judges 2.7).
However in the Second Temple Period, the name Yĕhôshua יְהוֹשֻׁעַ came to be spelled as Yēshûa יֵשׁוּעַ because of the dialectical shift in Hebrew pronunciation. [It's similar to modern Moshe sometimes sounding like "Moishe". Try pronouncing "Yoishua" with the stress strongly on the "u". You can see how easily it becomes Yeishua.] The Tanakh also uses this new spelling for Yĕhôshua Ben Nûn, now Yēshûa Ben Nûn יֵשׁוּעַ בֶּן נוּן (Nehemiah 8.17). In the Dead Sea Scrolls, Yēshûa Ben Nûn is a typical spelling.
Elsewhere in the Tanakh, other people undergo the same spelling shift, such as Yehoshua Ben Yehozedek יהושע בן יהוצדק according to Classical Biblical Hebrew in Haggai and Zechariah who becomes Yeshua Ben Yozedek ישוע בן יוצדק according to Late Biblical Hebrew in Ezra and Nehemiah.
In sum, numerous Hebrew spellings can and do exist for Yĕhôshua. However, the prevailing spelling preferences are as follows.
: Classical Biblical Hebrew: Yĕhôshua יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, Yĕhôshûa יְהוֹשׁוּעַ
: Second Temple Judean [Jerusalem] Hebrew: Yēshûa יֵשׁוּעַ
: Second Temple Galilean Hebrew: Yèshûa יֵושׁוּעַ, Yhèshûa יֵהושׁוּעַ
: Mishnaic Hebrew (Classical or Galilean spelling): Yĕhôshua יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, Yĕhôshûa יְהוֹשׁוּעַ, Yôshûa יוֹשׁוּעַ
: [The Greek name Iēsoũs ιησους can represent all of these Hebrew spellings, including Yehoshua Ben Nun (Acts 7.45).]
As a final note: it is likely Jesus spelled his own name in different ways at different times, including: Yèshûa יֵושׁוּעַ, Yhèshûa יֵהושׁוּעַ,  Yēshûa יֵשׁוּעַ. [Similarly, the Dead Sea Scrolls often spell the same word in various ways even in the same scroll.] While there are many spellings during the Second Temple Period, Yēshûa יֵשׁוּעַ is the most standard, and the preferred spelling in the Tanakh. [The Rambam uses this spelling as well for Jesus, probably because it is the standard spelling in the Tanakh.] --Haldrik 12:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Semantics, one is describing the same thing whether one calls it a shortened form or a phonetic spelling. Kuratowski's Ghost 08:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is what pronunciation was used at the time of Jesus. The second temple period is a long time. The form Yeshua appears early in the second temple period, the form Yehoshua reemerges already 1st century BCE suggesting a return to the more careful pronunciation. Similarly a modern person named Yaacov does not consider his name to be interchangeable with the period and dialect specific name Yancov. Kuratowski's Ghost 08:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure that's what Talshir believes. Others differ. Speculation, however scholarly, is still speculation. Regardless, since there are no extant documents giving his Hebrew/Aramaic name, we'll stick with what we actually know, his Greek name. Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the contrary, there are many occurrences in the Second Temple Period of the Hebrew name Yehoshua/Yeshua יהושע/ישוע and its interchangeability and the Greek name Iesous, which the Greeks use to represent this Hebrew name. It is a well known fact. Many, many Jews had this name at that time, and there is nothing mysterious about it! --Haldrik 18:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jay. While it may be true that ישוע and its variants were common names (and in fact, this is backed up by the Tanakh) to posit unequivocally that this was Jesus's Hebrew name is at best a speculation. One problem that I can think of off the top of my head is that you can't get rid of that /ע/ so easily. We don't pronounce it so distinctly today, but in that era it was a consonant as much as any other. If you think that Talshir's view is notable, you can include it somewhere within the article, but not at the beginning, as you suggest. --DLand 18:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Several high priests are called "Yehoshua" in Hebrew, who Josephus calls "Iesous" in Greek. It is an extremely common name. LOL! The only people who are speculating are Jayjg and DLand who think Greek Iesous might not refer to Hebrew Yehoshua/Yeshua. Galilean spelling preserved the letter Ayin ע, and it can be seen on tombs in Galilee from that time. The point that may be missed is, it is common to spell the same words and names in a variety of ways. While there were literary traditions (especially in the context of the Tanakh), ad hoc phonetic spelling is also the norm, as the Dead Sea Scroll makes clear. Various spellings for the name of the same person are so normal, even the Tanakh uses these alternate spellings at times. In any case, regardless of the many ways to spell it, the name is Yehoshua and pronounced Yeshua in Late Biblical Hebrew. Again, there is nothing mysterious about this name. It is extremely common! Like the English name John. Extremely common. --Haldrik 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haldrik, you seem to be missing the point. The name may have been popular with different spellings but that does not mean that it was the name of Jesus. Therefore I must agree with Jayjg, DLand and the others as this has been discussed and agreed upon in the past. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jesus's born name is Yehoshua, pronounced Yeshua. It is a fact that the Greek name Iesous refers to the Hebrew name Yehoshua/Yeshua. Not to mention, the Aramaic/Syriac Gospels refer to Jesus directly as Yeshua ישוע, directly from the Hebrew. It is simply the man's name. --Haldrik 19:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaaw, cute, we have another person that wants to claim to have been at Jesus' birth. ems 00:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Please do not enage in Personal Attacks. You do not help the article by doing so. --CTSWyneken 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haldrik, Please read Wikipedia's No Original Research rule. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PinchasC, you yourself will have to remove your own Original Research. You'll have to withdraw your claim that Greek Iesous doesn't refer to the Hebrew Yeshua/Yehoshua. --Haldrik 19:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jesus' Hebrew name is not original research -- the Septuagint (~250-70 B.C.E) regularly translates (or, possibly transliterates) "Yehoshua" as "Jesus/Joshua" (e.g., Josh. 1:1). So there is clearly a historical precedent for taking Jesus' name to be "Yehoshua." And this precedent is in evidence in the Christian Scriptures as well (e.g., Hebrews 4:8). There is no reason to assume a break from the established norm, without documentation to back it up. It is the view that Jesus' Hebrew name was something other than the Hebrew name normally translated as "Jesus/Joshua," which requires support! --MonkeeSage 20:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, his born name was likely as Haldrik noted -- and yet, we Westerners got the name via the Greek (and the Latin version).  So, rather than fog everything up, the way it is now is fine.  Jim62sch 19:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, there's like 3 different sections now pounding the same issue. As far as I can tell, Haldrik has done his homework, and done it well. This doesn't look like original reaserch at all, if it's in the Bible (Hebrews 4:8) it's fact enough for me, but he's gone the extra mile and cited dictionaries and all sorts of people, if someone thinks there's real evidence against this assertion of how Jesus's Hebrew name was spelled, I think we need to see a bit of background information. Homestarmy 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's tons of stuff here that is really interesting and should be somewhere on wikipedia as it is referenced. Can I say that I'm not keen on the greek/hebrew names coming first in the article as it "stalls" the reading process. To language illiterates like me it just looks like strange squiggles and whilst very interesting is actually distracting. How about a sentence a little further down mentioning the different names and a link to a separate article going into the details of the various names and the research supporting the less well known ones. Either that or a section in the Historical Jesus (if it's not already there). Just an idea - feel free to ignore it!SophiaTalkTCF 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hebrew name of Yehoshua or Yeshua

message: :::::::::Haldrik, I know you feel strongly about this, but I would be much more comfortable with the following (in a new sub-section under Life and teachings, based upon the Gospels, rather than in the introduction).
----
===Jesus' name in Hebrew/Aramaic===
:Though the existance of Jesus is recorded in a few near-contemporary documents (the New Testament, various non-canonical books, and Josephus's Antiquities), all of these documents were written in Greek: no surviving document reliably records what he would have been called in Hebrew or Aramaic. However, scholarly consensus is that Jesus spoke Aramaic, so he would probably have been called Yehoshua or Yeshua. (See also Historical Jesus and Names_and_titles_of_Jesus).
----
:::::::::I realize that it's not going to be completely acceptable to everyone, but I feel that this balances the requirements of preserving Jesus in a Jewish context, giving a balanced acknowledgement of the scholarly debate on his actual name, and keeping this article from excessive bloat. Justin Eiler 22:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this doesn't mean we engineer a name for him, imply falsely that it was certainly his, just to make him appear more authentically Jewish. People over the ages have unfortunately done just what you want to do, mess with history, alter it to make it conform to the picture they want that history to be. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we've covered most of the issues. A large majority of Israeli archeologists, Hebrew linguists, and critical Biblical scholars agree that Jesus (and his family) probably spoke Hebrew and Aramaic and that the Greek equivalents of the Hebrew names stand for their originally Hebrew names. Yehoshua/Yeshua is Hebrew (no Aramaic equivalent), Yaakov is Hebrew (not Aramaic Akiba), Yehudah is Hebrew (no Aramaic equivalent), Yosef is a Hebrew name (no Aramaic equivalent), Yose is Hebrew (not Aramaic Yassa), an so on. These are Hebrew names and he likely spoke Hebrew. Few if any scholars suggest Jesus's family only spoke Greek and only had Greek names. --Haldrik 22:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but you're just repeating yourself; you think it's important to somehow "restore" Jesus' Jewishness, so you insist on inserting a conjectural Hebrew/Aramaic name for him in the intro.  Your needs are not the same as fact. Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Justin Eiler. As I've said earlier, it's normal encylopedia practice (not just Wikipedia) to give the derivation of a non-English word or name at the very beginning of the article. The rest comes down to a dispute on how reliable the Hebrew "reconstruction" is, and how best to phrase the reference. Of course, some people prefer to avoid the issue.... Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and Jesus is derived from the Greek, which we know precisely. Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: (sigh) I agree with others who have stated the article would not be lacking if we just left the names out of the intro altogether as the previous consensus before us eventually concluded as well. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  His English name, and the Greek it was derived from. Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, English from Latin from Greek at a minimum. But, isn't the Greek name itself derived from Aramaic and/or Hebrew? If there is really that much uncertainty about the ultimate derivation, perhaps this could be covered in a footnote? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 22:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not a subsection, like the article had for years? Jayjg (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw such a subsection at the Spanish Wikipedia, and it looked ugly to me. We do have a name subsection in Historical Jesus, not to mention Names and titles of Jesus. I'd prefer that the main article serve as an introduction/summary, and leave details to the subarticles. Is there anyone here who disagrees with me? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is certainly interested in scholarly consensus, but scholarly conjecture should not be presented as fact in an introduction.  A seperate subsection will do. Jayjg (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have separate articles. Why complicate the main article? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's why I recommended the above subsection--it's enough to let them know what people think it is, but also sends them off to the proper articles to hear all sides of the debate. Justin Eiler 00:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a sentence or two, and links to related articles, would be sufficient for the main article. I doubt we need another subsection in the main article, but I may be alone. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 00:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It is certain the Greek name Iesous refers to the Hebrew name Yehoshua/Yeshua. It does not refer to Yoshia or Hoshea. There is not even a controversy. We need to concentrate on scholarly consensus. And move on. --Haldrik 03:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name subsection proposal

message: What is the "longer-standing Orthodox rabbinical position"? The Rambam himself says Jesus's real is name Yeshua Ha-Nozri ישוע הנוצרי (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 11.10)! (Spelled with the Ayin.) Even the Sefer Toldot Yeshu specifically says, his mother "Miryam gave birth to a son and named him Yehoshua יהושע, after her brother. But later, this name deteriorated to Yeshu." Even that book calls attention to the fact that his real name is Yehoshua, but claims that later people began to represent his name improperly (without the letter Ayin). The Rabbinic tradition is unanimous that the person's original name is Hebrew Yehoshua/Yeshua. --Haldrik 14:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is completely unacceptable as a reference to Jesus of Nazareth--the time period under discussion in this passage of Toldot Yeshu is 3671 (90 BCE), eighty-plus years before the conjectural birth of Jesus. Justin Eiler 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do we know this is the date of this Sanhedrin passage? I thought they all were undated and undateable. --CTSWyneken 02:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Talmud makes several references to a Jew named Yeshu ישו who was put to death for practicing sorcery during the reign of the Hasmonean king Yannai (Iannaios in the Greek of Josephus) or King Janneus (103-76 BCE). This Yeshu lived about a century before Jesus. Jesus was an extremely common name, and there is no reason to assume that this Yeshu refers to Jesus of Nazareth. The conflict in dates precludes the identification, not to mention the method of execution: stoning versus crucifixion. Nevertheless, these passages about Yeshu are reinterpreted midrashically as if referring to Jesus, and even today sometimes taken literally to mean Jesus. --Haldrik 18:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Another contributor complained modern scholarship was unacceptable because it was thought to contradict the "longer-standing Orthodox rabbinical position". I was pointing out the Rabbinic tradition agreed with modern scholarship. --Haldrik 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you were getting criticism from both sides of the argument. (blush) My apologies, Haldrik. Justin Eiler 00:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he appears to just be pulling out any argument he can make (including quite a few bogus ones), even if they're mutually contradictory. Jayjg (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I'm wondering is what any of this has to do with putting Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek nameforms in the intro. --CTSWyneken 02:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rabbis agree his historical name is Yehoshua/Yeshua

message: In the Jesus article, the section "Historical reconstructions of Jesus's life" already says,
:Most scholars agree the Gospels were written after the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans. According to most critical historians, Jesus probably lived in Galilee for most of his life and he probably spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. 
Jesus himself probably knows both Aramaic and Hebrew (and perhaps some work-related Greek).
In my statement, I used the phrase "Aramaic or Hebrew" because while many Western scholars continue to assume the dominant language is Aramaic, many Israeli scholars dispute that assumption in light of the accumulating archeological and linguistic evidence from the Second Temple Period. The Hebrew dialect of the Dead Sea Scrolls is a living language, the language of the local people. Hebrew doesn't begin to decline as a living language until after the disasterous Bar Kokhba War in 135 CE. A large majority of Israeli scholars agree Hebrew is a living language but now debate the relative roles of Hebrew and Aramaic. A trilingual model has been proposed with Hebrew as a "home" language for the Jews but using Aramaic as an international language for trade and interractions with other Mideastern populations. However, the Romans administered the eastern region of the Roman empire using Greek as their international language. Greek-speaking Jewish communities who made aliyyah from the Diaspora are known in Israel. (Latin is not seen as having any major role outside of the Roman army units stationed in Palestine.)
Here's an example of the kinds of things the Israeli linguistic scholarship is saying.  Schniedewind discusses the findings of Israeli and other Hebrew linguists. Note that he defines "Classical Hebrew" as a single evolving living language that ranges (and overlaps) through time from Biblical Hebrew to Late Biblical Hebrew to DSS/Qumran Hebrew and even to Early Rabbinic/Mishnaic Hebrew, which does not die out until around 300 CE!
: For my part, I would prefer to use "Classical Hebrew" as a catch-all to refer to all Hebrew texts, both biblical and non-biblical, in the pre-Rabbinic period. It could even include the early phase of Rabbinic Hebrew (=RH1) if we defined it as the period when Hebrew was a living language in Palestine. This would include epigraphic Hebrew, Qumran Hebrew, RH1 as well as the Hebrew of the biblical corpus. Biblical Hebrew, in contrast, would describe the limited corpus of biblical Hebrew literature.
: At least a half a millennium separated the later books of the Hebrew Bible from the codification of the Mishnah. The Dead Sea Scrolls have filled in this gap with a Hebrew language that is neither Biblical nor Mishnaic. It should force us to rethink categories like Classical Hebrew. One immediate consequence can be seen in the most recent dictionary project of “Classical Hebrew” carried out by Sheffield University, which tries not to privilege biblical texts. The range of the dictionary ends at 200 CE, thereby excluding the Mishnah and later Jewish texts. The range of the dictionary, nevertheless, is a step in the right direction.
: Jewish scholars, in contrast, have long emphasized the continuity of the Hebrew language. For example, Segal’s grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew begins by dividing Hebrew into roughly four periods with the first two defined as Biblical (ca. 1000-200 BCE) and Mishnaic (400 BCE-400 CE). Although Hebrew ceased to be spoken as an everyday language sometime in the third or fourth centuries CE, it continued to be used as the language of sacred literature and even served as a trade language among Jews throughout the Diaspora who shared their knowledge of Hebrew religious texts.
Hebrew linguists, who are scrutinizing the data of the Qumran/Dead Sea Scrolls and its continuity between Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, now hold "Classical Hebrew" is a single evolving living language. Epigraphic remains from archeology corroborate these findings. Israelis now take it for granted that Hebrew is a living language throughout the entire Second Temple Period - which includes Jesus's lifetime. --Haldrik 16:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the point re the Greek, you're incorrect.  An initial iota followed by a vowel was palatalized, i.e., had a "yuh" sound -- much like the Latin I when misspelled as a J (Latin had no J). Jim62sch 23:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you referring to? The above text doesn't mention the letter Iota. --Haldrik 23:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew as a living language 

message: Should the opening line of this article state Jesus' Hebrew name, or should this name be cited (and explained) in another part of the article?
State in introduction:
*Arch O. LaTalkTCF 11:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear CTSWyneken: Thank you for being so logical and orderly about it. I support your suggestion. Yoninah 12:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow this debate was even longer than I thought. I'd prefer not too much "clutter" in the first sentence as most readers are just trying to make sure the've got the correct article at that point. The list of names and dates stalls the reader so is there any support for putting them after the bit that says Jc is the central figure of christianity? Don't want to complicate things further but it might take the pressure off trying to cram as much as poss as concisely as poss. Whatever - NO VOTE please. SophiaTalkTCF 19:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd support moving the dates in some fashion to paragraph two, but there was fur flying on that one, too. Can we settle this issue first and then start a conversation on the talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate on whether to put the dates there, and, if so, where? --CTSWyneken 19:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hoped the fear of an atheist meddling with the first sentence would cause differences to be settled! I only suggested moving the languages/dates bit as some of the problems above are caused by the confilcting needs of completeness and conciseness. I would never want to cause more fur to fly so am not pressing for any change at this moment. SophiaTalkTCF 21:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Certainly. Or move it to the 2nd paragraph. Can we await settlement on the Hebrew/Greek in intro first, though? --CTSWyneken 02:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for a vote

message: ----
Jesus (Hebrew Yēshûa יֵשׁוּעַ reconstructed from Greek Iēsoũs Ιησους) (8-2 BC/BCE – 29-36 AD/CE), also known as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene, is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ, where Christ is a title meaning "Anointed", corresponding to Hebraic "Messiah". The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, which are generally agreed to have been written decades after his death.
--Haldrik 13:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering how much debate there has been over whether 1st century Hebrew was a living language, or merely a sacred one, perhaps it would be better to reference the Aramaic instead. Also, why not supply the original Greek for Christ? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The name is Hebrew, whether or not Jesus speaks Aramaic. His family members have Hebrew names, not Aramaic names. Hebrew is a living language during Jesus's lifetime. Even among scholars who speculate Hebrew was only a literary language, most agree Jesus personally knows Hebrew because of his debates with the Pharisees about the Torah. Anyway, the name is Hebrew. --Haldrik 18:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, although after the long debate, I wonder if others will agree. My own proposal is two sections below, but this is close enough. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Haldrik, I find the paragraph you have above acceptable.  I'm not keen on it, but the "reconstructed" qualification is a compromise I can live with that addresses my concerns.  My preference is to leave the language out of the intro altogether and have a separate etymology section, but if others want this in the intro, this version works for me.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From Encarta: "The name Jesus is derived from a Greek rendering of the Hebrew name Joshua, or in full Yehoshuah (Yahweh is deliverance)." In this respect they are saying the Greek name was derived from the Hebrew, not vice versa. I realize an extensive discussion has taken place about this, but I'm not sure if this was mentioned. —Aiden 18:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can all agree on this, the dispute was over whether the Hebrew form was used in the first century (and which dialect of Hebrew!). However, this seems to be a decent compromise. BTW Aiden, you're looking a little cyan today. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I attempted to get the blue from the Israeli flag but couldn't quite get it right hehe. —Aiden 19:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well to clarify, that as far as I was concerned, the dispute wasn't about dialect or etymology.  It was about stating something as fact that we don't know, namely that Jesus indeed went by a Hebrew name, when we only have records of him going by a Greek name.  I don't dispute that he may very well have gone by the Hebrew name from which the Greek name derives.  My only concern was implying it as a certainty when it is only a likelihood based on etymology, and my example was Prince Gwilym.  If it's worded so that it makes it clear that we only assume he may have gone by the Hebrew version of his name based on etymology, that's fine. We have an actual record that Jesus went by a Greek name, but we don't have any actual record of him going by a Hebrew name, it is an extrapolation based on etymology. Anyway, now that Haldrik is a real editor (not a red one) I can take him seriously ; ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL! --Haldrik 19:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You can blame me for that. I left "Haldrik needs a user page" on his user page so it wouldn't distract me on my way to his talk page. Once on his talk page, though, I had nothing to add to what CTSWyneken said there. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that! : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'd rather remove the Hebrew and Greek from the intro completely. I agree the info is correct, but I find it very distracting when reading to put the Greek and Hebrew in this. Could we perhaps just put a see reference to the names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament? --CTSWyneken 19:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, although I still hold (as Haldrik said) that this is standard encyclopedic practice. Frankly, I think that most people skip over parenthesis anyway. (Or maybe they don't.) Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's my preference, as CTSWyneken suggests, to leave it out.  One reason to leave it in though is that we finally got it to an acceptable state, and if we leave it out, someone new will invariably come along and add it in an unacceptable way and then we go through this all over again.  But both the options on the table are fine with me. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; it's distracting, speculative, doesn't belong in an intro, and will inevitably lead to more warring. Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but look how long the last consensus to leave it out lasted.  If it's gotta go in, at least it should go in right. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Immanuel isn't a name but a title based on an interterpretation of the biblical verse, and seems not generally used except when discussing the verse. --Haldrik 21:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph 1 to be updated on 3/11/2006 

message: # In the introduction, show the original Aramaic form of Jesus and the original Greek form of Christ, both in parenthesis. This is common practice, and it will not "clutter up" the introduction if we do it properly (as, for example, the Socrates article does).
# Save a fuller explanation for the main article, not as a separate subsection, but as a small paragraph at or near the beginning of "Life and Teachings" or "Historicity." This should include the debate over whether or not Hebrew was a common language in the first century, as well as how Jesus' name evolved through Greek and Latin.
# Simplify the dates in the introduction. Herod the Great uses circa dates in the intro, then discusses the uncertainty (ranges for birth and death) later in the article. It looks awkward to have a range for birth and death dates right up front. Aren't we basing Jesus' birth date on Herod's death date, and the crucifiction date on a solar eclipse (the former as reported by Josephus, the latter as reported by Thallus the Samaritan)? 
# Curse Archola for making this proposal.
Arch O. LaTalkTCF 06:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Archola has a good point about the Socrates article. The one liner at the top with the contents below is very useful. The picture and summary are good too. Just out of interest - why is there no picture on the Jesus page? Apart from being factual a FA needs be good on the eye and currently the first part of the page is not very attractive at first glance - which is all some people may give it unless it invites further reading. SophiaTalkTCF 07:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Socrates article was Haldrik's point, except that he wanted Hebrew rather than Aramaic. Thus the long debate over whether Hebrew was a common tongue. There are pictures further down; perhaps we could also use Image:RFJesus.jpg. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. --MonkeeSage 08:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever we do, I suggest we keep the footnote and keep documenting on the subpage. When the inevitable outraged new to the article editor comes by, we can then point to the body of quotations. --CTSWyneken 16:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that footnoting is a good idea. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 16:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always pushed for including all views - even the earlier dates for the gospels - as at least the outraged newbie can't think we're ignorant or supressing information. The footnotes are good and should be kept. SophiaTalkTCF 18:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Jayjg : We don't need to know what name Jesus went by, and we don't have to accept the conjecture that Jesus was ever called by his Greek name. Just because the documents about him are recorded in Greek doesn't prove that he himself spoke Greek. In fact, it makes no difference to this proposal what language Jesus spoke! What we need to know is whether the Greek name is derived from the Hebrew name, as the only reason for giving either one is for etymological purposes. It is an accepted fact that the Greek uniquely derives from the Hebrew (see above Fact or Conjecture? section, esp. the Wiktionary links). I don't think the etymology has to be in the intro (even though that is standard practice), but it should be somewhere in the article, as it is valuable information for some (even though others may think it is trivial). The etymology seems pointless to historians, and the historical debate seems pointless to linguists, but the point of an encyclopedia is to be, well...encyclopedic! --MonkeeSage 05:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's what makes it modest. If it was significantly different from the old proposal, I would have called it a drastic proposal. However, please check two sections above for Haldrik's latest proposal. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already have; it's a bad idea to make readers wade through a mass of confusing trivia written in foreign scripts before they even get to the second word of the article. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A modest proposal

message: I really wish he wouldn't have done that before we came to an agreement on the issue. I have not done as I would normally have done and reverted it, simply because I was not party to the previous agreement that brought the article to the non-Hebrew state of affairs.
I would not blame someone else for reverting it, though.
So, I guess what I'm asking is:
Is this version OK with everyone?
I personally do not like it and would prefer no Hebrew or Greek in the intro. I'll check other encyclopedias, but I'm willing to bet none have the name of Jesus in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. 
It also begs the question of whether or not we should include the Latin, too...
I hate to say it, but do we need a vote here? --CTSWyneken 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and I am removing it. Its not factual at all and is highly disputed. ems 03:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone beat me to it again. ems 03:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There was no consensus on this, and, as I recall, a strong consensus to keep that speculation out of the lead.  The "non-Hebrew state of affairs" has existed for many months. I prefer your solution. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We know Abraham, Moses, and Malachi's original Hebrew names because we have source documents using their names.  The source documents we have using Jesus original name are Greek, not Hebrew. Jayjg (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I probably jumped the gun and archived the discussion awhile ago, maybe out of weariness from going in circles.  As I've said before, I prefer it out altogether, maybe mention it in an etymology section later where it can be fully explained, but if people prefer it in at least qualify it the way Haldrik agreed with the "reconstructed from the Greek" bit. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Haldrik, that is an unproven assertion. At this point, even if it was proven, I would opt to revert simply for your ill-mannered refusal to seek or abide by consensus. Justin Eiler 04:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Few (if any) scholars believe Jesus is a Greek-speaking Jew who goes by a Greek name. Most archeologists, historians, and Bible scholars hold his original name is Yeshua. I've cited many, many sources to this effect. The heading announced Paragraph 1 would be posted today on 3/11/2006. The discussion seemed to have quieted down. I waited till the end of night before posting it, according to procedure. If people still want to discuss it, I'm happy to. --Haldrik 04:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That is HIGHLY disputed. ems 04:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to cite any scholars who dispute that the original name of the historical person is Yeshua. It should be easy to do according to your claim. --Haldrik 04:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to say it one more time only, Haldrik; we know what his Greek name was, and scholars speculate that his Hebrew name was Yehoshua or Yeshua.  We have no idea if he ever used it, or was called by it.  Wikipedia doesn't lard up introductory sentences with speculation. Jayjg (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The scholars have a good idea that the historical person uses the Hebrew name Yeshua and conversely doesn't use the Greek name Iesous. --Haldrik 05:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You have it backwards; all Haldrik has posted are speculations about what Jesus' original Hebrew name might have been.  Until he posts a link to a source document using his original Hebrew name (and he can't, because none exists), he's got nothing. Jayjg (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speculation or not, it would be nice to have all citations in one place. As I know neither Hebrew nor Greek, nor for that matter Latin nor Aramaic, I prefer to stay out of the discussion over the legitimacy of sources. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most scholars agree he spoke Hebrew/Aramaic, and his name is Yeshua. Debates about whether Jesus might have spoken some Greek in addition to Hebrew/Aramaic aren't so relevant here. What matters is finding scholars in the field who DISPUTE that the original name of the historical person is Yeshua. --Haldrik 05:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly object to putting any foreign language info in the introduction, on the grounds that such information is simply not what readers in general are looking for. It forces the average reader's eye to skip and look for when the English words start and the gobbledygook ends.  Drogo Underburrow 05:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I'm glad Drogo (great name!) wrote that. Often people who understand this stuff forget they are writing for "the great unwashed" (is that a very british term)? like me who sees it as a load of squiggles. Very interesting squiggles but I need to be prepared for it. The first sentence should just be to confirm that you've got the correct article. From then on it's up to personal taste/style etc but that first sentence should be clean in my uneducated POV. SophiaTalkTCF 11:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haldrik has inserted the Hebrew 

message: Moved this section and its subsections to Archive 41. Man that is a long archive! But isn't that where they should go? If not, I trust someone will fix it, and sorry for the trouble. --MonkeeSage 07:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think Archive 41 is long, you should see Archive 22! Since Archive 41 is all about the languages issue, you might also create a separate topic subpage. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 05:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Haldrik has inserted the Hebrew