Talk:Yeshu/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Rubenstein and Boyarin

Other scholars may not have been given much room, but I would not object to exanding on the views of others. We should add content, not cut. Besides, how many scholars of the past 20 years have written extensively on Yeshu? These are cutting edge scholarship; I think it is fair to give more current work more space. That said, I have NO objecting to adding more content on the views of others. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ghost, you do not know this article, and besides you are implementing a POV fork. You do not like this interpretation of Yeshu and are imposing your own POV by putting it into another article. Rubenstein and Boyarin are writing about Yeshu, their views are significant, from reliable sources so they stay in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Jacob the Min article isn't a POV fork. My problem is only with the wordiness of the Boyarin and Rubenstein stuff compared with the lack of similar stuff for Herford and Klausner say. I moved the Boyarin and Rubenstein stuff to Jacob the Min because it appears more on topic with that article. I also want to move the Sama/Sakhnin stuff from the Yeshu article as its not relevant to "Yeshu" but relevant to Jacob the Min. There is also stuff about Jacob the min healing a leg that doesn't mention Yeshu and needs to be added to that article not this one. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

All the material on Jacom being a Christian healer belongs here - those stories are sources for how the rabbis thought of Yeshu, that is what makes them important - at least, to Rubenstein and Boyarin. To put them in another article is to miss the point of Rubenstein's and Boyarin's interpretations, they are making points about Yeshu. That is why it is a POV fork to move them to another article, you just don't like their analysis of the Yeshu stories of the Talmud. Now, if you want to add more on what Herford and Klausner have to say, I won't object although I don't see how they are as significant sources as Boyarin and Rubenstein. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not a matter of not liking the analysis, my discomfort is more with undue weight being given to what is essentially speculation upon speculation as opposed to raw objective information from the accounts. If you feel that removing it would detract from the article rather than improving it, it can stay, in both articles in fact. Bear in mind that the question of whether Jacob was a Christian is somewhat independant of whether Yeshu ben Pandera is Jesus or not. It might really be some individual whose father was literally named Pandera, but who happened to be a Christian! Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

"According to Dr. Rubenstein, the account in Sanhedrin 107b recognizes the kinship between Christians and Jews, since Jesus is presented as a disciple of a prominent Rabbi." I'm sorry, it's late and maybe my brain is tired but I really need either more wording here about how a person from the Hasmonean period is Jesus, or a rewording if that isn't his real opinion. Thanks 4.249.3.214 (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

His view on the subject is that of liberal scholarship, which is basically a watered down more polically correct form of the paranoid anti-semitic accusations of the medieval Church that the passage is a derogatory account of Jesus. Of course it makes no sense as the account takes place in the Hasmonean period as mainstream Jewish commentators tried to point out in defence against the accusations. Liberal scholars who bother to discuss the chronological inconsistency simply dismiss it as the Jews not knowing when Jesus lived. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Boy, do you not understand liberal scholarship. No matter. NPOV is all that matters, we include even views you do not like or understand. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Balancing points of view

This article has given great weight to the views of religious scholars. I have no objection to that. But I think it should give equal weight to current academic scholarship. I have made three changes, all limited to one section. First, I changed the word "liberal" to "critical" because this is the term most commonly used by such scholars to identify the character of their scholarship. Critical scholars do not care whether one is Jewish or Christian; this is scholarship from a secular point of view. Second, I made a minor edit that some scholars debate whether Yeshu does or does not refer to the historical Jewsus. I am not very familiar with the source sprovided, but i think the article would benefit if someone who is familiar with thm would add more information about the debate i.e. what kinds of evidence do they rely on. Finally, I added more detail to a third critical view, that of Yeshu as a literary device.

My position is simple: interpretations of the stories are as important as listing the points of view. Put another way, simply identifying the different points of view is not enough to educate readers, we should say more about what each point of view claims.

I have developed the account of one particular point of view, albeit one that is well-known among critical scholars. I hope it is clear that I have no objection to expanding accounts of other points of view, viz. those critical scholars who debate whether Yeshu is or is not the historical Jesus, and also how religious scholars interpret these stories. Adding all thismaterial would make it a much more informative and valuable article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

My main problem with the term "critical scholars" is that in my experience it usually refers to those who take a debunking stance towards religion and the Bible which is certainly not the stance of the people mentioned. I'm not even sure if they can all be considered to have a secular approach. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

But this is not what critical scholar means in academe, or history, or Bible studies, and we can have links to the articles on higher and lower criticism. Critical scholarship debunks orthodox beliefs and it is reasonable to distinguish between critical and Orthodox views. But critical scholars are not necessarily secular, they can be quite religious. Some lower critics are even very close to Orthodox. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Could use some improvement

The only reason this encyclopedia has an article on "Yeshu" is precisely because many authorities - past and present - claim that that many uses of Yeshu represent Jesus. Yet this article seems to have a hard time coming out and saying that. For instance, there are several key points made by scholars that seem to be missing or very understated:

  • The negative portrayals of Yeshu are, in many instances, classic examples of inter-faith bad-mouthing (Judaism attacking Christianity, and vice versa)
  • Many scholars view the negative portrayals of Yeshu as just one aspect of a broader anti-Christian slant of some Jewish laws/texts
  • Jews reacted to the Christian attacks by erasing or altering many mentions of Yeshu; sometimes under direction/threat of Christian authorities; sometimes voluntarily to avoid retaliation/antisemitism
  • Christians in the middle ages used the negative portrayals of Yeshu to whip-up antisemitism
  • Some Christians in modern times continue to use the portrayals of Yeshu in a bigoted manner

My point is: this article is factually correct, but seems to dwell on the minutiae, while ignoring the controversial aspects. I propose to include content (from reliable secondary sources) that document the above points. I should emphasize that the content of the article looks very reliable, and well-sourced. As far as I can tell, all individual sentences are accurate. My concern is simply that a user of this encyclopedia could read this article and come away without a clue of why such a big deal is made of the name.

PS:There is a garbled sentence in the middle of the article:

Modern liberal scholars debate whether Yeshu does or does not refer to the historical Jesus. Thiessen and Merz draw on Dalman (1893), Maier (1982), and Thoma (1990) in reaching this conclusion.[18] a view seen in several 20th century ...

I'm not sure what the editor was trying to say there, but if someone could fix it, that would be nice. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what this phrase means either. "Liberal scholars" is a meaningless term; in the UK "liberal" just means non-orthodox, but the issue here is not one's religion but the pricnciples of one's scholarship and "critical scholarship" is a better term. I agree most scholars view the Yeshu storis as responses to Christianity, in one way or another. BUT: not all view it this way. What is wrong with this article is it is written as if the Wikipedia article is providing "the truth" or some "objective" account, which of course we cannot. The article would be better if it ere up-front about debates about the meanings of the texts, drawing on secondary rather than primary sources. Then what follows would illustrate the specific views and points of contention. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Laible and Herford

These authors' books are available at Google books with links from www.archive.org. I have downloaded and read them. They contain no proof of their assertions, beg the question, contradict Talmud or Christian text and doctrine and sometimes both. Everything in this article that refers to them should be marked as their POV at a bare minimum but they cannot serve as a factual basis for any assertion that Talmud refers to Jesus. Also I have been in correspondence with Peter Schafer. He believes that Talmud does refer to Jesus. There is no way to do this from the actual text, which I have been studying page by page for twelve years (I'm on my second pass) in the original languages. Such a conclusion requires accepting inadequate authority, a fallacy. 4.249.63.213 (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions

One thing still missing from this article is pointing out the contradictions between all the cited Talmud information and Christian accounts of Jesus. This would make the disjunction between the two clear. 4.249.63.91 (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point and I am working on it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
They are differences not contradicions. "Contradiction" implies that they are accounts of the same thing. Some scholars do think these are stories through which Rabbis expressed their view of Jesus, but not all scholars think that, so it may not even be an account of Jesus (we do not talk about contradictions betwen jesus' life and Julius Caeser's, do we)? Also, there is no certainty at all that even if the Rabbis meant to be talking about Christianity, that they claimed that these are historically accurate accounts. The film The Greatest Story Ever Told is not identical to the Gospels - but would we have a section on "contradictions?" it is a loaded word and I am not sure we have enough evidence to support all the premises that would make it an appropriate word. Or maybe a beter example would be Jesus in South Park - we aren't going to have a section in the outh park article on "contradictions" between th SP Jesus and the Gospel Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Iesat Nassar

Hi, does anyone know about Iesat Nassar?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.184.150 (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

Why revert every change I made and then say, rather than "previous version", "this version" is more accurate. There's no difference between between my first edit and after the revert version. Almost all of my edits were copyedits - there's no issue of "accuracy." Furthermore the revert wiped out linkages and inline tags, the removal of which was given no justification. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 15:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You changed the lead to say that Yeshu refers to Jesus in anti-Christian accounts. This may be so, but many scholars do not say this, it is only one view among several. The consensus lead does justice to the range of views; your edit pushes your own view.
You also added an unverified tag to this line, "However Eisenmenger's book against Judaism was denounced by the Jews as malicious libel" without providing appropriate justification for the tag.
These changes are not editorial or minor, they represent your efforts to impose yor own POV on the article. These are not copyedits, and to characterize them as copyedits is disingenuous. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Good Stuff

This is a well written article. However what spoiled it for me was the lack of citations. Much of the material contradicts the material in the books on the "Talmud and Jesus" I am now reading. Therefore being able to verify is important. I have not deleted any of the original research as this is a good article that just needs some work. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Jesus in the Talmud?

Please see discussion at Talk:Jesus in the Talmud#Merge with Yeshu article?. Please post any comments there, not here, to avoid confusion. --Noleander (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Schaefer interpolation

SiRub: do you have a source that discusses Shaefers "interpolation"? (Ditto Herford "liberty")? --Noleander (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As RetProf pointed out above, this article is missing lots of citations. About half of it has great citations, and half is totally missing them (apparently two different editors :-) I don't have time right now to do the research (plus, a few of the sentences appear to be incorrect) so for now I simply added some fact tags to the suspect paragraphs to draw attention of future editors to those paragraphs that need attention. --Noleander (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

KG knows the different manuscripts, I hoip he will fill in this information (we had gone over this topic in the talk pages yars ago). Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopedia of Judaism, there were 4 manuscripts that were consolidated into the Venice edition. Only one of those four, the Leiden MS, remains extant. According to Schaefer, the Venice edition has "Yeshu" in the main text; and the Leiden MS has a name deleted, and "Yeshu" written in the margin. Schaefer cites the first Venice edition (the editio princeps) of the JT and it is possible that later editions were, like many editions of the Talmud, censored to remove the name. The bottom line is that the authoritative edition has the word "Yeshu" in it, and the only surviving MS has an unknown name deleted. I suppose we could put all that detail into the article, but maybe a footnote would be more appropriate? In any case, we cannot use loaded words like "interpolated" or "liberty" in the article without a source that uses similar wording. --Noleander (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

But does the Vnice edition have Yeshu in all the places supposed? I didn't think that the question was whether "Yeshu" appeas at all, but whther Yeshu appears in all the places supposed, or whether "ben Pandera" appears every time "Yeshu" appears? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the question is not simply whethe Yeshu appears but whether it should be translated as Joshuah (or Jesus). We certainly need to be clear where the ms. says Yeshu vs. where it says Yehoshuah. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% with what you say. My point is a very narrow one: the article, now, says that Schaefer inserted the word somehow; whereas the Schaefer book (I have it in front of me) says no such thing: it says the word is plainly in the Venice edition. I was wondering if Kuratowski's Ghost (they were the one that put in the "interpolation" sentence) had a source to support the "interpolation" wording, of if they were just projecting their own interpretation. --Noleander (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not have the Schaefer book, but there are two things you need to be sure of: first, is he referring to the Aramaic manuscript, or to a translation? For example, in one of the passages the Talmud says "min" which can mean many things in Hebrew, including heretic, or partisan - some people just translate this as Christian. Now, I have no doubt Pharisees considered early Christians "min" but they considered Saducees "min" too, so one has to be careful about translations. Ditto where the Talmud uses the word "hegemon" which can also be translated as juge; some have translated this as Roman Governor. Some translations are interpretations so if they say a word in Aramaic is there, fine, but if they say a word in English is there, I'd want to know in some cases what the oiginal says.

As for manuscripts, there are many more than the ones you mention, please see here. The Venice Edition is not the best. It is simply the oldest printed manuscript, but the first unexpurgated one as the Vilna edition, which has still been criticized by scholars for having errors. Quite some time ago Nathan Rabinowitz published a book comparing differences between printed and hand-written existing versions of the Talmud and there is a great deal of debate over how to interpret differences. There have been three or four or more generations of Talmud scholars comparing manuscripts and trying to figure out what is the best - most likely authentic - version. I think the Lieberman edition (not a comlete critical dition of the Talmud, but corrections to an earlier critical commentary) is considered by Talmud Scholars to be the most authoritative. But unless you understand recent scholarship by men like David Weiss Halivni and Shamma Friedman, you really have to be concerned about how you read any existing manuscript. This is a pretty contested field. Does Schaefer address any of this, in a footnote or appendix? What does he say about the work of Talmud critics from Lieberman to Weiss Halivni to younger scholars? There work has changed the way Talmud scholars read any ms. of the Talmud and I would expect anyone claiming to study the Talmud to be familiar with their work and its implications for whatever they are looking at. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You've got some good points there. But it does not change the fact that material in this article needs to be supported by reliable sources. --Noleander (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is that context is necessary context, to maintain NPOV. Anyone working with a primary source, if they are a good scholar, at least, will discuss any issues in working with that source (e.g. what edition, why this edition over others, issues in translation). It is not enough to use a "reliable source" like Schaefer, if you are going to use him, provide more information about his view, his position. For example does he say why he uses Venice rather than Vilna? Does he provide the Aramaic and then his translation, noting any uncertainties in translation? If he is writing for a popular audience h may not do this at all but a serious scholarly source would provide this information. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone supply some sources?

It's been awhile since the "citation" tag was added to a few dozen sentences. Can some interested editor help supply the sources? My research shows that some of the unsourced sentences are factually incorrect, so I'm a bit skeptical about them in general. I'm reluctant to delete the material, but WP:Burden and WP:CHALLENGED are distasteful but necessary tools to ensure compliance with WP:Verifiability. Anyway, I'll wait awhile longer. --Noleander (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like most of these citation tags are nonsensical asking for citations for statements describing what is plainly in the source under discussion e.g. asking for a citation that Miriam the daughter of Bilgah is not connected with Mary in the Talmud - this is simply describing the reality that the source under discussion which makes no such connection. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I certainly agree that common knowledge needs no sourcing, plus, no one tries to prove the negative. Miriam is a pretty common name; a sourc should be required only qhen claiming that a particular Miriam is Jesus' mother. I did not think Bilgah was the name of Jesus' grandfather. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
KurGhost: I respect your opinion, but I have found some material in this article that was factually incorrect, so in accordance with WP:Verifiabilty, I am challenging the uncited sentences. The WP:Verifiabilty policy says: "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed". So if you could help provide citations, it would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The challenge has to be reasonable. It is not enough to disgree with the article, one must have reason to believe it is wrong. You say you have encountered factually incorrect mteriall - this is a strong reason to request verification. But it is not enough simply to add the citation tag; can you tell us why you consider the material factually incorrect? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do you say "one must have reason to believe it is wrong"? WP:CHALLENGE is quite clear. --Noleander (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Since when is it every unreasonable to ask someone for a reason? One must have reasons because that is the definition of "reasonable." Are you saying you have no reasons? Are your tags arbitrary? If you do have reasons, why is it so hard for you to explain them? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
See WP:Burden. --Noleander (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Noleander, I asked you what your reasons were, politely and in good faith. you didn'g give them. I asked again, and you still will not give them. i can only conclude you have no reasons. If you have no reasons, there is no burden on anyone. I know WP:V quite well; you might want to read up on WP:Citation overkill. You might object that that is an essay not a policy but then if you want policy I would say: see WP:Ignore. You are wasting your time wikilawyering. If you want to talk about how to improve this article, do so in good faith. When someone asks for reasons it is simple curtousy to give them. That is, if you have any. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
My reasons are stated at the top of this section: "my research shows that some of the unsourced sentences are factually incorrect, so I'm a bit skeptical about them in general". It has been standard practice to supply citations, especially in complex topics like this, since around 2005. An editor added a lot of unsourced material to this article in late 2009. I'm challenging that unsourced material. See WP:CHALLENGE and WP:Burden. The burden is on the person that is adding or restoring material to provide sources. Don't turn it around. Do you have sources for the uncited material? If not, it will be removed. --Noleander (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Slrub: Have you been able to find any sources for this suspect material? Three months notification is plenty. See WP:V, WP:Burden, etc. --Noleander (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The passages you are deleting name the sources, they provide th names of the books and in some cases page numbers. What you are removing is straightforward description of the text. If you want to be consistent, go to the Jesus article and remove the entire section on the Gospel accounts of Jesus - that too is a straightforward summary of a source. Why haven't you deleted that? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

SRub: what are you talking about? There are no sources. Here is an example: "The literal meaning of the term Stada is no longer known. It does not correspond to any known name, suggesting that son of Stada might also be a designation of a class of individuals rather an a patronymic, or perhaps an invented title like that of the Jewish general Bar Kochba (son of the star). The only known parallel to the term is found in the apocryphal Christian text the Acts of Peter where the villain Simon Magus describes himself as `uios `o stadios - the son who remains standing". What is the source (including page number) for that? --Noleander (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a valid example, and I think it is appropriate to add the citation needed. But this is not representative of what you are deleting. You deleted long passages attributed to Rubenstein and Boyarin, whose books are provided in the bibliography. You deleted passages in which a page of the Talmud is provided, and a rief account of what it says is given - the citation is in the sentence itself, one need only look at that page of Talmud. You are deleting huge amounts of content, and what most of it has in common is that it is either a plain account of what the sources say (when necessary specifying the edition), or what Jewish scholars have to say. Do not delete content. If you think more precise information is needed, go out and do some research to find the additional information - that improves the encyclopedia. But to delete content that is attributed is unwarranted. You claim that such material is questionable without ever providing any reasons or evidence to support that. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. How about this section: "The original Aramaic for her name is Miriam megadela neshaya in which many[who?] see Mary Magdalene. Some[who?] have thus identified her with Mary Magdalene while others[who?] are more cautious merely suggesting dresser of women's hair as a possible meaning of Magdalene alternate to the traditional understanding of the name as a toponymic surname (Migdolit, from the town of Migdol).[citation needed]". Is there some attribution in the article that Im not seeing? --Noleander (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Here too I think the citation needed tag is appropriate. Look, I do not think that these tags are entirely unjustified or unconstructive. I do think you or others have been overzealous in adding them often in cases where they are inappropriate or unjustified. Perhaps I have been oversealous in removing them, but if so i apologize as i have tried to be careful. I appreciate your now taking this one-passage-at-a-time approach. In the above passage i know that it is a fact some have suggested Magdalene is from Migdol. I do not know who. So keeping the passage but keeping the citation needed tag makes sense.
My main objections are two: first, you were deleting very straightforward accounts of primary source material where the citation was provided in the text (the name of the masechet and the daf) - deleting such material is entirely unjustified. Second, you were deleting material where there was attribution but the page number was missing. In these cases I think it is justified to ask for the page number (but the standard is, put the request within the citation, not after it), but it is very wrong to delete the material since it provides valuable and verifiable content. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and what we need at this article is more people doing research, not more people deleting substantive and verifiable content. Finally, there are passages where I would fully agree with you that citastin needed tags are appropriate and justified. But here too i would distinguish between ones that make relevant claims where we probably should not cut them - much better to wait until Wikipedia grows and attracts more people interested in this topic and willing to do research who can investigate this - this is after all the whole gamble behind a "wiki" pedia, that someone else's research will begin where mine ended, that collaborations will add valuable content ... if we cut them, the content is lost forever and a future editor willing to do some research in order to help the encyclopedia won't even know where to start or what to look for - and then passages that really seem fringe and unverifiable and should be cut. Do you see, i just distinguished between four kinds of cases, only one of which I think merits deletion. In short, i agree that some stuff should be cut, but you seemed just to be hacking away, cutting much important, in many cases verifiable, and in some cases fully attributed, material.
i am a firm believer in people collaborating to do research. So i think one test should be: If this passage really is true (i.e. comes from a verifiable source), does reading it teach me something I did not know before, that is relevant to thte article? If so, add the citation needed tag, fine - but don't cut it - give someone who really wants to help the project a chance to help. Let another volunteer editor look for the source, or the page number. Three months is not enough time to let pass. If this were an article on Sarah Palin I would say 3months is plenty of time because thousands read that page and dozens are constantly working n it. But Wikipedia's resources are not evenly distributed. Thousands of people do NOT read this article each day and we do not have dozens of people working on it. Right no no one is working on it. Maybe one person a year wil spend a few days working on it. So the number of volunteers who work on the Sarah Palin article in three months might not be met for this article for several years. Sad, but true. But under thsese conditions one must allow a lot more time for volunteers to come by and offer to do the necessary work. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I repeat for the third time: since around 2006, the standard for all new material in WP is to include good footnotes for all material, especially material in complex articles like this one. An editor added tons of material to this article in 2009 without citations, and no one said a thing (it was not on my watchlist at the time). I've investigated some of the new, unsourced material and found it to be wrong. I'm now applying the WP:Verifiability policy. The burden is on editors wishing to keep the material to find the sources ... see WP:Burden and WP:CHALLENGE. If you want to open a report at WP:RS go ahead, but I'm certain that the outcome will be that sources are required. --Noleander (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I repeat for the gazilianth time: you cannot delete material just because you do not like it. I have been referring to sourced material that represents the mainstream view. I do not object to your removing unsourced conjecture and I never have. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

added POV tag

I've added a POV tag. The issue is that the article systematically understates the sources that claim that that Yeshu is considered to be Jesus (regarded as the messiah of Christianity). Specific examples include:

  1. "Yeshu is also the name used in Toledot Yeshu narratives as the name of the central Hashmonean era character who is partly based on Jesus.". Virtually all mainstream scholars consider the Toledot Yeshu to be a polemic narrative about Jesus (regarded as the messiah of Christianity).
  2. "Modern liberal scholars debate whether Yeshu does or does not refer to the historical Jesus." - Correct, but as worded it obfuscates the fact that virtually all mainstream scholars consider the references to be to Jesus (regarded as the messiah of Christianity)
  3. The discussion of "May his name and memory be blotted out" obscures the fact that all scholars concur that the Toledot Yeshu explicitly uses the acrostic in a derogatory way.
  4. "The skeptical view that Yeshu does not refer to Jesus echoes that of the majority of traditional Jewish commentators ..." - is a WP:Fringe view, and should so be noted. The word "majority" is not accurate.
  5. The discussion about Christian-Jewish polemics (rival sects, etc) is embedded at the bottom of the "Critical scholarship" section. That material represents the most modern scholarship and should be more prominently represented.

--Noleander (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I find the words "skeptical" and "liberal" to be subjective, but critical Talmud scholars I know of all reject claims that Yehu in the Talmud refers to the historical Jesus. I do not know the literature on the Toledot Yeshu. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. I don't see the issue here.
  2. "Virtually all"? Source?
  3. Where does Toledot Yeshu do this?
  4. Why do you assert this is "fringe"? Source?
  5. The material is presented chronologically, as happens in many articles. Why is that a POV issue?
Jayjg (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The POV tag is pretty well justified. A merge tag might be called for too. Why is this article separate from Jesus in the Talmud? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Jesus in the Talmud was formed after this article, and as a POV-fork - I think that the article should be deleted as a POV fork but as I have contributed to this article I am involved.
The main argument for keeping Jesus in the Talmud is that this article covers other sources - notably, Toledot Yeshu. Also, some texts in the Talmud that some believe refer to Jesus use other terminology (e.g. ben Pandera). But the vast majority of texts, even in the Talmud, taken to refer to Jesus are texts that use the name "Yeshu."
In the cited passages, "skeptical" and "liberal" are words favored by another editor, Kuratowska's Ghost, to refer to secondary sources. These words refer to theological differences. Personally, I think that the important distinction in secondary sources is between religions and non-religious, i.e. critical, scholars. And the facgt remains that the overwhelming majority of both Jewish religious sources and critical (non-religious) sources say Yeshu and ben Pandera and other stories do not refer to the historical or Gospel Jesus, although several critical scholars do believe these stories are about Jewish-Christian relations. Does this help make things clear to uninvolved editors?
Is it time for an RfC? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, thanks that's a clear and sensible answer to my question. If there is a RfC on this or any related topic where there are attempts being made to improve WP sources/NPOV, feel free to let me know by talk. In the last 12 months I've become increasing aware that any Wikipedia article where early Jewish-Christian "origins" intersect seems prone to OR/primary sources/synthesis/fringe and some articles read more like a fringe church blog than an encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Mark 2:1-2 ??

What does Mark 2:1-2 have to do with the position that Jesus was forgiving and the Pharisees not? GcT (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the indication of the verses, as the sentence refers to the anecdote that is in Mark 2 and is longer than the first two verses. Personally, I do not agree that Mark 2 is about Jesus being more forgiving than the Pharisees, I think the story is about Jesus being God. But this part of the article is not about my interpretation of mark 2, it comes from a verifiable source, and it is what the source claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

manuscripts and the reliability of Dennis McKinsey

Our text has "However, McKinsey notes that Ha-Notzri is not found in other early partial manuscripts (the Florence, Hamburg and Karlsruhe) where these cover the passages in question...". However, the compilation of manuscript references in Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton Univ Press, 2007; appendix) shows that Ha-Notzri does appear in the Florence and Karlsruhe manuscripts, at least 6 times in each. Something is amiss here, and I suspect the issue is McKinsey's reliability. Who is McKinsey? I can only find "published biblical scholar", which is insufficient to establish him as a reliable source. Peter Schäfer is the Ronald O. Perelman Professor of Judaic Studies at Princeton University. Does anyone wish to argue that McKinsey should be kept as a source? Astarabadi (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Both authors seem to be partially wrong, the Florence manuscript for example ommits completely the mention of Yeshu in the beginning of the Sanhedrin 107b reference, no Yeshu and no Notzri, but it does have "Yeshu Ha-Notzri" in the end part. The manuscript can be viewed online here Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
He has an entry Dennis McKinsey which doesn't seem either notable or reliable. And the article's mention of him isn't even sourced to his own works. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeshu in translations of the NT into Hebrew

I removed the claim that Yeshu "is the modern Hebrew spelling of Jesus used in translations of the New Testament into Hebrew." I couldn't veryify it. I checked some of the sources given. Our article provides a link to a website with Hebrew translations of the NT;. So I checked, and the name used for Jesus is Yeshua (e pronounced as a long a) - it is definitely not Yeshu. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Strange - I thought that the standard Franz Delitzsch BFBS has Yeshu (wasn't Delitszch given as reference?). Are you sure the website with Yeshua is not a Messianic Jewish edition? If so it may only exist in html. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The sentence refers to modern Hebrew spelling, this excludes Delitzsch. Modern Hebrew is identified with Israel. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the statement was incorrect, both Delitzsch 1877 and Salkinsohn 1891 versions do in fact have Yeshua not Yeshu which is the spelling per Ben Yehuda and Bantam-Megiddo dictionaries. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed reference to Jesus in the Talmud

I removed a claim that the Jesus in the Talmud article is "about" references in the Talmud to the messiah. This is a deception. That article discusses the same primary sources as this article. The question is, to whom do those sources refer? The answer is not at all clear, so it is a matter of interpretation. That the article Jesus in the Talmud claims to be about the "messiah" Jesus is a description of the view presented in the article. That view happens to be a fringe view. That article does not provide full coverage of the mainstream view. This article presents all views, giving all due weight.

The challenge for any article or articles on the Talmud or the Tosefta or the Toldot Yeshu is to make it clear that there is a debate over the meaning of these primary sources, and specifically the meaning of "Yeshu." Is it a name, or an acronym, or a title? If it is a name, who is it the name of? An article that complies with NPOV would provide all views.

But it is not possible to have an article about texts that refer to Jesus Christ Messiah in the Talmud, because there is no consensus that any text in the Talmud refers to Jesus Christ Messiah. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slrubenstein. Evidently the loaded term "messiah" is POV, but are there are any mainstream scholarly sources today (e.g. since the 1970s) which take the view that the Jesus of Nazareth/Ben Pantira etc. in the Talmuds or indeed Toledoth Yeshu is totally unrelated to the Christian Jesus of Nazareth? .... Another thing that this (or both) articles is missing is that the NT itself contains 2 references to the Ben Pantira story. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I know of no NT reference to Ben Pandera. Can you give me chapter and verse? Where are the two references? At the disputation of Tortosa and other disputations rabbis (who know the Talmud by heart) argued that these stories do not reer to Jesus. "Totally unrelated" covers a lot. Rubenstein and Boyarin certainly say the stories reflect a comment on Christianity but they do not claim that Yeshu = Jesus. This article provides the names of many modern scholars who say Yeshu is not the historical Jesus. The distinction between the historical Jesus and the messiah or Jesus of Nazareth is that these are all the same person. They are just different views of that person. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's generally recognised that "of fornication" and "a Samaritan" relate to accusations against Jesus' parentage cf. D. A. Carson The Gospel according to John 1991 p352, F. F. Bruce Jesus and Christian origins outside the New Testament 1974, etc. (as for Tortosa, the city was conquered by Christians in 1148, it was not a Muslim city at the time of the disputation). Yes the article provides the names of many modern scholars who say Yeshu in the Talmud is not evidence for the historical Jesus, correct, but my question is whether any of them would deny the position of Jeffrey L. Rubenstein 2010 and Daniel Boyarin 1999 that the material concerning Jesus of Nazareth in the Talmud relates to the material concerning Jesus of Nazareth in earlier/contemporary Christian sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked you which chapter/verse of the New Testament refers to Ben Pandera. You told me that The New Testament refers to Ben Pandera. You did not say that DA Carson argue that the NT refers to Ben Pandera. You wrote, "the NT itself contains 2 references to the Ben Pantira story." I have asked you to provide me with the NT references. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, as I said "references to the Ben Pantira story." The exact John verse refs are in Carson, Bruce, etc on the pages given, 8:41,48 cf also The Gospel according to John Leon Morris p409, footnote 80 which cites R Travers Herford 1903 p35ff. So anyway, back to the question I asked -- do you know by any chance, are there mainstream scholars today who depart from the Talmud Jesus being related to the Christian Jesus? Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Then what you are saying is that it is not "in" the New testament, it is an interpretation of the New Testament - or, an interpretation of the Talmud. So what else is new? People come up with different interpretations of sacred texts all the time. I never objected to including this view in the article, I only insisted that we follow WP's own policies - in this case NPOV and NOPR - and present this as a view. The reason Jesus in the Talmud is a POV fork is because some editors got frustrated with the demand that the claim that Yeshu = Jesus be presented as a view, and when possible providing the proper attribution of the view. I do not have to prove that Yeshu is not Jesus, or that ben Pandera is not Jesus - the whole reason Wikipedia is based on the principle that our threshold for inclusion is not "truth" but "verifiability" is to enable us to avoid this silly kind of argument We can verify that some people, for example Leon Morris and R. Travers Herford, have this view of the text. We can establish that their view is significant enough to include in the encyclopedia. I do not have to force Morris or Herford or even you that this view is "true" (which you could never prove); you simply have to demonstrate to me that it is a significant view from a reliable source. Fine, I won't argue with that. We include it. But we include it as a view and one that can be attributed to verifiable and reliable sources.

I do not know the literature on the Talmud well enough to answer your question, although I think most orthodox Rabbis would say that Yeshu and ben Pandera are not about Jesus. The disputation of Tortosa, which I mentioned before, is still considered by historians and by Jews as a significant debate between Jewish and Christian views. Even though it occurred centuries ago I think most orthodox Jews still consider the explication of the Talmud presented at that disputation to be mainstream if not authoritative. The Talmud is a very large text and after the Middle Ages ended, and Jews were no longer forced to provide detailed explications of texts in the Talmud that Christians are obsessed with, guess what? Jews returned to focusing on portions of the Talmud that they are more obsessed with and Yeshu and ben Pandera are just not that significant. The Talmud is a highly heterogeneous text and it has stories of other miracle workers and of other heretics and of other people who were killed by the Romans. Surely you understand that when Christians see a cross they think about Jesus and their hearts go mushy; when Jews see a cross they either think (1) of the thousands of Jews who were crucified, looking at a cross for Jews is like looking at an oven in a concentration camp, it is just the instrument of genocide used by state that thankfully is now long dead; (2) of Christians, who discount or ignore all those thousands of other Jews who were crucified, and have used this one crucifixion as an excuse to persecute Jews for many centuries, or (3) of nothing at all, it is meaningless, just two pieces of wood or steel stuck together. The stories of ben Pandera are more important because they actually are in the Talmud, but what do they mean? they can mean lots of things, the Talmud is all about exploring the multiple meanings that something can have. But of all the stories in the Talmud, ben Pandera is far from being the most interesting (and thus most worthy of comment). You won't find many works today arguing against the Christian view because for the simple reason that you, that nobody, can force Jews any more to stand up and explain these stories. Now that jews are no longer forced to spend a lot of time interpreting these particular stories, Jews have just gone back to interpreting other stories they find more interesint and like I said, the Talmud is full of them.

So the bottom line is, Christian scholars can think whatever they want to about these stories. I acknowledge that Herford represents what is at least for Christians a mainstream view. And we do not have to discuss it any further. We include it, and just make sure it is presented as a view. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Re the NT references, as I said "It's generally recognised that "of fornication" and "a Samaritan" relate to accusations against Jesus' parentage" per D. A. Carson, F. F. Bruce, Leon Morris etc. and this connection is not WP:synthesis but is WP:sourced per e.g. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1995 p992 "And in Jn. 8:41 Jesus' opponents insist, "We were not born of fornication." Here "we" (Gk. hemeis) is emphatic, ... of Celsus that the Virgin Birth was invented to cover up Mary's adultery with a Roman soldier (Contra Celsum i.28.32)."
Re "I do not have to prove that Yeshu is not Jesus, or that ben Pandera is not Jesus - the whole reason Wikipedia is based on the principle that our threshold for inclusion is not "truth" but "verifiability" is to enable us to avoid this silly kind of argument --- perhaps I should make it clear that you do not get to use bold caps to me, or talk to me in this manner, and you do not get to dismiss refs such as Carson, Bruce, Morris or indeed the The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1995 above as "silly" because they are new to you. (You can apologise at this point if you realise you overstepped the mark, and want to continue to talk peer to peer) The only reason I am asking you if a modern scholar shares your view is because you cited rabbis at the disputation of Tortosa as a source, which is neither modern nor objective given Spanish history. If I was a rabbi in 14thC Spain I'm sure I would say the same thing. This is one reason why we depend on modern sources.
Re the Talmud, that's more or less what I thought, though I'm by no means that familiar with the subject, but by quick exposure to the mainstream sources it seems that no mainstream scholar departs from the view in the article, per Peter Schäfer, Perelman Professor of Jewish Studies and Professsor of Religion at Berlin, etc. etc. that some of the Jesus refs in the Talmud are dependent on the Jesus of Christianity. I was simply asking you of any moderns that don't take this view, it appears not, so the article(s) should reflect that.
Thanks also for this comment from my Talk page: I am not sure how interested you eally are in this topic, but if you really are interested, I highly recommend this website: http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesus.html which tells you the mainstream Jewish interpretations of many of the texts Christians cite. It also provides the original text in Hebrew/Aramaic with a literal translation. I have looked at it and the translations are reliable. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC), In answer I'm not really that interested, I consider this a fringe subject, but that's no reason to see more fringe and unsourced content build up on these pages. And thanks for the translations - my own Hebrew was learnt half-heartedly as a teenager and is nowhere near good enough to verify that the translations are reliable without a lot of dictionary work, but I'm sure you're right, the problem is that other than as an entertaining link from a Talk page comment, fine, it has little utility as the translations are not sourced. Though it does provide 2 useful sources: Johann Maier, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Uberlieferung (Ertrage der Forschung 82; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978). which apparently takes the "radical position" that the "Jesus of Nazareth" etc. content in the Talmuds are interpolations, which doesn't in itself challenge Schäfer's view that the texts are related to the NT, and Ephraim Urbach, "Rabbinic Exegesis About Gentile Prophets And The Balaam Passage" (Hebrew), Tarbitz (25:1956), pp. 272-289. which the blogger reviews as "debunking the theory that Balaam is a talmudic codeword for Jesus" which given the lack of NPOV in the blog may or may not be a reliable review of Urbach's book, though Urbach's conclusion would follow R. Travers Herford who specifically says Balaam is not a codeword (p69), FWIW. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Where on earth did I "dismiss refs such as Carson, Bruce, Morris or indeed the The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1995?"

It doesn't matter what you think you would do if you were a rabbi in 14th or 15th century Spaon - Wikipedia is not about role-playing. It is about following policy. We include all significant views. But we represent them as views. My point, that the interpretation of any scholar (which of course applies to Carson, Bruce, or Morris) is a view, not the truth. Cite as many scholars as you want to. It doesn't change the fact that we cannot say that the New Testament refers to the Ben Pandera story, only that a number of scholars believe that it does. Do you really not get this distinction? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary entry, lede

I'm not going to pursue the above discussion, unless a modicum of mutual respect appears please. However, I have to ask as regards this edit: Do you have different editions of the two dictionaries given as references? or is the intention to supply a third dictionary ref with Yeshua? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Does Alcalay's dictionary provide Yeshu or Yeshua or both? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to answer a question unless it is asked with basic respect. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ben Yehuda is a critical figure in the history of modern Hebrew, as Noah Webster is for American English. But as a source for Modern Hebrew (which developed after Ben Yehuda's foundational work) Alcalay has superseded Ben Yehuda. I have corrected the lead so that it accurately corresponds to Alcalay, but I have also preserved the reference to Ben Yehuda. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein. The problem is with larger dictionaries is that they tend to list variant readings. Wheras a concise dictionary will list Yeshu, the standard translation, and then list another, but as he.wikipedia says:

השם "ישו" הוא המקובל ביותר בקרב דוברי עברית, אם כי בתרגומי "הברית החדשה" לעברית, וכן בקרב קהילות נוצריות דוברות עברית, מקובל השם "יֵשׁוּעַ". נראה ש"ישוע" הוא השם המקורי, וכי מדובר בגרסה של השם "יהושֻעַ" (למשל, יהושע בן-נון מכונה "ישוע בן-נון" ב נחמיה ח, י"ז). Anyway, can you please give the English-Hebrew section of Alacay under Jesus? Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I will provide the page number when I get home. But we should not mislead readers. Although there is no direct evidence, all scholars believe that Jesus's Hebrew or Aramaic name was a word that is translated into English today as Joshuah. But this person's name did not enter into English directly from Aramaic or Hebrew - it entered through Greek, which was then translated into Old Latin and then later Latin by Jerome. The Greek Iesous became the Latin Iesus in the nominative, and in the genitive, dative, ablative, and vocative of Yesu or Jesu (as in Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring.") Thus it entered into English as Jesus, rather than Joshuah. This is a non-controversial etymology, it is pretty close to what Wikipedia says already. My point is that then European Jews wanted to come up with a name for Jesus, instead of reconstructing his original Hebrew name they transliterated the word Europeans used. So we have the ironic situation where Jesu is the Latin for the Hebrew Yehoshua, but Yeshu is the Hebrew for Jesu. I don't think anyone questions that Ben Yehuda was not trying to reconstruct Jesus' original Hebrew name but was rather transliterating the word Europeans used in the 19th century into Hebrew letters.

Now, it is certainly possible that the Rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud - these are Jews who lived between 200 and around 500 CE, mostly in the Sassanid Empire - came up with Yeshu through a similar process. But I think the burden of evidence is on whoever makes this claim. Their situation was very different from Ben Yehuda. Ben Yehuda lived in a place at a time when a being named "Jesu" or "Jesus" was very important to most people, so the name Jesu or Jesus was certainly well-known to Ben Yehudah. The rabbis of the Sassanid empire, however, lived in a place at a time when the being called Jesu or Jesus was not very important and not very well-known. Jews in Israel during the time of the Mishnah and even the Talmud - including the first (Jewish) Christians - probably knew Jesus by his Hebrew name, right? It would only be in diasporic communities within the Roman empire, like Tarsus and Rome, where Gentiles would have come to know Jesus through Greek texts and later through Roman texts, right? My point is simply that the Talmud developed in a place where people did not regularly use the Latin name for Joshuah, so if the Rabbis wanted to talk about Joshuah they would likely have used his Aramaic name as they spoke Aramaic. And if a character named "Yeshu" entered the Talmud, is probably entered the language through a different process than Ben Yehuda's, 1300 years later and in Europe. I do not know what the process was, but the contexts are so different no historian would assume that it is through the same process.

Those rabbis were very concerned about sectarians (in Hebrew minim) - the Christians were sectarians, but so were the Saducees and the Essenes and the Karaites. It is certainly possible that stories about sectarians are more specifically about Christians, a couple of very notable Talmud scholars believe this. But it is not clear, this is an interpretation. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, rather than just the page number it would be how the reference looks and which spelling it lists first, for example: "Jesus, pn. ישו In ictu oculi (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, it is just "Jesu, L ישו" and the L is explained on one an unnumbered page of abbreviations at the front of the dictionary. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
That's what I expected, since Yeshua is only used by Israeli Christians so wouldn't be in a secular dictionary. I will restore the wording in the lede. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Then it is important to include that it is also the transliteration of the Latin Yesu. It would be misleading for this article to imply to readers that these dictionaries are claiming that the Gospel Jesus's Hebrew name is Jesus. They are transliterating a name in Latin and modern European languages into hebrew. I am restoring some of the earlier language. I do not mind if you change it as long as your change communicates this distinction clearly. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You've edited in "Yeshu' (ישו in Hebrew) is the spelling of the Latin Yesu and the name Jesus in modern European languages, provided by Hebrew Dictionaries and widely used in modern secular Hebrew." but evidently Ben Yehuda and Bantam-Megiddo don't give the "L", which you're saying above is an etymological abbreviation used by Reuben Alcalay. It might well be true - though in the case of Andalusia some Hebrew works mentioning Jesus were first written in Aragonese or Catalan so "L" might not always be true. Why is it important to have Alcalay's etymology from Latin in the first line of the article? I actually don't strongly object, but not sure about the reasoning or not having it in a more normal place. Re "It would be misleading for this article to imply to readers that these dictionaries are claiming that the Gospel Jesus's Hebrew name is Jesus." This isn't misleading since Ben Yehuda, Alcalay, Bantam-Megiddo's spelling is found in rabbinical texts from Andalusia, North Africa, and modern era Hebrew prior to Delintzsch and Salkinsohn. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Re "Although there is no direct evidence, all scholars believe that Jesus's Hebrew or Aramaic name was a word that is translated into English today as Joshuah." doesn't the article already mention this in an etymology section? .......not that I really understand why Wikipedia needs an article on the Hebrew spelling of a name anyway. This is DicDef stuff and the content here is mainly duplicate. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, given that WP is not a dictionary, I am not even sure why we lead with the dictionary information. Be that as it may, my only concern is that some people will think the dictionaries, which report usage (and Ben Yehuda is not precisely modern Hebrew - Modern Hebrew would be Megiddo or Alcalay, as they report contemporary Israeli usage - Ben Yehuda was a cultural revitalization project and not the normal dictionary, but citing it as we do people may think it is), are providing information about the Yeshu in the Talmud and Toledot Yeshu. They are not. The dictionaries are providing a Hebrew spelling for a non-Hebrew (and Latin is one key language) name, Jesus or Jesu. They are not evidence that the "Yeshu" in th Rabbinic texts is a reference to jesus. I think the article is consistent with the points I just made - but I am concerned that readers, especially if they just read the introduction, might misinterpret it.

The first sentence begins "Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew) is the spelling of Jesus given in Hebrew Dictionaries ..." which is uncontroversial. The second paragraph begins "The Hebrew spelling Yeshu ..." and I can easily imagine readers reading this and thinking that this line (the second paragraph) is the spelling for Jesus. This is a controversial claim. Some people believe it is a reference to Jesus, some do not. So the claim in the first paragraph is a very different kind of claim than that of the second paragraph. Yet, the similarity in wording may lead readers to misunderstand this. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"some do not."[who?] sorry but cannot see any modern evidence for any mainstream scholar who thinks that Yeshu is anything other than a reference to Christianity's Jesus in one form or another. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You are missing my point. My point is that the dictionaries are not commenting on the Rabbinic sources. The text as written is strictly speaking accurate and I have no problem with that (it says that the dictionaries are referring to contemporary Hebrew Usage) but the organization of the lead in my view does not adequately signal the break. I will try a more minor edit and see if you are willing to be more accommodating to my edits. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted that last edit, which was certainly not minor. Yes, evidently the dictionaries are not commenting on the Rabbinic sources. Why would they be? The title of the article is Yeshu so the lede describes the title. The title of the article is not Jesus in the Talmud which has a separate article. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Then let's open the article with the earliest usage, and progress to the most recent usage. The percentage of this article that deals with the way the name Yeshu is used in modern Israel is miniscule. To open the introduction with it is to give it undue weight. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Slrubenstein
1. That the modern content of this article is "miniscule" just demonstrates that this article is a mess of POVfork and Dicdef and ripe for AfD.
2. I would have said, let's have a bit of Wikipedia normality here and first have what the word in the article title is and then go detailing.
3. And in any case the entries in Ben Yehuda, Bantam-Meggido, and Alcalay do not say that the entry Yeshu is 20th Century, I presume Ben Yehuda's dictionary is referring to the whole history of the Hebrew language. Which makes it a perfectly sensible place to start. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
What is your evidence for treating Ben Yehuda as referring to the whole history of the Hebrew language? What about BDB, or Jastrow? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
How could this article be a POV fork? A POV fork of (or from) what, exactly? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi
It's a POVfork since it assumes that medieval denials that these texts reference Jesus of Nazareth in the Talmud is being taken as basis for setting up an independent article gathering texts conducive to that view. ...and missing interesting material from Andalusia, Hasdai Crescas etc etc etc. and later.
I read, too long ago to remember the source, that Ben Yehuda culled his dictionary from the whole history of the Hebrew language. Sorry but what about Marcus Jastrow? I was under the impression that his 1903 dictionary only mentioned Yeshu ben Sira? BDB evidently won't mention Jesus. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we really need to say what it is first (a name used in Jewish literature), explain where it is first found, and end with modern usage. The other way doesn't make as much sense to me. Most of the interesting discussion around the term is what or who "Yeshu" was in ancient texts. If it was just about the modern Hebrew word for Jesus, we wouldn't have an article at all, because it would just be a WP:DICDEF. Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
We can always ad more material and views. You have not explained how this is a fork. A fork from what? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Original research?

The lede currently has the following as the last paragraph:

Today, "Yeshu" (ישו in Hebrew) is the spelling of Jesus given in Hebrew Dictionaries and widely used in modern secular Hebrew.[1][2][3] However Hebrew translations of the New Testament usually employ the spelling Yeshua (ישוע in Hebrew).[4]

I suspect it's true, but I'm concerned that it's original research. Regarding the first sentence, the first part is a OR-ish ("the spelling of Jesus given in Hebrew Dictionaries") but the second ("widely used in modern secular Hebrew") is unsourced. Regarding the second, the citations are merely the names of two 19th century Hebrew translations of the Christian Testament. We have no page numbers, no references to 20th century translations, nor even any indication that any sources discuss what the "usual" spelling is. Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, as I understand the way articles on foreign language terms start it's neither WP:OR nor even unusual to cite the 3 main Hebrew dics, page no, for what is, as it stands, a Dicdef article. With any non-English term it is exactly what you would expect to see in the first line. Dictionaries are primary sources, which is a problem, but with dicdef articles they are unavoidable, not OR. As for modern Hebrew - what sort of sources would be prefered? Newspaper articles? Klausner's 1933 Hebrew translation of his 1922 book? The Hebrew edition of Lasker's 1996 edition of Polemic of Nestor the Priest which all use the spelling ישו .
The ref for Yeshua in those 2 NT texts would be page 1 in both cases. But could be better. The trouble is that texts around the name Yeshua tend to be MJ or other fringe-Christian texts. Anyway this isn't the main issue with this page. Why is this DICDEF page here at all, why is it not on Wiktionary instead? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi In ictu oculi, you recently made a statement explicitly linking the name "MJ" (presumably meaning Messianic-Jewish) with the description "fringe-Christian". Did you mean to say that Messianic Jews are fringe-Christians? Please clarify your statement. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ovadyah, Whether Messianic Jews are fringe-Christians or not isn't a suitable subject for this Talk page, but I stand by the observation that MJ texts on Yeshua are fringe-Christian texts. By fringe-Christian texts I'm not making a moral or theological judgment, merely that academic norms and standards of the type you'd see in SBL and secular scholarly texts generally aren't observed, and MJ and other "Jewish-Christian" groups' publications and websites are unlikely to provide suitable sources for Wikipedia. The Yeshua article has one source all over it Studier i navnet Jesus by the Danish missionary in Jerusalem Kai Kjær-Hansen 1982 which confirms Delitzsch and Ginzberg-Salkinsohn use Yeshua, though beyond confirming that fact doesn't appear to be a scholarly source either. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The lede currently has two options:

  • "Yeshu is a name found in Jewish literature." - which isn't correct, it is found in Hebrew Jewish literature, it is not found in Spanish, French, English - other than is discussing Hebrew texts
  • "Yeshu" (ישו in Hebrew) is the spelling of Jesus given in Hebrew Dictionaries - which is correct and sourced

In ictu oculi (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Pure Original Research, Dictionaries are not works of serious Talmud scholarship. And Jesus is a funny name - he started out Yehoshuah, but then the name was translated into Greek, then latin then it entered moderb European languages. Hebrew dictionarie are just taking a name which is no so far from its roots that it is not Hebrew and are providing a Hebrew transliteration for the name Jesus - Yeshu. You can look up pthe non-Hebrew names in a Hebrew-English dictionary, and find transliterations.
But this does not mean that these dictionaries provide any relevant information about Rabbinic texts. Ictu has an agenda the Talmud talks about Jesus. Funny, as most Jews do not see it tis way, but Christians have a long history of telling jews how to read their own books. Anyway, the Hebrew-English dictionary is not a reliable source on Rabbinic lit.
Slrubenstein
This comment would be relevant to Jesus in the Talmud if this article was about Jesus in the Talmud, but this article is not about Jesus in the Talmud, which has its own article. This is an article on a name "Yeshu," which is a Hebrew and Aramaic spelling of Jesus, and Ben Sira as well perhaps. Dictionaries are works of serious lexical scholarship.
> Ictu has an agenda the Talmud talks about Jesus <
(1) You are not supposed to make comments like this under Wikipedia etiquette. My "agenda" is very simple, that Wikipedia is not a place for religious believers, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever, to push the POV of their church/synagogue/mosque as content. You have been repeatedly asked to provide WP:sources for your edits and have repeatedly responded with "Orthodox Jews believe this" which is absolutely fine, as is "Orthodox Catholics/Protestants/Muslims believe this" but you need to provide WP:sources, preferably secondary or tertiary. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.
(2) All secular modern scholarship referenced in the article appears to agree that "the Talmud talks about Jesus," so you'll have to blame the sources for an "agenda."
(3) None of that changes that this article is entitled Yeshu,
The WP:OR here is any approach that takes a view that refuses sources (dictionaries are lexical sources) in favour of no sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
In the meantime, Yeshu is a name found in Jewish literature, especially the Talmud which by the way is not in Hebrew. TkaSlrubenstein | Talk 22:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I think "Yeshu is a name found in Jewish literature" is accurate - as Slrubenstein points out, it is found in both Hebrew and Aramaic literature, and the statement neither claims nor implies that it is found in all Jewish literature. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg, sorry, yes Hebrew and Aramaic. However the name is not found in English and this is English Wikipeda, except in discussing the name as found in Hebrew and Aramaic, which is why he.wikipedia simply has Yeshu as the article for Jesus.
I have made changes to your edit, why, because I believe that going straight into a medieval source which was disputed, and still is disputed outside mainstream scholarship, is overweight. I propose the lede should start:
Yeshu - the article title
( ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) - the Heb/Arm spelling
is a Hebrew and Aramaic name - which it is
found in Aramaic literature, - chronologically first
where the reference of the name was disputed historically, - note the "was" since the reference has not been disputed by mainstream scholarship for 100 years.
and in Hebrew literature, - for example Magen wa-hereb of Leon Modena, 1571-1648
Hebrew dictionaries, - refs given
and modern Hebrew media, - I hope anyone is not going to be silly enough to ask for refs, when 1 minute with Hebrew Google brings up 100s of materials.
where the reference is to Jesus. - referenced fact in each case
Then the lede ploughs off into the Talmud.... (where I've changed 1 line as well which was misrepresenting the source ref).
Do you Jayjg see a problem with any of these statements? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, but your changes made the introductory paragraph almost unreadable. We don't need a long OR listing of the various sources in which you can find the name Yeshu today, and this isn't an article about Yeshu the word, it's an article about Yeshu the individual(s). What is needed for this article are sources that talk about Yeshu, not sources that simply use it; use of the latter is simply, inevitably, and always OR. Jayjg (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and also, it's quite clear that not all modern scholars think that the references to Yeshu in the Talmud and Tosefta are references to Jesus; the lede alone gives two examples, John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, p. 98, and Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz (1998) The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive guide, pp. 74-76. These are scholarly views, not religious ones. Jayjg (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg,
Well they were unreadable, but that was a result of trying to write round the fantasy view that Jesus in medieval Aramaic/Hebrew texts is not related to the Jesus of medieval Latin/Greek texts.
As for Meier and Theissen, have you read their works?
  • John P. Meier recognises that the references to Jesus in the B.Tal texts are to Christendom, he's simply saying that the B.Tal references are late interpolations and have no connection to any real Jewish memory other than late Christian traditions. "As far as Jewish sources are concerned, while not accepting the full, radical approach of Maier, I think we can agree with him on one basic point: in the earliest rabbinic sources, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore... when we do finally find such references in later rabbinic literature, they are most probably reactions to Christian claims, oral or written" Wire writes "Recently John P. Meier concluded after a review of this material that no Talmudic texts are relevant for reconstructing the life of Jesus of Nazareth - which is absolutely correct. That doesn't mean that Meier thinks that late Talmudic fragments with the name Jesus refer to anything else than the non-historical/legendary Jesus of Christian tradition.
  • Theißen Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch Gerd Theissen, Annette Merz p82 (sorry I have no access to the English translation) simply delineates two possibilities on Sanhedrin (1) that of Maier "daß es keine einzige rabbinische Jesus-Stelle' au s tannaitischer Zeit (bis ca . 220 n.Chr.) gibt."35 Vielmehr sei der Name Jesu in dem jahrhundertelangen Entstehungsprozeß des Talmud erst sekundär in bestehende Zusammenhänge gefugt worden, und zwar als Reaktion auf christliche Provokationen, weshalb die Stellen keinen unabhängigen historischen Wert besäßen." and (2) that of Klausner "Im Gegensatz dazu glauben andere Autoren, zB J. Klausner,36 zumindest einige alte und historisch ..." who sees some whiff of a real historical Jesus rather than just what Maier calls Reaktion to Christian Provokationen. Theissen's approach to other texts is similar, he lists the option, sometimes draws a Fazit - usually in favour of J. Maier or P. Meier's side of the spectrum, that these are reactions to Christendom, not legacy of a historical Jesus.
Neither Meier nor Theissen contains the fantasy view of this article that the fragmentary and late Jesus material in the B.Tal refers to anyone else than the Jesus of Christian traditions. Whoever wrote the text above these two refs seems to have not grasped at all what the books are saying, if they even read them at all. Someone like Theissen could (in fact I believe Theissen has) go to Gospel of John and make exactly the same examination and conclude no trace of a historical Jesus in John, but that doesn't mean that G.John is talking about a different individual. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't read Meier as you do - it seems clear that by "earliest rabbinic sources" he means Talmud and Tosefta, and by "later rabbinic literature" he means things like Toledot Yeshu. And it's hard to re-interpret "there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth" as "these references are obviously to Jesus, but are of no historical value". Jayjg (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well it's difficult to tell from a single line, but bear in mind that Meier is a Catholic generalist following on from the work of Maier. What he writes has to be read in context of his standing on the Maier side of the Maier-Klausner spectrum. When he says "earliest rabbinic sources" he means Talmud and Tosefta pre-editing, and by "later rabbinic literature" he means things like Toledot Yeshu AND' what Maier/Meier consider interpolations into the earlier Jesus-less Talmud and Tosefta in reaction to Christian provocation. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC) New lede: Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) is an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature. ------ But it isn't is it? ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic is not "an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature," since every single academic source, including Theissen and Meier, is saying that ישו is a Hebrew/Aramaic spelling of Jesus, and a reference to the non-historical ישו of medieval Christian-Jewish interaction, the same ישו as found in Sephardi texts. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what the words "most probably" mean? These scholars are making clear that this is their opinion, their view - but an interpretation. Well, perfect for Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is all about different views. But you seem not to recognize the difference between an interpretation and a fact. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, no I have no idea what the words "most probably" mean, what do they mean?  :(
Moving on from that, when Meier says "when we do finally find such references in later rabbinic literature, they are most probably reactions to Christian claims, oral or written" he's adding himself to Maier, Theissen, Klausner, Herford, Neusner, etc etc etc who may disagree on the originality of the Jesus texts but all agree that they relate to Christianity as much as the Yeshu texts in Sephardi literature. Which makes it a more impressive and unanimous conclusion from scholarship that I've ever seen in regard to such a POV prone area. And against these we have...................... What? ............Where is one source which gives your different view? If you want to have a "different views" section at the end of the article where you put in your personal view that Maier, Theissen, Klausner, Herford, Neusner, etc etc etc are all wrong and the Yeshu passages have no Reaktion as Maier puts it to Christianity, then you'll need a source to include your different view in the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Another attempt at a lede sentence

I've changed to this:

Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) is the standard Hebrew and Aramaic spelling of Jesus. It occurs in the earliest instances in passages where the connection to the Christian tradition was - as a result of Christian persecution - historically controversial and disputed, but where the connection is now recognised by modern scholarship. [See academic references in article]

The lede view that any other "individual(s)" is(are) referenced in any other Hebrew or Aramaic text by Yeshu should not go back into the lede with a published reputable source to contradict what Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, etc (and there could be hundreds of names not a dozen) are saying. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No, his name was Yehoshua. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
According to the WP:sources in the article, Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, the name of the character is Yeshu and is a reaction to the Yeshu of Christian tradition. For the 14th time, do you have a source for your edits? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
"Yeshu" became a standard name for Jesus in modern spoken Hebrew in the early 20th century, as Kjaer-Hanson points out and as the article reflects, this was largely due to Klausner's use of the term based on his mistaken belief (he wasn't a linguist) that it was the correct original Hebrew for Jesus, when in fact the name Jesus (ultimately) derives from Hebrew Yehoshua (from which we also get English Joshua). Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Kuratowski's Ghost,
Am I to understand that your WP:sources for the edit to Ben Yehuda which I reverted was Kjaer-Hanson? Can you please give the page number, but as a Danish missionary in Jerusalem, he'd require more checking than a tenured academic. I trust Kjaer-Hanson doesn't say Ben Yehuda was wrong to give the spelling as Yeshu, when Ben Yehuda was simply following dozens if not hundreds of Sephardi and, later, texts. I seriously doubt that Klausner had any interest in "the original Hebrew name for Jesus", but I may be wrong. Do you have a WP:source? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting Ben Yehudah. he was a newspaper editor and Zionist, and a leader in a cultural resnovation program to create a modern Hebrew language. But he was not a historian engaged in historical research. Many of his wordas are inventions and many did not enter into modern Hebrew. Our own article: " His word for "tomato," for instance, was badura, but Hebrew speakers today use the word agvania" Ben Yehuda was not a Talmud scholar nor a historian of Rabbinic Judaism so his work is not reliable scholarship on that period and its texts. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein,
Same pattern of behaviour, a post "You are misrepresenting" etc. etc. then a stream of unsourced opinion. All I said above is that Ben Yehuda "was simply following dozens if not hundreds of Sephardi and, later, texts" in his use of Yeshu. Rather than giving us your POV about "tomato" you could have provided a relevant WP:source to show that Ben Yehuda was totally ignorant of Sephardi materials, and that the name Yeshu was not used in Hebrew to refer to Jesus (which of course is nonsense but seems to be the point of the discursus on tomato above). When will you provide a source for your POV? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Kuratowski's Ghost,
Does the Danish author say anything about numerical values Such as The JPS guide to Jewish traditions p467 ed Ronald L. Eisenberg, Jewish Publication Society - 2004 "The Sephardim, especially in Middle Eastern countries under Moslem rule, retained the full text, despite the tradition that the numerical value of “la- hevel va-rik” (vanity and emptiness) equals that of “Yeshu u-Muhammad” (Jesus and Muhammad)" In ictu oculi (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the folly when fundamentalists edit and think that this is all about one truth rather than views. The Danish author does not have to say anything about the JPS Guide. Obviously the authors of the JPS guide and Kjaer-Hanson have different views. What is wrong with that?
Fascinating how Blinky keeps changing the rules. First, she demands one modern source. Then, when one modern source is provided, suddenly it doesn't matter.
In the meantime, new lies. I point out that Ben Yehuda was a newspaper editor and you complain "All I said above is that Ben Yehuda "was simply following dozens if not hundreds of Sephardi and, later, texts." Liar. That is not all you said. "You also wrote, "Am I to understand that your WP:sources for the edit to Ben Yehuda which I reverted was Kjaer-Hanson? Can you please give the page number, but as a Danish missionary in Jerusalem, he'd require more checking than a tenured academic." implying Ben Yahuda was a tenured academic. So my point about ben Yehudah not being a newspaper editor is a good reply. But, once again, you just do not like actual facts when you can fabricate your own. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, I will ignore "Blinky" "fundamentalists" "one truth" "new lies" "Liar" "you just do not like actual facts when you can fabricate your own" and the other comments with which you populate your talk with 2 observations:
(1) "implying Ben Yahuda was a tenured academic" - well it's possible that someone who started off with an assumption of ignorance on the part of others might misread it that way, but that person would have to be supremely arrogant.
(2) As for the rest, this is now the 20th time I am asking you for any WP:source to support your view that Yeshu in any early Hebrew or Aramaic document is anything else than a reference to Christian traditions. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeshu‎; 22:16 . . (-805) . . Slrubenstein (talk | contribs) (removing Christian POV warring)

Throughout the last week, Slrubenstein, you have been repeatedly editing the lede to give the article an unWP:sourced opinion which you justify (again without sourcing) as the "view of many OJs." and have presented above four, maybe five, adhominems which are presumably intended to fan the flames of interreligious hostility. If you wish to represent this as Christian-Jewish POV warring then go ahead. But note that a significant number of the sources in the article appear to be by Jewish secular academics. Now, for the 15th time do you have any WP:source for the lede that "Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) is an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature". According to Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, etc. etc. etc. "Yeshu" is a reference to Christian traditions. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally Jesus links here with:
The Babylonian Talmud include stories of Yeshu יֵשׁוּ; the vast majority of contemporary historians disregard these as sources on the historical Jesus ref name="TM1998 Contemporary Talmud scholars view these as comments on the relationship between Judaism and Christians or other sectarians, rather than comments on the historical Jesus.< >Daniel Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999 Jeffrey Rubenstein Rabbinic Stories (The Classics of Western Spirituality) New York: The Paulist Press, 2002
Can we not have some WP:NPOV in this article too? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, who added the Jeffrey Rubenstein and the Daniel Boyarin sources to this article? In the meantime, don't misrepresent my edits. I have never done anything you accuse me of. You however insist on rewriting this article to claim that Yeshu = Jesus = truth. I have over the years added much sourced content, on various views. My edits this week have had only one purpose: to ensure that the different views represented in this article are presented as views, and not as truth. As a WP editor I do not favor any one view over others. What is important is that the articel represents multiple views. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,
please read WP:NPOV. What is important is not that the article represents multiple views. Views which have no reliable published source are to be excluded. Yes I insist on rewriting the lede sentence of the article to reflect the content of the article + WP:sources in the article which state that Yeshu = reference to Christian traditions about Jesus. Your last set of edits distorted again Meier and Maier to make them say something they aren't saying. You also deleted this blanked text:
--------replaced the text "is an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature." because this is misleading, all scholarly sources recognise that Yeshu in all instances is a reference to Christianity" anyone before reverting this, no matter how sincere their view, please find a reputable published modern academic source that says otherwise. ---
This is now the 16th time I am asking you to provide a WP:source for your view that Yeshu in any Hebrew text does not have reference to Christian traditions. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE READ NPOV: we provide views from sources. We do not masquerade views as facts. You have provided well-sourced interpretations of the Talmud, although apparently you have not read them, and you know little about the Talmud. The article makes it clear that there are major Jewish authorities who hold a different view. Now here is the funny difference between us: I have never disparaged the view you cherish as gospel truth. I say, there are different views and WP should represent all of the significant views. (As for sources, I am sure you know what the source for the commentaries of the Rishonim is). But you want only your view to be presented. Me: all major views. You: only one view. Like I told you, WP is not really a congenial place for fundamentalists like you. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,
again I will ignore your use of inflamatory language "fundamentalists like you," this only illustrates your own prejudices and lack of a secular academic perspective. You have been asked 16x to provide a single source that supports your personal conviction that some (which?) of the Yeshu texts in Hebrew and Aramaic literature and you have failed to provide a single source. On the contrary every academic mainstream source in the article recognises that Yeshu is a reference or reaction to Christian traditions. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg,
you're a more reasonable fellow - can you see anywhere where Slrubenstein has provided a modern published source to justify the lede that Yeshu refers to "an individual (or individuals) in Jewish literature"? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
This point is getting fragmented among many sections. I've responded to this elsewhere, let's try to consolidate. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

POVfork - Merge duplicate overweight content to Jesus in the Talmud

I think we're wasting time with editing this article while the more important issue of the DicDef POVfork problem hasn't been fixed. I've put duplication tags on the 2 large Jesus in the Talmud sections, arguably one belongs on most of the Toledoth Yeshu content as well. Once this duplicate POVfork content is moved out what is there left of this article that justifies the existence of an article on a foreign language spelling of a name? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards. This is the original article, Jesus in the Talmud is the WP:POVFORK. This article is about the individual(s) named Yeshu in Jewish literature. Jayjg (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg, I'm aware of that from the editing history, however if the subject of this article was Jesus in the Talmud then it should have been named Jesus in the Talmud to begin with, not Yeshu, which is a foreign spelling of a name at odds with Wikipedia policy that titles of articles should be in English where there common usage is in English. So to take the view that "This article is about the individual(s) named Yeshu in Jewish literature." is therefore only meaningful if there is any scholarly WP:source for the idea that (i) the Jesus of the B.Talm texts, (ii) Jesus of Bethlehem son of Mary in the Toledoth Yesu (iii) Jesus in Sephardi texts, (iv) the Israeli press, isn't a reference to the traditions of Christendom, which all scholarly WP:sources cited in the article say it is. If all the sources in the article say that the Talmud Yeshu texts are references to Christendom, then having an article about an individual called Yeshu is as meaningless as having an article about an individual called ઇસુ (Yeshu in Gujarati). It is the duplication of Jesus in the Talmud material on a page with a non-English name for the same Christian tradition which is the POVfork, no matter how the editing history started.

The more important issue is this - are the sources for the Jesus in the Talmud material on this page, or on the other Jesus in the Talmud page better sourced? If so then the duplicate material on the other page should be blanked and this moved across. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Jesus in the Talmud article is a POV fork, because its purpose is to take an interpretation - that Yeshu refers to Jesus - and present it as fact. This article is better because it makes it clear that there are texts that refer to Yeshu, and interpretations that Yeshu refers to Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, (1) the Jesus in the Talmud article is properly titled, (2) that Hebrew Yeshu is a reference to Christianity is a as near as a fact gets on Wikipedia, which is that all the scholarly secondary and tertiary modern WP:sources in the article support this view. Repeat: all the scholarly secondary and tertiary modern WP:sources in the article support this view. To date you have only supplied one source contradicting this, your own personal conviction "held by many OJs" (which you did not source) that you believe that the Jesus in the Talmud has no relation to the Jesus of Christian tradition. You have been asked now 7 times, this is the 7th, to provide a WP:source with ISBN that your view is held by any published scholar today. No matter how sincere your personal convictions are, personal convictions are not the basis for a Wikipedia article. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so you are just another kind of fundamentalist. I am not. Wikipedia provides accounts of significant views. You want to trumpet your truths and facts, fine, just do not do it at Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein
You have misread WP:NPOV below. Wikipedia WP:NPOV does not provide accounts of significant views. Please read what WP:NPOV says. Wikipedia provides accounts of significant views which have been published in reliable sources.
Currently you have edited the lede to reflect your personal conviction, which is at odds with all the sources in the article. This is now the 9th time you are being asked --- please find one modern scholarly published source with an ISBN to support your view that any reference to Jesus in any Hebrew text is not related to the figure of Jesus in Christianity. One modern text, one modern source. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
No, Mr. Fundamentalist, you misread what I wrote. Where have I ever written that we should include views that are not in sources? You are misrepresenting what I wrote - if English is not your native language, it is okay to give others the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification. To clarify: I am saying that you should not represent a view as if it were the truth. per our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein,
I'll assume that "Mr. Fundamentalist" is an attempt to generate heat and avoid the sourcing issue. This is the 10th time I am asking. --- please find one modern scholarly published source with an ISBN to support your view in the lede sentence that any reference to Jesus in any Hebrew text is not related to the figure of Jesus in Christianity. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, as the article correctly points out the early and latter Jewish commentators (the "Rishonim" and "Acharonim") rejected the identification of Yeshu with the Jesus of Christianity. You do not seem to be aware that Orthodox Judaism upholds these commentators - their view is thus the view of Orthodox Judaism. You also do not seem to be particulalry conscious of the content of the primary references to Yeshu none of which contain any explicit equation of Yeshu with the Jesus of Christinianity, quite the contrary they refer to different Yeshus at different times in history - one is king Manasseh of Judah, one is an Hasmonean era student, one is someone executed while the region was still a kingdom, one a 2nd century teacher of heresy, one a soul of an enemy of Israel to come after Titus. Thus the primary sources themselves show Yeshu to be individuals other than Jesus. The commentaries by the Rishonim and Acharonim mentioned are secondary sources on Yeshu explicitly rejecting an equation with Jesus. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, the Talmud never mentions Jesus, nor does any ancient or medieval Jewish literature. Jesus, as it turns out, is an English name, and the Jews of the first to 12th centuries didn't write in English. Now, some ancient and medieval Jewish sources do mention an individual or individuals named ישו ("Yeshu" in English), and many people posit some sort of relationship between ישו and Jesus. There is no agreement on the exact nature of that relationship, and views range from "they are unrelated" on one end of the spectrum, to "they are the one and the same" on the other. So, this article is about that individual or individuals named ישו. Of course, it can and should discuss the various views regarding exactly who ישו is. But it certainly cannot presuppose that ישו is, in fact, Jesus - that is a rather obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, I could respond that the Talmud never mentions Eve either, nor does any ancient or medieval Jewish literature. Eve, as we know, is an English name, and the Jews of the first to 12th centuries didn't write in English. And so on Abraham, David, Hillel, any name in the Talmud. I could also mention that it is not relevant that "many people" posit or don't posit some sort of relationship between ישו and Jesus, what is relevant is that all the WP:sources in the article account that ישו is a reference to Christian traditions about Jesus.
You say "There is no agreement on the exact nature of that relationship, and views range from "they are unrelated" on one end of the spectrum, to "they are the one and the same" on the other." ----- but this is not correct, can I ask where did you gain this impression? Not from the article modern scholarly sources, since WP:sources range from "no reference to the historical Jesus, reaction to Christian provocation OWTTE" on one end (Maier) of the spectrum, to "may contain some genuine trace of a historical individual OWTTE" (Klausner). Beyond this Maier-Klausner spectrum the idea that the Yeshu references are to a Hasmonean individual (one WP:fringe) or are fully formed proofs of the existence of Jesus (the other Christian WP:fringe) which do not belong without sourcing. So why is followng the sources in the article a violation of WP:NPOV, when no source for any alternative view is given in the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Kai Kjaer-Hansen, An Introduction to The Use Of The Names: Joshua, Jeshua, Jesus, Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism, 1992, argues that Yeshu is not the Hebrew or Aramaic for Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, you continue to argue against a non-existent position. No one says not to incklude these sources that Yeshu refers to Jesus. But these sources present views and the proposition that Yeshu -= Jesus must be presented as a view. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: The difference would be that people do not dispute the identities of those other individuals mentioned in the Talmud. The Maier/Meier end of the spectrum is "in the earliest rabbinic sources, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth." These are influential modern scholars. Yes, I read your statement that Meier says something else, but I think his words are clear, and I don't agree with your interpretation of them, which in my opinion is a stretch. Jayjg (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg, the quotation boxes below should have fixed this now. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Ben Yehuda Hebrew Dictionary 1989 978-0671688622 p514.
  2. ^ also Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew Dictionary 2009 p.177.
  3. ^ Reuben Alcalay 1963 The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary. Masada Publishing Co. Ramat Gan, Jerusalem. p. 968; The Complete English-Hebrew Dictionary p. 1995
  4. ^ Franz Delitzsch BFBS version 1887; Isaac Salkinsohn TBS version 1891.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yeshu/Archive_2&oldid=1037690122"