Talk:Jesus/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

The names of Jesus

Hebrew and Greek roots of the name Jesus

If not, what do people think of the addition to the paragraph of the Hebrew and Greek. I don't believe I've seen that in other encyclopedias, but I'm not especially against it. I'd have to check it, though. --CTSWyneken 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the only dogfight was over the dates. Assuming they're accurate, I like the Hebrew and Greek. Any Aramaic? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

ARAMAIC: Eashoa' Jim62sch 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

At the very worst, the addition of the Hebrew and Greek is a bit on the crufty side. I like it ... but then I'm a bit of a foreign languages geek. (blush) Justin Eiler 00:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, since we have Arabic after "Isa," it's only fair. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's adding in accurate information on what the terms there are derived from, I don't see the problem. But are people trying to change the dates? Because that might be a problem :/. Homestarmy 00:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I'll take a close look at the Greek. SLRubenstein, JayG, would you check the Hebrew? I'm OK with Hebrew, but I'm only comfortable with Biblical text.

On the dates, I agree,too. We're still trying to document it. This should be done as a team. --CTSWyneken 00:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I also like the Hebrew and Greek. Rick Norwood 14:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I took out the Greek and Hebrew for the words Christ and Messiah in the first paragraph because the origins of those words are details covered in their respective articles that seem repetitive and a little too much detail for this article. As far as Greek and Hebrew for the names of Jesus...certainly Greek is appropriate as he was primarily known by his Greek name. As for Hebrew though, as Jayjg said on his edit summary, any Hebrew name he had is unknown to us and there is only speculation. It's likely he didn't even speak or read Hebrew, but rather only Greek and Aramaic. Whenever he quoted from Torah, it was from the Greek Septuagint. While Hebrew Wikipedia calls him Yeshu (yud-shin-vav), there's no indication this was any name he went by during his lifetime. Nor does Yeshua seem to be anything but a modern invention. Jesus has a name in Chinese as well, but since he didn't go by any Chinese name during his lifetime, I don't think we should add his name in that language either. I think any Hebrew derivation of his name is too uncertain and debatable to put into the intro. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

MPerel has it exactly right. This is an issue, like many, that was settled long ago, but all the principals have moved on, and none of the new participants are aware of the reasoning behind it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be at least short reference to the name etymology. Unfortunately I don't have the appropriate book right now, hope to make clear this in July. Brandmeister 17:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Hebrew name of the historical person is known. His name is Yehoshua, but in the dialect of Late Biblical Hebrew it was pronounced more like Yeshua. I've provided more info about the name Yehoshua/Yeshua below. By the way, the Hebrew names of his family members are also known: father (Yosef יוֹסֵף), mother (Miryam מִרְיָם, though it was pronounced more like Mĕrya, with the final -m sounding like a French nasalized vowel), and brothers (Yaakov יַעֲקֹב, Yosi יוֹסִי, Shimon שִׁמְעוֹן, Yehudah יְהוּדָה). Jesus's whole family has standard Hebrew names. --Haldrik 16:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep repeating this? His Hebrew or Aramaic name is not "known"; rather, it has been reconstructed based on his Greek name. And not everyone agrees that he was even a historical person. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Hebrew name, Yehoshua/Yeshua, was an extremely common name. Archeologists surmise that about 10% of the male Jewish population of Israel went by it. At that time, the Hebrew name Mosheh was considered too holy to name children after (similar to the English name "Jesus" in America), but the names of people who were associated with Mosheh were very common. About 25% of the female Jewish population were named Miryam, after Mosheh's sister. Jesus's real name, Yehoshua/Yeshua is typical. --Haldrik 18:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you've made this (unsourced) claim elsewhere. I'm not sure why you're repeating yourself, or why you think that would be relevant; just because it may have been a common name, it doesn't mean it was Jesus' name. I'm also not sure why you think constant assertions (e.g. "Jesus's real name Yehoshua/Yeshua") strengthen your argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew name of Yehoshua or Yeshua

The information below comes from: David Talshir, "Rabbinic Hebrew as Reflected in Personal Names" in Scripta Hierosolymitana: Publications of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew, vol. 37, edit. Moshe Bar-Asher (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press 1998).

Jesus's name is Hebrew, there is no equivalent Aramaic cognate name. The name is in fact the Classical Biblical Hebrew name Yĕhôshua יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, and Jesus is named after Yĕhôshua Ben Nûn (Joshua). Sometimes this classical name is spelled in the Tanakh with two vavs, יְהוֹשׁוּעַ (Deuteronomy 3.21, Judges 2.7).

However in the Second Temple Period, the name Yĕhôshua יְהוֹשֻׁעַ came to be spelled as Yēshûa יֵשׁוּעַ because of the dialectical shift in Hebrew pronunciation. [It's similar to modern Moshe sometimes sounding like "Moishe". Try pronouncing "Yoishua" with the stress strongly on the "u". You can see how easily it becomes Yeishua.] The Tanakh also uses this new spelling for Yĕhôshua Ben Nûn, now Yēshûa Ben Nûn יֵשׁוּעַ בֶּן נוּן (Nehemiah 8.17). In the Dead Sea Scrolls, Yēshûa Ben Nûn is a typical spelling.

Elsewhere in the Tanakh, other people undergo the same spelling shift, such as Yehoshua Ben Yehozedek יהושע בן יהוצדק according to Classical Biblical Hebrew in Haggai and Zechariah who becomes Yeshua Ben Yozedek ישוע בן יוצדק according to Late Biblical Hebrew in Ezra and Nehemiah.

In sum, numerous Hebrew spellings can and do exist for Yĕhôshua. However, the prevailing spelling preferences are as follows.

Classical Biblical Hebrew: Yĕhôshua יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, Yĕhôshûa יְהוֹשׁוּעַ

Second Temple Judean [Jerusalem] Hebrew: Yēshûa יֵשׁוּעַ

Second Temple Galilean Hebrew: Yèshûa יֵושׁוּעַ, Yhèshûa יֵהושׁוּעַ

Mishnaic Hebrew (Classical or Galilean spelling): Yĕhôshua יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, Yĕhôshûa יְהוֹשׁוּעַ, Yôshûa יוֹשׁוּעַ

[The Greek name Iēsoũs ιησους can represent all of these Hebrew spellings, including Yehoshua Ben Nun (Acts 7.45).]

As a final note: it is likely Jesus spelled his own name in different ways at different times, including: Yèshûa יֵושׁוּעַ, Yhèshûa יֵהושׁוּעַ, Yēshûa יֵשׁוּעַ. [Similarly, the Dead Sea Scrolls often spell the same word in various ways even in the same scroll.] While there are many spellings during the Second Temple Period, Yēshûa יֵשׁוּעַ is the most standard, and the preferred spelling in the Tanakh. [The Rambam uses this spelling as well for Jesus, probably because it is the standard spelling in the Tanakh.] --Haldrik 12:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

An important point. The form Yēshûa יֵשׁוּעַ does NOT represent a shortened form for Yĕhôshua יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, as is often supposed. It is simply a phonetic spelling for how Jews actually pronounced the name Yĕhôshua in Late Biblical Hebrew during the Second Temple Period.

Semantics, one is describing the same thing whether one calls it a shortened form or a phonetic spelling. Kuratowski's Ghost 08:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, the spellings ישוע and יהושע are interchangeable. It is correct to refer to Jesus as Yeshua or Yehoshua (Jesus or Joshua). (Just like it is correct to refer to someone as Moshe or Moishe. It's just a difference in dialect.) --Haldrik 13:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is what pronunciation was used at the time of Jesus. The second temple period is a long time. The form Yeshua appears early in the second temple period, the form Yehoshua reemerges already 1st century BCE suggesting a return to the more careful pronunciation. Similarly a modern person named Yaacov does not consider his name to be interchangeable with the period and dialect specific name Yancov. Kuratowski's Ghost 08:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that's what Talshir believes. Others differ. Speculation, however scholarly, is still speculation. Regardless, since there are no extant documents giving his Hebrew/Aramaic name, we'll stick with what we actually know, his Greek name. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, there are many occurrences in the Second Temple Period of the Hebrew name Yehoshua/Yeshua יהושע/ישוע and its interchangeability and the Greek name Iesous, which the Greeks use to represent this Hebrew name. It is a well known fact. Many, many Jews had this name at that time, and there is nothing mysterious about it! --Haldrik 18:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jay. While it may be true that ישוע and its variants were common names (and in fact, this is backed up by the Tanakh) to posit unequivocally that this was Jesus's Hebrew name is at best a speculation. One problem that I can think of off the top of my head is that you can't get rid of that /ע/ so easily. We don't pronounce it so distinctly today, but in that era it was a consonant as much as any other. If you think that Talshir's view is notable, you can include it somewhere within the article, but not at the beginning, as you suggest. --DLand 18:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Several high priests are called "Yehoshua" in Hebrew, who Josephus calls "Iesous" in Greek. It is an extremely common name. LOL! The only people who are speculating are Jayjg and DLand who think Greek Iesous might not refer to Hebrew Yehoshua/Yeshua. Galilean spelling preserved the letter Ayin ע, and it can be seen on tombs in Galilee from that time. The point that may be missed is, it is common to spell the same words and names in a variety of ways. While there were literary traditions (especially in the context of the Tanakh), ad hoc phonetic spelling is also the norm, as the Dead Sea Scroll makes clear. Various spellings for the name of the same person are so normal, even the Tanakh uses these alternate spellings at times. In any case, regardless of the many ways to spell it, the name is Yehoshua and pronounced Yeshua in Late Biblical Hebrew. Again, there is nothing mysterious about this name. It is extremely common! Like the English name John. Extremely common. --Haldrik 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik, you seem to be missing the point. The name may have been popular with different spellings but that does not mean that it was the name of Jesus. Therefore I must agree with Jayjg, DLand and the others as this has been discussed and agreed upon in the past. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus's born name is Yehoshua, pronounced Yeshua. It is a fact that the Greek name Iesous refers to the Hebrew name Yehoshua/Yeshua. Not to mention, the Aramaic/Syriac Gospels refer to Jesus directly as Yeshua ישוע, directly from the Hebrew. It is simply the man's name. --Haldrik 19:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Aaaw, cute, we have another person that wants to claim to have been at Jesus' birth. ems 00:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not enage in Personal Attacks. You do not help the article by doing so. --CTSWyneken 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik, Please read Wikipedia's No Original Research rule. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

PinchasC, you yourself will have to remove your own Original Research. You'll have to withdraw your claim that Greek Iesous doesn't refer to the Hebrew Yeshua/Yehoshua. --Haldrik 19:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus' Hebrew name is not original research -- the Septuagint (~250-70 B.C.E) regularly translates (or, possibly transliterates) "Yehoshua" as "Jesus/Joshua" (e.g., Josh. 1:1). So there is clearly a historical precedent for taking Jesus' name to be "Yehoshua." And this precedent is in evidence in the Christian Scriptures as well (e.g., Hebrews 4:8). There is no reason to assume a break from the established norm, without documentation to back it up. It is the view that Jesus' Hebrew name was something other than the Hebrew name normally translated as "Jesus/Joshua," which requires support! --MonkeeSage 20:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, his born name was likely as Haldrik noted -- and yet, we Westerners got the name via the Greek (and the Latin version). So, rather than fog everything up, the way it is now is fine. Jim62sch 19:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, there's like 3 different sections now pounding the same issue. As far as I can tell, Haldrik has done his homework, and done it well. This doesn't look like original reaserch at all, if it's in the Bible (Hebrews 4:8) it's fact enough for me, but he's gone the extra mile and cited dictionaries and all sorts of people, if someone thinks there's real evidence against this assertion of how Jesus's Hebrew name was spelled, I think we need to see a bit of background information. Homestarmy 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether Jesus existed or not. If he didn't exist, then the Gospels are describing a fictional character whose Hebrew name is Yeshua. And if he does exist, the Gospels are describing a historical person whose Hebrew name is Yeshua. Either way, his Hebrew name is Yeshua. --Haldrik 05:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This encyclopedic article is about a historical person who lived in a time, a place and a historical context. To not give a sense of that historical context would be to not describe that person at all. An encyclopedic article must include this kind of information. (All scholarly encyclopedic articles do mention Jesus's Hebrew name, often with their opening sentence!). The large majority of scholars agree the Gospels refer to a figure called Yeshua, and that is what this article must include. To not mention the Hebrew name would be extreme POV, a rejection of the consensus of the relevant scholars, and a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. --Haldrik 05:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There's tons of stuff here that is really interesting and should be somewhere on wikipedia as it is referenced. Can I say that I'm not keen on the greek/hebrew names coming first in the article as it "stalls" the reading process. To language illiterates like me it just looks like strange squiggles and whilst very interesting is actually distracting. How about a sentence a little further down mentioning the different names and a link to a separate article going into the details of the various names and the research supporting the less well known ones. Either that or a section in the Historical Jesus (if it's not already there). Just an idea - feel free to ignore it!Sophia^TalkTCF 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 to be updated on 3/9/2006

---

Jesus (Hebrew יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Yĕhôshua, יֵשׁוּעַ Yēshûa, Greek Ιησούς Iēsoũs) (8-2 BC/BCE – 29-36 AD/CE) also known as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ, where Christ is a title meaning "Anointed (King)" and corresponding to Hebraic "Messiah". The main sources regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, which are generally agreed to have been written decades after his death.

--Haldrik 13:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Seems fine to me. Homestarmy 14:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

One picky. "annointed" is also used in the Tanak for prophets and priests. Also, from what Jayg said above, it appears that including the Hebrew and Greek here was discussed and rejected at some point in the past. It doesn't matter either way to me, except that the words be spelled correctly. --CTSWyneken 14:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, the "High Priest" is also known as the "Anointed Priest". Nevertheless, the Messiah refers to "the King Messiah" or Melekh Ha-Mashiah in Hebrew. It's important to include the Hebrew name Yeshua because this is the historical person's actual name. His real name must be at least noted. --Haldrik 16:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said above speculation, however scholarly, is still speculation. We actually don't know what his name was, and never will, not until we find some contemporaneous documents with his name listed on it. The only stuff we have is Greek. And, as for him being a "historical person", as the introduction itself points out, not even all historians agree on that. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, there are many occurrences in the Second Temple Period of the Hebrew name Yehoshua/Yeshua יהושע/ישוע and its interchangeability and the Greek name Iesous, which the Greeks use to represent this Hebrew name. It is a well known fact. Many, many Jews had this name at that time, and there is nothing mysterious about it! --Haldrik 18:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph looks good besides for the Hebrew translation as per discussion above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The man's Hebrew name is Yeshua, as per the discussion above. --Haldrik 19:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if the name yeshua was inscribed on walls and stuff in some temple then what's the problem? Besides, we still haven't found an actual historian yet who doubts the historical existance of Jesus if I remember correctly. Homestarmy 19:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Just when I thought it couldn't get more out of control. Christos does not mean Annointed King....it just means annointed. No implied King. If you're going to put the Hebrew in, might as well included the Latin Iesus (no "o") because that's where the languages from the Western half of the old Roman Empire get the word. @@ Jim62sch 19:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A large majority of critical Biblical scholars and Israeli archeoligists agree that Jesus's own name is Yeshua, which is a Late Biblical Hebrew form of Yehoshua.

• Anchor Bible Dictionary: "JESUS (PERSON) [Gk Iesous] Several person mentioned in the Bible bear this name, which is a Greek form of Joshua (Heb Yehoshua; cf. the Gk of Luke 3:29; Acts 7:45; Heb 4:8)." Note the very first words for the article on JESUS CHRIST: "'Jesus Christ' is a composite name made up of the personal name "Jesus" (from Gk Iesous, which transliterates Heb Yeshua, a late form of Hebrew Yehoshua) etc."

The consensus among scholars is Jesus's Hebrew name is Yeshua, which is a late form of Yehoshua. It is a fact. --Haldrik 19:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is not an article about Christianity, it is about a person. That person's name - the one that he called himself by - is Yeshua. It is necessary to note the person's Hebrew name in an encyclopedic article. --Haldrik 19:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a majority of Biblical scholars think his name was Yeshua. A minority do not. Regardless, this is just speculation, and far too detailed for an introduction. While we might speculate about what his name was in Hebrew or Aramaic, we know what his name was in Greek, because we have early Greek works referring to him. Insistence that we insert speculation about his alleged Hebrew/Aramaic name sounds much more like a "POV-pushing" than a "historical accuracy" issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, your own speculation and hearsay has no credibility. Please back up your point by citing scholars who are experts on this topic. --Haldrik 20:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik, please do not characterize Jayg's argument simply because you cannot convince him. You are both correct. Most, if not all, scholars assume Jesus' name to be from y'hoshua. Most base this on both the LXX translation of Joshua's name and the naming formula: "You shall call his name Jesus, because he will save..." On the other hand, we have no Hebrew text that bears his name unambigously. So, can't we get on with it? I see the matter as neither here nor there, since we have a subarticle on the subject. It would be much simpler to leave out the Greek and the Hebrew both. IMHO. --CTSWyneken 01:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Most, if not all, scholars assume Jesus' name to be from y'hoshua." Yes. And we do have texts that bears the name unambiguously. The Aramaic/Syriac Gospels (which use an alphabet that corresponds with the Hebrew alphabet) spell the name as Yeshua ישוע, directly from the Hebrew. In any case, there is NO reason to reject a fact that almost all scholars confirm. Those who want to reject a consensus of scholars simply have no logical argument to do so. --Haldrik 05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Peshitta may use the name "Yeshua", but the ones we have today are mid-second century and later translations from Greek originals. I can't imagine why you would consider them relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A large majority of scholars agree that Jesus's own Hebrew name is Yeshua. Also, the American Heritage Dictionary says:

• "Jesus ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Late Latin Iēsus, from Greek Iēsous, from Hebrew Yēšûă, from Yəhôšûa."

It is simply a wellknown fact. I've cited an Israeli archeologist to give an example of the details involved. I've cited an encyclopedia that represents the concensus of critical Biblical scholars. I've cited an English dictionary for the least arcane information possible. ALL of them agree, Jesus's name is Hebrew Yeshua. It is not speculation. It is a fact. I could cite possibly hundreds of scholars who are experts on the issue who confirm the truth of this fact. It is simply the consensus of scholars. And must be included in any encyclopedic entry. --Haldrik 20:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate to repeat, but as a linguist, allow me to assure you that Haldrik's etymology is correct. Jim62sch 23:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And im not a linguist at all but it looks like Haldrik did his homework and put his citations clearly to back everything he's saying up, if he's got the stuff to prove what most people say it means in Hebrew, I see no reason why to deprive this article of this information. Homestarmy 23:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik, your argument is passionate, but your facts are wrong. As Jayjg pointed out repeatedly on this page, there is no substantiating record of Jesus' existence, much less his name. The Talmudic reference to someone named "Yeshu" who was sentenced to die by hanging by the Sanhedrin may or may not refer to Jesus, and besides, that Yeshu was executed a good 100 years before Jesus' crucifixion[2]. So your effort to make Jesus into the important Hebrew historical figure that the Gospels say he was really demands that you provide reliable sources. We simply don't have any.

If, however, we were to proceed from the NPOV way of writing, we would introduce Jesus and his well-known Greek etymology up-front, and then put in a passage later about how critical scholars believe that he also had a Hebrew name. It is completely misleading to give him a Hebrew name in the first line as if he got it at his bris.

About this Hebrew name, it seems to me a far stretch to assume that the Greek name came from Hebrew, and the Hebrew name was "Yeshua." There's no bris certificate, and no death certificate either. If "Yeshua" is the decision of the Bible scholars, so be it, but make it clear in the article that it is their opinion, not that of Orthodox Judaism. I have never heard any Rabbi or Orthodox history teacher say that Jesus' name was "Yehoshua", or that "Yeshua" is a handy abbreviation of the former. If you want to compare this name to that of Joshua, the Midrash says that יהושע-Joshua's original name was הושע ("Hoshea"), and he received the extra "yud" that left Sarah's name when God changed her name from שרי ("Sarai") to שרה ("Sarah"). Again, assuming that יהושע ("Yehoshua") is from ישוע ("Yeshua") is pure speculation. Cite it as such.

Orthodox scholars, who prefer not to refer to the Christian figurehead by name, do call Jesus "Yeshu" (in fact, a teacher once showed me a passage in Deuteronomy which talks about the fate of a false prophet, which ends with the words, אנכי דורש ממנו - "I will demand it [his life] of him." The final letters of each word spell out ישו ["Yeshu"]), or call him by the satiric diminuitive, "Yashka," but "Yehoshua"? This is very far off the mark. Yoninah 23:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yoninah, by saying, "About this Hebrew name, it seems to me a far stretch to assume that the Greek name came from Hebrew, and the Hebrew name was 'Yeshua'," the argument seems to be, "I don't believe in the scholars." It doesn't matter if we believe in the scholars or not. That's what (virually all!) scholars say, and that's what Wiki policy wants us to include in any Wikipedia article. The consensus of scholarship. --Haldrik 05:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. However, there's two sides to this scholarship, the "Bible critics" and the much longer-standing Orthodox rabbinical position. Just because you don't know enough about Talmudic exegesis to come up with a source doesn't mean that that source doesn't exist. I was just proposing that the consensus of Bible scholars be stated for what it is, the opinion of scholars who have a very definite (and often anti-Orthodox) point of view. To put it up front (that Jesus' Hebrew name was "Yehoshua") gives legitimacy to a consensus opinion that may or may not be accurate. Yoninah 10:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

See comment in vote section. --Haldrik 14:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Hebrew people made birth certificates? Homestarmy 00:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. That's my point. You have no proof of his name, just speculation. Yoninah 00:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't look at me, I was just agreeing with Haldrik, for someone with no proof, he's sure done a whole lot more citations than i've seen from the other side of the debate so far. Homestarmy 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I said above that the Septuagint (~250-70 B.C.E) regularly translates "Yehoshua/Yeshua" as a form of Iēsous (e.g., Josh. 1:1 -- Iēsoi). So there is clearly a historical precedent for taking Jesus' Hebrew name to be "Yehoshua." The onus probandi is on the one who ignores this precedent to show, either: 1.) that the Septuagint is not making a link between the two names, or, 2.) that the Christian era respresents a break from the precedent. If the LXX is making the link (viz., -- if the MT has the Hebrew for "Yehoshua/Yeshua" and the LXX has a form of Iēsous in its translation of the same text), and the Christian scriptures promulgate the precedent (viz., -- referring to people from the Jewish scriptures using a form of Iēsous), then there is absolutely no reason to assume that Jesus broke the mold and was possibly named, say, "Baruch" or "Nathaniel" in Hebrew (there are prefectly good Greek translations of those names in the LXX, BTW). So far as we know that Joshua was called Iēsous in Greek, we know that Jesus was called "Yehoshua/Yeshua" in Hebrew -- our knowledge of one is co-extensive and co-ordinate with the other -- you can't know one without knowing the other, and if you don't know one you don't know the other. We know Joshua was called Iēsous in Greek, ergo... The necessary logical inference is just as sure as a Hebrew birth certificate, if the premises are sound; namely, that Iēsous is the Greek translation of the Hebrew "Yehoshua/Yeshua", and that the Christian era continues this linguitic convention. --MonkeeSage 01:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Folks, we are repeating ourselves.

Again, it really doesn't matter what we think or what arguments we buy. If you look above, you will see that both arguments are right. Scholars do make the connection between Jesus and Y'hoshuah and we do not have an ancient Hebrew or Aramaic source with the name apart from the mention in the Sanhedrin quotation dismissed by our editor above. (I'd love to see citations on the dating of that saying, BTW, because, to my understanding, nothing in the Mishnah comes dated) Just as the lack of such a source doesn't matter historically for a text to be judged by historians to be basically reliable, so the lack of a clear, direct mention of Jesus in Aramaic or Hebrew does not mean we are uncertain as to what he would be called in his hometown.

What we have to ask is whether we want to explain all this in the intro. My answer is no. Save it for the article on the Names and Titles of Jesus in the New Testament. I would rather leave both the Greek and Hebrew out, because I find it distracting. --CTSWyneken 02:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with CTSWyneken. Since there is not enough to unequivically state which Hebrew variation Jesus went by (Yehoshua, Yeshua, Yeshu, Hoshea), or whether he even actually went by any Hebrew name at all (most Jews didn't even speak or know Hebrew during that time period, its use being diminished due to the Babylonian exile), it shouldn't be in the intro. It still all boils down to speculation based on likely etymologies and would require too much explanation in the intro. And there's already a whole article on the topic of Jesus names. It definitely doesn't belong in the intro. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Greek name Iesous refers to Hebrew Yehoshua/Yeshua. It does not refer to Hoshea. --Haldrik 03:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry CTSWyneken. I don't really care if the Greek (or Hebrew) is included in this article or not. It just irks me when people make irrational demands for evidence that could never be produced (even if there were a Hebrew birth certificate for Jesus [with both Greek and Hebrew? -- Like the LXX + MT?!], they could always say it was a different Jesus!). Then, to add insult to injury, there is a clear historical precedent for a position and people call it mere speculation! If we don't know what Jesus' Hebrew name would have been (regardless of whether he was a real person or not), then we don't know what Joshua's Greek name was either! Sorry...rambling and repeating again...

Ps. The standard convention is to give the lexical form of foreign words/names...no need to worry about which variant/form was in common use at a given time, in a given place, or in a given instance of text. The Hebrew lexical form is יהושׁע / יהושׁוּע, the Greek lexical form is Ἰησοῦς --MonkeeSage 02:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate how frustrating it can be to have an issue that appears to be minor to you made major. I often can't resist weighing in. I alomst always regret it later. It is almost always better to refer to scholarship and acknowledge minority views and not argue them out (at least more than once).

So, does anyone mind simply dropping the Greek and Hebrew here and wikilinking to the names and titles article in some fashion> --CTSWyneken 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. I actually don't mind the Greek since we have clear evidence he was actually called by that name; however, its presence in the intro will inevitably invite some to attempt to add various Hebrew versions to the intro as well, so it's probably best to remove it. The Hebrew etymology of the name, btw, is already handled satisfactorily in the Historical recontructions of Jesus's life section, which also links to the main article on Jesus' names. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Playing DA here, what "clear evidence" -- clearer than the LXX-MT link -- do we have that Jesus was called by a Greek name? What if the NT authors only spoke Greek, but Jesus only spoke Hebrew or Aramaic? After all, the earliest fragment / ms we have is from Paul, ~70-150 C.E. (P⁴⁶), 40-120 years after Jesus (going by conservative estimates). What if Jesus spoke Arabic? What if, what if, what if! If we're going to make the assumption that Jesus spoke Greek, then we should at least allow the assumption that he new his Hebrew name (even if he didn't speak Hebrew fluently). What's sauce for the goose... Anyhow, I think you're right about the issue being covered well enough in the Historical recontructions of Jesus's life section. People can do their own research from there. --MonkeeSage 04:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. Let me clarify, there exists *some* evidence of Jesus being called by his Greek name, but there is no evidence anyone ever called him by any Hebrew (or even Aramaic) name, and the latter extrapolations are only based on various etymologies of his supposed Greek name anyway. In the best case, Matthew, John, Peter, James, Jude, if indeed they are the authors of their respective New Testament books, are the only New Testament writers who actually would have been around Jesus to call him anything, and they refer to Jesus only by his Greek name, though they quote certain things Jesus said in Aramaic. Nowhere is Hebrew mentioned, however, which makes perfect sense since Hebrew was not widely spoken at that time. While there is a Hebrew etymology to the Greek name Iesous, there is no indication Jesus himself was referred to by anyone in Hebrew or that he ever went by a Hebrew name, or that he even knew Hebrew. I wouldn't go to the Prince William article and stick the Welsh version of William, "Gwilym" as Prince Williams' name just because he's the Prince of Wales; sure, it's the Welsh version of the name, but no one calls Prince William "Gwilym". There being no evidence anyone ever called Jesus by any definitive Hebrew name is why it should be left out of the intro, though it's reasonable to discuss in a separate section the etymology in general of the Greek name for Jesus, as has already been done. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying, but even so, there is some evidence of Jesus' Hebrew name being used: Acts 21:40–22:8 - taken at face value, this passage seems to indicate that Paul is addressing a Jewish mob, in the Hebrew language, and making reference to Jesus. Though the speech is recorded in Greek, if we take the text at face value, Jesus had to have some sort of Hebrew designation by which Paul could refer to him. The most obvious choice would seem to be the Hebrew name the LXX translates as Iēsous. --MonkeeSage 06:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad argument there. Still it boils down to only speculation regarding Jesus' Hebrew name, if he indeed had one. True, Hebrew was spoken in Jerusalem (about the only place at that time), but Jesus was from Galilee where Aramaic was the primary language. Anyway, I still hold that speculations don't belong in the intro, though I'm not against addressing them in the body of the article. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli linguists show that the Dead Sea Scroll dialect of Hebrew, which is in between Late Biblical Hebrew and Early Mishnaic Hebrew, is the dominant language of the land of Israel before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Not surprisingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls are well over 90% Hebrew. The epigraphic evidence from before the destruction of the Temple also shows the prevalence of Hebrew. Hebrew is a living language of the land. Also, the Syriac Gospels do preserve the Hebrew name Yeshua ישוע. --Haldrik 06:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The lingua franca of Jews during Jesus' time was Aramaic, not Hebrew. And the earliest Syriac gospel (Diatessaron, 2nd century) was a translation from the Koine Greek into Aramaic. There was no "preserving" of the Hebrew, just a translation from the Greek. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There is still no good reason to reject the consensus of thousands of scholars who say Jesus's name is Hebrew Yeshua. --Haldrik 06:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your exaggerated claims are not compelling. And scholars do not make such definitive statements, they only describe etymology and make presumptions about what his name might likely have been. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to argue with the scholars. Wikipedia simply reports what the large majority of scholars say. I notice that those who don't want the Hebrew name Yeshua to be mentioned have still not cited a single scholar to dispute the consensus of scholars. --Haldrik 08:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the argument is with *your misrepresentation* of what scholars say about it. There is no scholarly consensus for such definitive claims like you are implying. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying, there is no scholarly consensus that Jesus's name is Yeshua? Indeed there is a scholarly consensus about that. I've already cited plenty of sources that say, Yeshua is the name of the person who the Greeks call Iesous and the English call Jesus. I challenge you to find one scholar who says Jesus's name isn't Yeshua. --Haldrik 08:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There's general consensus that the etymology of the Greek name Iesous points to Yehoshua, Yeshua, Hoshea. There is no consensus or evidence that the person this article is about actually went by the name Yeshua. I and others have already said this over and over and over, we're just going in circles wasting time repeating ourselves. And as far as your challenge, I could just as easily challenge you to find one scholar who says *my* name isn't Yeshua, or find a scholar who says Jesus' name isn't Rumpelstiltskin. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Greek name Iesous refers to Hebrew Yehoshua. It does not refer to Hoshea. --Haldrik 03:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a scholarly consensus is: That he is a Jew, who grew up in Galilee, who speaks (some scholars say) Aramaic and/or (many Israeli scholars now say) Hebrew. He debates with Pharisees (in either Aramaic or Hebrew, not Greek). And he has a standard Hebrew name, Yeshua, (which has no meaning any language except Hebrew). His parents and brothers in Galilee likewise have standard Hebrew names: Yosef, Miryam, Yaakov, Shimon, Yosi, and Yehudah. That is the consensus. ... Even if these people were fictional, as some would like to have it, their names are Hebrew. --Haldrik 13:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

His parents and brothers are in the same boat. The New Testament documents that tell us about his family only give their Greek names, Iosef, Mariam, Iakobos, Simon, Ioses, Ioudas, which are certainly derived from Hebrew, but whether his family members were actually ever called by the Hebrew variants of their names during their lifetime is only speculation and not known. And again, while scholarly consensus would agree to the Hebrew etymology, they do not make definitive statements that the individuals in question actually went by Hebrew variants of their names, or that they certainly even spoke Hebrew. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Hebrew Wikipedia article on Jesus opens with these words: "Yeshu is the accepted nickname in Hebrew for Yeshua Ha-Nozri." (ישו הוא הכינוי המקובל בעברית לישוע הנוצרי). The opening sentence simultaneously says, Yeshu is not his original name, and his real name is Yeshua. The Hebrew article reports what scholars say, the Hebrew name is Yeshua. The Hebrew article says the name is Yeshua. The English article says the name is Yeshua. --Haldrik 08:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In any case, it is irrelevant whether Jesus existed or not. If he didn't exist, then the Gospels are describing a fictional character whose Hebrew name is Yeshua. And if he does exist, the Gospels are describing a historical person whose Hebrew name is Yeshua. Either way, his Hebrew name is Yeshua. --Haldrik 05:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the value of so much parenthetical -- and to most people unreadable -- text just as someone is starting to reaad the article? It seems to me an impediment to reading. The way the article used to handle all the names was by linking also known as to a section further on in the article. It seems that is now its own article - and a bit too restircitvie to work for this purpose. Perhaps there is another remedy? --JimWae 06:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If the current section separated the part about names into a separate brief section that linked to the main names article, your suggestion could work. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's simply encyclopedic convention. For example, the Wiki article on Socrates starts like this:

• • Socrates (June 4, ca. 469 BC – May 7, 399 BC) (Greek Σωκράτης; invariably anglicized as IPA: ['sɔkɹətiːz] Sǒcratēs) was a Greek (Athenian) philosopher.

It's all there: the English name, date, comment on the historical name in its original language, the nationality, and historical singnificance. Standard encyclopedia article. --Haldrik 06:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another obstacle course - and absolutely no scholarly support given for the dates & no discussion of them. There's a false exactitude there, it seems. --JimWae 07:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It is the format that Wikipedia uses. --Haldrik 07:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses many formats - or not. Can you point to where the style guide recommends this one? --JimWae 07:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing in the style guide that recommends doing this - all I see is that English pronunciation must come first. Perhpas you should be including the IPA spelling of Jesus too? I think a better route is to have a section on the names of Jesus linked to by the also known as --JimWae 07:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Does it ever feel like our conversations is like herding cats? My two cents is pretty simple...this is an English article. For an introduction I could not care less what Jesus' name was in Hebrew, Greek, Coptic, Syriac, German, Spanish, French or any other language. I am fluent in two languages and conversant in an additional two language, but I do not know Greek or Hebrew. I haven't a clue how many people who read this article know Hebrew/Greek and that having these names in the introduction does anything to enlighten people.

I do think it would be interesting to include this as a subtopic in the body of the text, but it has no business in the introduction. Remember what the purpose is of an introduction. We have got to get over our petty desires and preferences; move on. Storm Rider 08:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Meow! Seriously, though, it is not unusual for the introduction of an encyclopedia article to give the derivation of a non-English word or name. I had always heard that "Jesus" is the Latin form of a Greek form of an Aramaic form of a Hebrew form, the last of which comes down to us more directly as "Joshua." I had no reason to doubt this until MPerel's recent post. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 09:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Arch, you are essentially correct. Linguistically, that is how it works. MPerel would have a point if we were discussing Proto-Indo-European, or Proto-German, or Proto-Semitic, but we're not. I don't have the time to type out a Greek lesson right now, but reversing Ιηςους to Hebrew would yield Yes(h)u. Jim62sch 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe most Arab Christians or converted Jews refer to Jesus as Yeshua, which I feel is sufficient enough to warrant its inclusion in this article. I think the two Hebrew names should be switched, however, with the more common form mentioned first. I have added a Wikilink to the Hebraic reference. —Aiden 23:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'd hate to see another subsection added to the main article when we already have subarticles and infra-articles that cover the derivation. I don't think that more than a brief mention is needed in the main article, but consensus seems to be against me. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there is no reason to clutter the first paragraph with information about what Jesus's name is in languages other than English. Such information is completely ignored by 99.9% of the general readers of the article. Its not even up to the level of trivia in terms of reader interest. The Encyclopedia Britannica does not clutter its introduction to Jesus in this fashion, and I think that Wikipedia would do well to do likewise. Get this garbage out of the intro, it doesn't make the article look cool, it makes the article stink. Drogo Underburrow 02:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Note to Haldrik

Haldrik, you said the following:

There is a scholarly consensus is: That he is a Jew, who grew up in Galilee, who speaks (some scholars say) Aramaic and/or (many Israeli scholars now say) Hebrew. He debates with Pharisees (in either Aramaic or Hebrew, not Greek). And he has a standard Hebrew name, Yeshua, (which has no meaning any language except Hebrew). His parents and brothers in Galilee likewise have standard Hebrew names: Yosef, Miryam, Yaakov, Shimon, Yosi, and Yehudah. That is the consensus. ... Even if these people were fictional, as some would like to have it, their names are Hebrew. --Haldrik 13:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, the above paragraph does not qualify as "evidence"--it is a series of claims, but it is not evidence. You provide no sources in the above paragraph for your claims, and standing by themselves, they are simply assertions.

1. That Jesus was a Jew--this much is obvious, and I doubt anyone here disagrees.
2. That Jesus spoke Hebrew is precisely the issue that is in doubt. "It is generally accepted that Aramaic was the mother tongue of Jesus." (Cite) There is also a significant probability that Jesus spoke at least some Greek--especially since he is reputed to have grown up as the son of a carpenter in heavily Hellenized Gallilee, right down the road from Capernaum.
3. "And he has a standard Hebrew name, Yeshua." Yeshua is not a standard Hebrew name. The "standard" Hebrew name is Yehoshua--Yeshua is a later abbreviation not seen in the Bible until after the Captivity (in the person of Yeshua the son of Yozadak).
4. The Aramaic/Hebrew names you mention are from the Peshitta. "There are two manuscripts of the Old Syriac separate gospels (Syra Sinaiticus and Syra Curetonianus). These are clearly based on the Greek text, and the so-called 'Western' recension of it." (Peshitta, emphasis added.)

In short, Haldrik, your insistance that Jesus was called Yeshua is very probably accurate--but your insistance that they spoke Hebrew (as opposed to Aramaic) is entirely without support. Your claim of "scholarly consensus" is completely without merit.

Haldrik, I'm not posting this to make you angry or make you feel I'm looking down at you--but you cannot simply wave the flag of "scholarly consensus" while not providing sources and accurate arguments. The arguments you have provided are not only unsourced, they are inaccurate. Please stop bucking consensus until and unless you have something more than bald, unsupported assertions. Justin Eiler 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Haldrik should provide sources, but in all fairness, I do not think this will be hard for him to do. By the way, there is no way to prove one way or the other whether Jesus spoke Greek, but it isn't such a big deal - several Pharisees actually have Greek names and Greek words entered Hebrew and Aramaic. But I know of no major scholar who believes Jesus generally spoke anything other than Hebrew or Aramaic - one interesting thing about the Gospel account is that it has Jesus preaching and healing only in Jewish towns, and gives no record of activity in Greek towns - notable given that by the time the NT was canonized, most Christians came from the Greek-speaking and not Jewish world. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik has provided references by the boat load. Whether or not we choose to believe what these scholars say, it is safe to say he has established that most Biblical scholars assert Jesus = Y' Hoshua. (add radical scholar Thomas Thompson to that list. I just saw it in The Messiah Myth) But all this is really not relevant. Can we focus on whether or not we should have the Greek and Hebrew forms in this article at all? --CTSWyneken 16:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a more viable compromise would be to briefly mention the Hebrew/Aramaic form as conjectural? As far as the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic, I have absolutely no problem with it one way or another--it's not at all uncommon in other text and web sources, but I certainly wouldn't consider the article to be "incomplete" if these were omitted. Justin Eiler 17:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed phrasing: "Jesus (Hebrew יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Yĕhôshua, יֵשׁוּעַ Yēshûa, conjectural reconstruction; Greek Ιησούς Iēsoũs)...."

To my mind, this is somewhat of an over-complication, and as I said before I would not consider the article to be incomplete if it were never mentioned. Justin Eiler 17:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Works for me, although I think the Aramaic is more certain than the Hebrew. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Heck, if we want certainty, we need to stick solely with Greek. :D Justin Eiler 17:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That works for me too. Nicely done. At least it's presented in its correct context, without being too awfully wordy for the intro. "Conjectural reconstruction" could also be linked to the names main article or a sub paragraph in this article, like JimWae suggested above for "also known as" --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A. I dispute the word "conjectural" because the evidence is impossible to ignore. B. The name shouldn't be called "Aramaic" because the name itself is "Late Biblical Hebrew" and is also well-represented in Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew. C. If I read an article such as this that didn't mention Jesus's Hebrew name Yehoshua/Yeshua, I would consider the article historically ignorant and not-at-all take it seriously. D. I could live with this:

• Jesus (Hebrew יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Yĕhôshua, יֵשׁוּעַ Yēshûa as attested by Greek Ιησούς Iēsoũs) --Haldrik 18:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik, I do understand your objections--really I do. And I am sympathetic to them. But the problem is, all we have to go on is conjecture. We have no actual evidence--the passages in the Talmud cannot be used as evidence because the texts have been tampered with and cited improperly by other "sorces." Rambam is no help since he was more than a millenium after the fact. And I cannot accept the DSS as "definitive" evidence because of the possibility tat Hebrew was not the "common tongue" for Jesus. The way I see it, we can either omit the Hebrew/Aramaic entirely (and stick to what is definitely known), or we must note that the Hebrew/Aramaic references are conjectural. The "evidence" that you cite is just too problematic for me to have any degree of confidence in it. Justin Eiler 18:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the word "reconstructed". It describes historical limitations factually. I can also live with:

• Jesus (Hebrew יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Yĕhôshua, יֵשׁוּעַ Yēshûa as reconstructed from Greek Ιησούς Iēsoũs) --Haldrik 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I can work with that. Any objections, anyone? Justin Eiler 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's borderline, I think there's more consensus to leave the Hebrew/Greek out altogether. I'm not keen on it, but I'm not completely against this wording if enough people insist it must be in the intro. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's another option--Haldrik, the information you are trying to add in is already present in the Yeshua article--both sides of the argument are presented. Do you think that a link (not in the introduction, but perhaps in 1.1 Chronology) to the Yeshua article would suffice to get across the information? Justin Eiler 20:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It is important the encyclopedia gives his own original (Hebrew) name at the beginning of the article. A separate subsection (before Chronology) called Name and Titles can provide links to the main articles Yeshua and so on. The subsection can add brief one-or-two sentences to summarize each link. We can leave the word "reconstructed" out of the opening sentence, but add it in the summary in the subsection. --Haldrik 20:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would object to any mention in the intro that doesn't put the name in context by adding "conjectural reconstruction" or "reconstructed". The absence of this would misrepresent the facts by implying people certainly called him by a particular Hebrew name, which is only pure conjecture. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik ... why is it that important? I'm not asking from sarcasm: that's a serious question. If the information is presented in a balanced, NPOV format, then that is (to the best of my understanding) the optimum fulfillments of our requirements.

To my mind, while I agree that we need to touch upon the Hebrew/Aramaic name Yeshua, I also feel we need to acknowledge that it is conjectural--many of the citations you've presented (such as Maimonides and the Toldot Yeshu) illustrate the usage of the name, but we have no proof that they're speaking fo the same individual. Indeed, in the case of the Toldot Yeshu, we can be certain that they are not.

Please, I'm honestly seeking to understand. The article does not depend on this one name. Justin Eiler 20:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus belongs to a Jewish Hebrew/Aramaic culture, but records about him belong to a Nonjewish Greek/Latin culture. Recognizing his Hebrew name calls attention to his historical context. Context determines meaning. Without a historical context an ancient person cannot be understood accurately. --Haldrik 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur with MPerel. This is a "general introduction" article--disputes over the Hebrew or Aramaic name (since all we have is conjecture, however scholarly) belong not in a general discussion, but in one of the more specific and specialized articles--such as Historical Jesus or Yeshua. We have plenty of conjectural evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was probably called Yehoshua or Yeshua, but in my opinion we do not have the certainty necessary to claim that conclusion without also giving the other side of the argument to avoid WP:POV.

Name subsection proposal

Haldrik, I know you feel strongly about this, but I would be much more comfortable with the following (in a new sub-section under Life and teachings, based upon the Gospels, rather than in the introduction).

---

===Jesus' name in Hebrew/Aramaic===

Though the existance of Jesus is recorded in a few near-contemporary documents (the New Testament, various non-canonical books, and Josephus's Antiquities), all of these documents were written in Greek: no surviving document reliably records what he would have been called in Hebrew or Aramaic. However, scholarly consensus is that Jesus spoke Aramaic, so he would probably have been called Yehoshua or Yeshua. (See also Historical Jesus and Names_and_titles_of_Jesus).

---

I realize that it's not going to be completely acceptable to everyone, but I feel that this balances the requirements of preserving Jesus in a Jewish context, giving a balanced acknowledgement of the scholarly debate on his actual name, and keeping this article from excessive bloat. Justin Eiler 22:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I deliberately used the "Nowiki" tags so the above header wouldn't create a new section in the talk page--that's my proposed header for the article subsection. Justin Eiler 22:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

But this doesn't mean we engineer a name for him, imply falsely that it was certainly his, just to make him appear more authentically Jewish. People over the ages have unfortunately done just what you want to do, mess with history, alter it to make it conform to the picture they want that history to be. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we've covered most of the issues. A large majority of Israeli archeologists, Hebrew linguists, and critical Biblical scholars agree that Jesus (and his family) probably spoke Hebrew and Aramaic and that the Greek equivalents of the Hebrew names stand for their originally Hebrew names. Yehoshua/Yeshua is Hebrew (no Aramaic equivalent), Yaakov is Hebrew (not Aramaic Akiba), Yehudah is Hebrew (no Aramaic equivalent), Yosef is a Hebrew name (no Aramaic equivalent), Yose is Hebrew (not Aramaic Yassa), an so on. These are Hebrew names and he likely spoke Hebrew. Few if any scholars suggest Jesus's family only spoke Greek and only had Greek names. --Haldrik 22:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you're just repeating yourself; you think it's important to somehow "restore" Jesus' Jewishness, so you insist on inserting a conjectural Hebrew/Aramaic name for him in the intro. Your needs are not the same as fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Justin Eiler. As I've said earlier, it's normal encylopedia practice (not just Wikipedia) to give the derivation of a non-English word or name at the very beginning of the article. The rest comes down to a dispute on how reliable the Hebrew "reconstruction" is, and how best to phrase the reference. Of course, some people prefer to avoid the issue.... Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and Jesus is derived from the Greek, which we know precisely. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) I agree with others who have stated the article would not be lacking if we just left the names out of the intro altogether as the previous consensus before us eventually concluded as well. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Right. His English name, and the Greek it was derived from. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, English from Latin from Greek at a minimum. But, isn't the Greek name itself derived from Aramaic and/or Hebrew? If there is really that much uncertainty about the ultimate derivation, perhaps this could be covered in a footnote? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not a subsection, like the article had for years? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw such a subsection at the Spanish Wikipedia, and it looked ugly to me. We do have a name subsection in Historical Jesus, not to mention Names and titles of Jesus. I'd prefer that the main article serve as an introduction/summary, and leave details to the subarticles. Is there anyone here who disagrees with me? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is only interested in the consensus of scholars on the topic. If anyone has difficulty with the scholarly consensus, please list other scholars to build a case for the minority opinion. --Haldrik 22:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is certainly interested in scholarly consensus, but scholarly conjecture should not be presented as fact in an introduction. A seperate subsection will do. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

We already have separate articles. Why complicate the main article? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why I recommended the above subsection--it's enough to let them know what people think it is, but also sends them off to the proper articles to hear all sides of the debate. Justin Eiler 00:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a sentence or two, and links to related articles, would be sufficient for the main article. I doubt we need another subsection in the main article, but I may be alone. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we have enough consensus to include this as a subsection (with two objections--Archola opting for just a sentence or two, and Haldrik holding out for a mention in the introduction). I'm going to make a recommendation that we go ahead and settle it quickly, or just table it until other sections are discussed.

Arch, my logic in giving a brief subsection was to provide an intro to the scholarly arguments, and the links to the articles that cover those arguments. However, if you think the article's already too complex, I can certainly see and agree with the logic. Subsection or a couple of sentences--either way will get the information across.

Haldrik, I simply cannot see the logic in putting something this uncertain in the introduction, especially if it's phrased as you've suggested, which gives the suggestion that it's an "established fact." Yes, I agree that the topic needs to be discussed here in the main Jesus article ... but I think we do a grave disservice to the topic if we don't acknowledge that uncertainty, and offer the links to the other articles where the name controversy can be discussed in the depth it deserves. Justin Eiler 00:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The Rabbis agree his historical name is Yehoshua/Yeshua

What is the "longer-standing Orthodox rabbinical position"? The Rambam himself says Jesus's real is name Yeshua Ha-Nozri ישוע הנוצרי (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 11.10)! (Spelled with the Ayin.) Even the Sefer Toldot Yeshu specifically says, his mother "Miryam gave birth to a son and named him Yehoshua יהושע, after her brother. But later, this name deteriorated to Yeshu." Even that book calls attention to the fact that his real name is Yehoshua, but claims that later people began to represent his name improperly (without the letter Ayin). The Rabbinic tradition is unanimous that the person's original name is Hebrew Yehoshua/Yeshua. --Haldrik 14:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is completely unacceptable as a reference to Jesus of Nazareth--the time period under discussion in this passage of Toldot Yeshu is 3671 (90 BCE), eighty-plus years before the conjectural birth of Jesus. Justin Eiler 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How do we know this is the date of this Sanhedrin passage? I thought they all were undated and undateable. --CTSWyneken 02:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Talmud makes several references to a Jew named Yeshu ישו who was put to death for practicing sorcery during the reign of the Hasmonean king Yannai (Iannaios in the Greek of Josephus) or King Janneus (103-76 BCE). This Yeshu lived about a century before Jesus. Jesus was an extremely common name, and there is no reason to assume that this Yeshu refers to Jesus of Nazareth. The conflict in dates precludes the identification, not to mention the method of execution: stoning versus crucifixion. Nevertheless, these passages about Yeshu are reinterpreted midrashically as if referring to Jesus, and even today sometimes taken literally to mean Jesus. --Haldrik 18:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Another contributor complained modern scholarship was unacceptable because it was thought to contradict the "longer-standing Orthodox rabbinical position". I was pointing out the Rabbinic tradition agreed with modern scholarship. --Haldrik 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So you were getting criticism from both sides of the argument. (blush) My apologies, Haldrik. Justin Eiler 00:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he appears to just be pulling out any argument he can make (including quite a few bogus ones), even if they're mutually contradictory. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is what any of this has to do with putting Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek nameforms in the intro. --CTSWyneken 02:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Fact or Conjecture?

Okay, the answer to this question should (theoretically) solve the problem. Q: Is the Greek name Iēsous derived from the Hebrew name Yehôshûa‛ or is it simply conjecture? Simple question. It doesn't matter if Jesus was a real person or not. Doesn't matter if he spoke Hebrew or not. Doesn't matter if anyone ever called him by his Hebrew name. If it is a matter of historical fact that Yehôshûa‛ is the etymological root of Iēsous, then it should be included in the article (somewhere) without qualification as being conjectural or speculative. The speculative and conjectural issues can be noted (e.g., 'some dispute whether Jesus spoke Hebrew or was ever called by the Hebrew form of his name') -- but as a matter of fact we apparently do know Jesus' Hebrew name. --MonkeeSage 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If we were just talking about the etymology of the Greek name Iesous, that would be a proper question. But we're not just talking about etymology. The real question is, was the individual Jesus ever actually called Yeshua (or Yehoshua or Hoshea)? Maybe. It's a conjecture, not fact. Two thousands years from now people might make the same assumption about Prince William. Well he's the Prince of Wales, certainly people must have actually called him by his real Welsh name, Prince Gwilym, right? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Short answer--yes, Greek Iesous was used for Hebrew Yehoshua/Yoshiah/Yeshua. But it was also used for Hoshea, and a few others, IIRC. There's the additional problem that "Yeshu" is usually considered to be a very insulting anagram. Justin Eiler 00:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Greek name Iesous refers to Yehoshua/Yeshua. It doesn't refer to Yoshiah. --Haldrik 02:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'm not sure that is the real issue, or if it is, whether it should be. Jesus was alleged to be a Hebrew. The primary source documents we have about him are in Greek. It seems proper to give both forms of his name (Greek & Hebrew) along with the form in the primary language of the article (in this case, English). Most encyclopedias and dictionaries I've seen do this. It implies nothing about whether Jesus actually spoke Hebrew or Greek (or anything else). If someone is worried about those issues, the concerns should be noted. But that is a different issue than the etymology -- etymology is the whole reason for giving the Greek, isn't it? So why not the Hebrew? Isn't it historical fact?

Ps. There are also various forms of Iēsous (e.g., Josh. 1:1, LXX), but the convention is to give the Lexical form, the same should apply to the Hebrew, the variations not withstanding. --MonkeeSage 00:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus was alleged to be a Hebrew. No--Jesus was a Galilean Jew. It is conjectured that Hebrew had ceased to be the "common language" of the people in Galilee, and that their primary language was Aramaic. There is documentation for that conjecture out there somewhere, but I don't have it on hand right now.

So why not the Hebrew? Isn't it historical fact? No--it's historical conjecture. Hey, I have no problem with using conjecture in my own writing if it is supported with evidence to my satisfaction, but I am not at all comfortable presenting conjecture as fact. Justin Eiler 01:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Christian scriptures (primary source documents) allege that Jesus was ethnically a Hebrew (just like Hebrew people born in, e.g., France, are still considered to be ethnically Hebrew). And it is a matter of historical fact that the etymology of the Greek comes from the Hebrew, as the LXX attests, and as do all the etymology resources I've checked (including various Koine Greek lexicons). How about an "Etymology" section like the Isa article? --MonkeeSage 01:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well ... there's a problem with that. One can be ethnically Hebrew, yet not be a Hebrew speaker. If the conjecture about the Galileans is correct (and it is the majority position, but not set in stone), then they provide a perfect example.

And when I was talking about "Hebrew Yehoshua/Yoshiah/Hoshia," these are not different forms of the same name: they are three different names. And they are all translated as "Iesous." So it's not as simple as it seems at first blush. Justin Eiler 01:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Greek name Iesous refers to Hebrew Yehoshua/Yeshua. It does not refer to Yoshiah or Hoshea. --Haldrik 02:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are we arguing this? What has it at all got to do with whether or not we want Hebrew and Greek in the intro? --CTSWyneken 02:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"We" should want neither Hebrew nor Greek in the intro, the intro should be an introduction to the article. Drogo Underburrow 03:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Which usually includes the derivation of a non-English name or term. The problem is that people cannot agree on the derivation. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"Jesus" is an English name, and dates back to Middle English. There is no need to get into the derivation in the intro, unless the article is aimed at etymologists. A simple solution to the argument...get both Greek and Hebrew out of the intro, and into the body somewhere where the obscure issue of Jesus's name in other languages can be obscurely dealt with. Drogo Underburrow 03:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not just English, modern or middle. The Spanish for Jesus is Jesús (pronounced Hey-Soos). The German is Jesus (however it's pronounced). The French is Jésus. For that matter, the Angles and Saxons were still on the Continent (Europe) when Jesus walked the earth.

From Middle English the name is traced back to Latin, from Latin to Greek. From Greek it's traced back to Aramaic and Hebrew, or so I thought until this incredibly long thread. Again, it's not unusual to give derivation/entymology at the beginning of an encyclopedia article. It just makes it more professional. Heck, even the simple English article gives the derivation right up front. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It boils down to what the article is going to treat as important. Is the etymology of "Jesus" important enough to be the first thing the reader sees? "Jesus" has been an English name for over 500 years; its been around longer than a lot of common English words. The fact that its a name in other languages is true, but so what? It doesn't make the article more "professional" to give the Greek first thing, it makes the article more cluttered. I offer as proof that the online Encyclopedia Britannica, a truly professional encyclopedia, does not give the Greek in the intro. Drogo Underburrow 05:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is professional to show the derivation of a name that comes into English from other languages, no matter how long the English form has existed. Another example is the Greek used in the Socrates article, which shows Socrates' "real" name. What name did Jesus use in Galilee and Judea? Jesus wasn't English; he spoke Aramaic and was thus named in Aramaic. The debate about Hebrew is a debate over whether first century Hebrew was a common language or a sacred one. If Hebrew was only used as a sacred language, then Jesus wouldn't have been addressed in Hebrew, even though the Aramaic name comes from the Hebrew name. The name "Jesus" comes to us by translation and transliteration through at least two other languages. It's misleading and unencyclopedic to imply that He ever used the name "Jesus" when He walked the earth. It also seems rather Anglocentric, and thus does not reflect a worldwide perspective, which I strongly object to.

There's also a debate about whether it should be included in the introduction or later in the article—but either way, it should be included. It is not at all obscure, nor should it be.Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. I was specifically trying not to address the 'What language did Jesus speak?' question (and others like it). For all I know, that Jesus spoke Greek is just as much a conjecture as that he spoke Hebrew. I'll leave that for someone else who knows about the pursuant issues. I was only saying that in terms of etymology, there is not really any doubt. The scholars seem to be in unison on the view that the Greek is from the Hebrew. So it seems to me like that would be warrent for inclusion of the Hebrew in the article. Haldrik is right about the Greek-Hebrew names (Hosea is Ōsēe for example, Hos. 1:1, LXX) -- "Jesus" refers to a specific Hebrew name, not a range of names. I do think an "Etymology" section (like the Isa article) would be good, since I've personally seen many people claiming (wrongly) that "Jesus" is derived from some form of "Zeus," and since people are averse to having the etymology in the intro. --MonkeeSage 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are two separate issues. There ought to be a way to clarify which name Jesus actually used, and which was the ultimate etymology (regardless of how common Hebrew was at that time and place). Just as Prince William does not use the Welsh form, and just as my name is "Archie" and not "Archibald." Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Q: So how about an "Etymology" section, like the Isa article, and just the English name in the intro?? What say ye, noble citizens of the Wiki? Ye or ney? --MonkeeSage 08:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

For posterity, here are the Greek-Hebrew etymologies as per the LXX and Greek lexicons:

1. Yehôshûa‛ / Yehshûa‛ → Iēsous

2. Yô'shîyâh / Yô'shîyâhû → Iōsias

3. Hôshêa‛ → Ōsēe (or Hōsēe w/ the rough breathing on the Omega)

The etymology of "Jesus" represents a distinct path from Hebrew to Greek, and is accepted by every dictionary and etymological source I can find. Iēsous does not represent several cognate Hebrew names, it represents only one. --MonkeeSage 08:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Crap. How in the world did I miss that? Can I blame it on giving up caffeine for Lent? I swear my brains have turned to goo. Justin Eiler 14:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem Justin. To be fair, there are some instances of parallel influence (or possibly corruption of the MT) where the translations of the names are confused. From what I can gather, the majority of scholars recognize the etymology as vaild on the basis of the majority of the LXX readings. They could be wrong, but I was just saying that the etymology seems to be a good solid NPOV issue in terms of scholarly concensus. --MonkeeSage 14:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A: Why not avoid the debate over Hebrew and simply reference the Aramaic? See below for my modest proposal. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew as a living language?

Haldrik, you said the following:

There is a scholarly consensus is: That he is a Jew, who grew up in Galilee, who speaks (some scholars say) Aramaic and/or (many Israeli scholars now say) Hebrew. He debates with Pharisees (in either Aramaic or Hebrew, not Greek). And he has a standard Hebrew name, Yeshua, (which has no meaning any language except Hebrew). His parents and brothers in Galilee likewise have standard Hebrew names: Yosef, Miryam, Yaakov, Shimon, Yosi, and Yehudah. That is the consensus. ... Even if these people were fictional, as some would like to have it, their names are Hebrew. --Haldrik 13:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, the above paragraph does not qualify as "evidence"--it is a series of claims, but it is not evidence. You provide no sources in the above paragraph for your claims, and standing by themselves, they are simply assertions.

1. That Jesus was a Jew--this much is obvious, and I doubt anyone here disagrees.
2. That Jesus spoke Hebrew is precisely the issue that is in doubt. "It is generally accepted that Aramaic was the mother tongue of Jesus." (Cite) There is also a significant probability that Jesus spoke at least some Greek--especially since he is reputed to have grown up as the son of a carpenter in heavily Hellenized Gallilee, right down the road from Capernaum.
3. "And he has a standard Hebrew name, Yeshua." Yeshua is not a standard Hebrew name. The "standard" Hebrew name is Yehoshua--Yeshua is a later abbreviation not seen in the Bible until after the Captivity (in the person of Yeshua the son of Yozadak).
4. The Aramaic/Hebrew names you mention are from the Peshitta. "There are two manuscripts of the Old Syriac separate gospels (Syra Sinaiticus and Syra Curetonianus). These are clearly based on the Greek text, and the so-called 'Western' recension of it." (Peshitta, emphasis added.)

In short, Haldrik, your insistance that Jesus was called Yeshua is very probably accurate--but your insistance that they spoke Hebrew (as opposed to Aramaic) is entirely without support. Your claim of "scholarly consensus" is completely without merit.

Haldrik, I'm not posting this to make you angry or make you feel I'm looking down at you--but you cannot simply wave the flag of "scholarly consensus" while not providing sources and accurate arguments. The arguments you have provided are not only unsourced, they are inaccurate. Please stop bucking consensus until and unless you have something more than bald, unsupported assertions. Justin Eiler 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh please! I don't get upset. I love discussing this stuff!

1. That Jesus was a Jew--this much is obvious.

2. That Jesus spoke Hebrew.

See below.

3. "And he has a standard Hebrew name, Yeshua." Yeshua is not a standard Hebrew name. The "standard" Hebrew name is Yehoshua--Yeshua is a later abbreviation not seen in the Bible until after the Captivity.

Yeshua is a standard (Late Biblical) Hebrew name. It is used extensively in the Tanakh. It is NOT an "abbreviation" of the Hebrew name Yehoshua, but an optional phonetic spelling for the way this name was pronounced in the Late Biblical Hebrew dialect. The Hebrew spellings יהושע and ישוע are interchangeable and are both pronounced the same way, as cited above. (Like English "through" and "thru" are pronounced the same way.) It doesn't matter if Jesus spoke Hebrew or Aramaic. The name Yehoshua/Yeshua is a Hebrew name, and only has a meaning in Hebrew (literally, "'God' is a saving-cry").

4. The Aramaic/Hebrew names you mention are from the Peshitta. These are clearly based on the Greek text.

The letter Ayin ע cannot come from the Greek name because the Greek alphabet does not have a letter to represent this sound. Either the early Aramaic Christian community simply knows that the Greek name Iesous refers to the Hebrew name Yeshua (spelled with an Ayin), or the Aramaic Christian community has continued to exist since the days of Paul's stay in Damascas, knew the Hebrew name firsthand and preserved it as a sacred name within the Aramaic Christian tradition. Either way, the Aramaic Peshitta derives from the Hebrew name Yeshua.

---

Hebrew as a living language

In the Jesus article, the section "Historical reconstructions of Jesus's life" already says,

Most scholars agree the Gospels were written after the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans. According to most critical historians, Jesus probably lived in Galilee for most of his life and he probably spoke Aramaic and Hebrew.

Jesus himself probably knows both Aramaic and Hebrew (and perhaps some work-related Greek).

In my statement, I used the phrase "Aramaic or Hebrew" because while many Western scholars continue to assume the dominant language is Aramaic, many Israeli scholars dispute that assumption in light of the accumulating archeological and linguistic evidence from the Second Temple Period. The Hebrew dialect of the Dead Sea Scrolls is a living language, the language of the local people. Hebrew doesn't begin to decline as a living language until after the disasterous Bar Kokhba War in 135 CE. A large majority of Israeli scholars agree Hebrew is a living language but now debate the relative roles of Hebrew and Aramaic. A trilingual model has been proposed with Hebrew as a "home" language for the Jews but using Aramaic as an international language for trade and interractions with other Mideastern populations. However, the Romans administered the eastern region of the Roman empire using Greek as their international language. Greek-speaking Jewish communities who made aliyyah from the Diaspora are known in Israel. (Latin is not seen as having any major role outside of the Roman army units stationed in Palestine.)

Here's an example of the kinds of things the Israeli linguistic scholarship is saying. [3] Schniedewind discusses the findings of Israeli and other Hebrew linguists. Note that he defines "Classical Hebrew" as a single evolving living language that ranges (and overlaps) through time from Biblical Hebrew to Late Biblical Hebrew to DSS/Qumran Hebrew and even to Early Rabbinic/Mishnaic Hebrew, which does not die out until around 300 CE!

For my part, I would prefer to use "Classical Hebrew" as a catch-all to refer to all Hebrew texts, both biblical and non-biblical, in the pre-Rabbinic period. It could even include the early phase of Rabbinic Hebrew (=RH1) if we defined it as the period when Hebrew was a living language in Palestine. This would include epigraphic Hebrew, Qumran Hebrew, RH1 as well as the Hebrew of the biblical corpus. Biblical Hebrew, in contrast, would describe the limited corpus of biblical Hebrew literature.

At least a half a millennium separated the later books of the Hebrew Bible from the codification of the Mishnah. The Dead Sea Scrolls have filled in this gap with a Hebrew language that is neither Biblical nor Mishnaic. It should force us to rethink categories like Classical Hebrew. One immediate consequence can be seen in the most recent dictionary project of “Classical Hebrew” carried out by Sheffield University, which tries not to privilege biblical texts. The range of the dictionary ends at 200 CE, thereby excluding the Mishnah and later Jewish texts. The range of the dictionary, nevertheless, is a step in the right direction.

Jewish scholars, in contrast, have long emphasized the continuity of the Hebrew language. For example, Segal’s grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew begins by dividing Hebrew into roughly four periods with the first two defined as Biblical (ca. 1000-200 BCE) and Mishnaic (400 BCE-400 CE). Although Hebrew ceased to be spoken as an everyday language sometime in the third or fourth centuries CE, it continued to be used as the language of sacred literature and even served as a trade language among Jews throughout the Diaspora who shared their knowledge of Hebrew religious texts.

Hebrew linguists, who are scrutinizing the data of the Qumran/Dead Sea Scrolls and its continuity between Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, now hold "Classical Hebrew" is a single evolving living language. Epigraphic remains from archeology corroborate these findings. Israelis now take it for granted that Hebrew is a living language throughout the entire Second Temple Period - which includes Jesus's lifetime. --Haldrik 16:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

On the point re the Greek, you're incorrect. An initial iota followed by a vowel was palatalized, i.e., had a "yuh" sound -- much like the Latin I when misspelled as a J (Latin had no J). Jim62sch 23:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you referring to? The above text doesn't mention the letter Iota. --Haldrik 23:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a vote

Should the opening line of this article state Jesus' Hebrew name, or should this name be cited (and explained) in another part of the article?

State in introduction:

• Arch O. La^TalkTCF 11:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC) If not Hebrew, at least use Aramaic. BTW this is all covered at Names_and_titles_of_Jesus#Personal_name, so do we really need to go into detail in this article? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 11:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

State in another part of article:

• Add a section later about how critical scholars believe that he also had a Hebrew name, and give all the proof you want about it. Yoninah 10:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Add a section on the name, which gives the Hebrew/Aramaic, Greek and Latin (=English) version, with an explanation of the name's meaning. (Btw. He didn't also have a Hebrew name - he had one name that is translated into different languages, just like we do it with Kings). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Add back a section on the name, which already existed in the article for years[4], until December 7 when Scifiintel decided he needed to completely re-write the page from a Christian perspective. Here's the sub-article:[[5]]. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree as per Jayjg. KHM03 ^(talk) 23:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't we do this without a vote? I'm very vote weary. Let me see if I can sum up where we're at on this one. Please, do not engage any of the points! Not at all. Let's see if we can agree with the facts on the ground for this debate. OK?

• The issue is whether or not to include the Hebrew and Greek versions scholars cite when speaking of Jesus' name.

• A previous discussion of the issue (somewhere in the bowels of our talk archives) agreed to exclude it.

• Three proposals, that I can see, have been made:

1. Stay with the previous agreement, excluding the Hebrew and Greek forms. (My preference)

1. Include the Greek, exclude the Hebrew.

1. Include both, using the consensus of Biblical scholarship on the issue.

Now, is that a fair list? If not, please add to the list. Let's give it a half day, then open a list of the reasons why or why not we should accept a given option. NO VOTE PLEASE! 8-) --CTSWyneken 11:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear CTSWyneken: Thank you for being so logical and orderly about it. I support your suggestion. Yoninah 12:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow this debate was even longer than I thought. I'd prefer not too much "clutter" in the first sentence as most readers are just trying to make sure the've got the correct article at that point. The list of names and dates stalls the reader so is there any support for putting them after the bit that says Jc is the central figure of christianity? Don't want to complicate things further but it might take the pressure off trying to cram as much as poss as concisely as poss. Whatever - NO VOTE please. Sophia^TalkTCF 19:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd support moving the dates in some fashion to paragraph two, but there was fur flying on that one, too. Can we settle this issue first and then start a conversation on the talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate on whether to put the dates there, and, if so, where? --CTSWyneken 19:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I hoped the fear of an atheist meddling with the first sentence would cause differences to be settled! I only suggested moving the languages/dates bit as some of the problems above are caused by the confilcting needs of completeness and conciseness. I would never want to cause more fur to fly so am not pressing for any change at this moment. Sophia^TalkTCF 21:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to put the parenthetical dates as a separate parenthetical sentence after the "central figure of Christianity" sentence?

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

Paragraph 1 to be updated on 3/11/2006

---

Jesus (Hebrew Yēshûa יֵשׁוּעַ reconstructed from Greek Iēsoũs Ιησους) (8-2 BC/BCE – 29-36 AD/CE), also known as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene, is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ, where Christ is a title meaning "Anointed", corresponding to Hebraic "Messiah". The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, which are generally agreed to have been written decades after his death.

--Haldrik 13:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Considering how much debate there has been over whether 1st century Hebrew was a living language, or merely a sacred one, perhaps it would be better to reference the Aramaic instead. Also, why not supply the original Greek for Christ? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The name is Hebrew, whether or not Jesus speaks Aramaic. His family members have Hebrew names, not Aramaic names. Hebrew is a living language during Jesus's lifetime. Even among scholars who speculate Hebrew was only a literary language, most agree Jesus personally knows Hebrew because of his debates with the Pharisees about the Torah. Anyway, the name is Hebrew. --Haldrik 18:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, although after the long debate, I wonder if others will agree. My own proposal is two sections below, but this is close enough. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik, I find the paragraph you have above acceptable. I'm not keen on it, but the "reconstructed" qualification is a compromise I can live with that addresses my concerns. My preference is to leave the language out of the intro altogether and have a separate etymology section, but if others want this in the intro, this version works for me. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

From Encarta: "The name Jesus is derived from a Greek rendering of the Hebrew name Joshua, or in full Yehoshuah (Yahweh is deliverance)." In this respect they are saying the Greek name was derived from the Hebrew, not vice versa. I realize an extensive discussion has taken place about this, but I'm not sure if this was mentioned. —Aiden 18:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we can all agree on this, the dispute was over whether the Hebrew form was used in the first century (and which dialect of Hebrew!). However, this seems to be a decent compromise. BTW Aiden, you're looking a little cyan today. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I attempted to get the blue from the Israeli flag but couldn't quite get it right hehe. —Aiden 19:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

LOL! --Haldrik 19:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You can blame me for that. I left "Haldrik needs a user page" on his user page so it wouldn't distract me on my way to his talk page. Once on his talk page, though, I had nothing to add to what CTSWyneken said there. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that! : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather remove the Hebrew and Greek from the intro completely. I agree the info is correct, but I find it very distracting when reading to put the Greek and Hebrew in this. Could we perhaps just put a see reference to the names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament? --CTSWyneken 19:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, although I still hold (as Haldrik said) that this is standard encyclopedic practice. Frankly, I think that most people skip over parenthesis anyway. (Or maybe they don't.) Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's my preference, as CTSWyneken suggests, to leave it out. One reason to leave it in though is that we finally got it to an acceptable state, and if we leave it out, someone new will invariably come along and add it in an unacceptable way and then we go through this all over again. But both the options on the table are fine with me. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; it's distracting, speculative, doesn't belong in an intro, and will inevitably lead to more warring. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but look how long the last consensus to leave it out lasted. If it's gotta go in, at least it should go in right. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well as it can be assumed that Jesus, his family, and followers--and I realize this is bordering on OR, but I find it more common sense--would recognize him as the Messiah and thus refer to him accordingly, we can take note of Matthew 1:23 (referencing Isiah 9:6), which describes Jesus as being named "Immanuel;' which is, being interpreted, 'God with us." Now, crossreferencing that with Encarta which states, "The name Jesus is derived from a Greek rendering of the Hebrew name Joshua, or in full Yehoshuah (Yahweh is deliverance)," it seems only logical that this name would have been used. —Aiden 19:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Immanuel isn't a name but a title based on an interterpretation of the biblical verse, and seems not generally used except when discussing the verse. --Haldrik 21:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal

1. In the introduction, show the original Aramaic form of Jesus and the original Greek form of Christ, both in parenthesis. This is common practice, and it will not "clutter up" the introduction if we do it properly (as, for example, the Socrates article does).
2. Save a fuller explanation for the main article, not as a separate subsection, but as a small paragraph at or near the beginning of "Life and Teachings" or "Historicity." This should include the debate over whether or not Hebrew was a common language in the first century, as well as how Jesus' name evolved through Greek and Latin.
3. Simplify the dates in the introduction. Herod the Great uses circa dates in the intro, then discusses the uncertainty (ranges for birth and death) later in the article. It looks awkward to have a range for birth and death dates right up front. Aren't we basing Jesus' birth date on Herod's death date, and the crucifiction date on a solar eclipse (the former as reported by Josephus, the latter as reported by Thallus the Samaritan)?
4. Curse Archola for making this proposal.

Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Archola has a good point about the Socrates article. The one liner at the top with the contents below is very useful. The picture and summary are good too. Just out of interest - why is there no picture on the Jesus page? Apart from being factual a FA needs be good on the eye and currently the first part of the page is not very attractive at first glance - which is all some people may give it unless it invites further reading. Sophia^TalkTCF 07:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Socrates article was Haldrik's point, except that he wanted Hebrew rather than Aramaic. Thus the long debate over whether Hebrew was a common tongue. There are pictures further down; perhaps we could also use Image:RFJesus.jpg. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 07:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --MonkeeSage 08:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever we do, I suggest we keep the footnote and keep documenting on the subpage. When the inevitable outraged new to the article editor comes by, we can then point to the body of quotations. --CTSWyneken 16:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that footnoting is a good idea. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've always pushed for including all views - even the earlier dates for the gospels - as at least the outraged newbie can't think we're ignorant or supressing information. The footnotes are good and should be kept. Sophia^TalkTCF 18:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is hardly a modest new proposal; it's pretty much the same old proposal. Again, we don't know what Jesus' if Jesus ever went by the name "Yeshua", that's just scholarly speculation. We do know what his Greek name was, because we have documents that use it, but not his Aramaic name. The Socrates article is indeed a good example; it lists his English name, and his Greek name, as we know both; the Jesus article should do the exact same. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

That's what makes it modest. If it was significantly different from the old proposal, I would have called it a drastic proposal. However, please check two sections above for Haldrik's latest proposal. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I already have; it's a bad idea to make readers wade through a mass of confusing trivia written in foreign scripts before they even get to the second word of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik has inserted the Hebrew

I really wish he wouldn't have done that before we came to an agreement on the issue. I have not done as I would normally have done and reverted it, simply because I was not party to the previous agreement that brought the article to the non-Hebrew state of affairs.

I would not blame someone else for reverting it, though.

So, I guess what I'm asking is:

Is this version OK with everyone?

I personally do not like it and would prefer no Hebrew or Greek in the intro. I'll check other encyclopedias, but I'm willing to bet none have the name of Jesus in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.

It also begs the question of whether or not we should include the Latin, too...

I hate to say it, but do we need a vote here? --CTSWyneken 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No, and I am removing it. Its not factual at all and is highly disputed. ems 03:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it again. ems 03:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

I prefer it in the intro as per Abraham, Moses, Malachi and many other articles. Failing that, it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. MPerel also has a point that it's better than a less accurate version a newer (to this article) editor might insert. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The Hebrew name Yeshua is the historical person's own name. --Haldrik 04:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik, that is an unproven assertion. At this point, even if it was proven, I would opt to revert simply for your ill-mannered refusal to seek or abide by consensus. Justin Eiler 04:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Few (if any) scholars believe Jesus is a Greek-speaking Jew who goes by a Greek name. Most archeologists, historians, and Bible scholars hold his original name is Yeshua. I've cited many, many sources to this effect. The heading announced Paragraph 1 would be posted today on 3/11/2006. The discussion seemed to have quieted down. I waited till the end of night before posting it, according to procedure. If people still want to discuss it, I'm happy to. --Haldrik 04:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That is HIGHLY disputed. ems 04:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to cite any scholars who dispute that the original name of the historical person is Yeshua. It should be easy to do according to your claim. --Haldrik 04:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to say it one more time only, Haldrik; we know what his Greek name was, and scholars speculate that his Hebrew name was Yehoshua or Yeshua. We have no idea if he ever used it, or was called by it. Wikipedia doesn't lard up introductory sentences with speculation. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The scholars have a good idea that the historical person uses the Hebrew name Yeshua and conversely doesn't use the Greek name Iesous. --Haldrik 05:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CTSWyneken. All sides should post their citations to /Languages Spoken by Jesus. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You have it backwards; all Haldrik has posted are speculations about what Jesus' original Hebrew name might have been. Until he posts a link to a source document using his original Hebrew name (and he can't, because none exists), he's got nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Speculation or not, it would be nice to have all citations in one place. As I know neither Hebrew nor Greek, nor for that matter Latin nor Aramaic, I prefer to stay out of the discussion over the legitimacy of sources. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Most scholars agree he spoke Hebrew/Aramaic, and his name is Yeshua. Debates about whether Jesus might have spoken some Greek in addition to Hebrew/Aramaic aren't so relevant here. What matters is finding scholars in the field who DISPUTE that the original name of the historical person is Yeshua. --Haldrik 05:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Scholars have a consensus concerning the name of the historical person. Wikipedia policy is to implement that consensus. --Haldrik 05:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to putting any foreign language info in the introduction, on the grounds that such information is simply not what readers in general are looking for. It forces the average reader's eye to skip and look for when the English words start and the gobbledygook ends. Drogo Underburrow 05:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm glad Drogo (great name!) wrote that. Often people who understand this stuff forget they are writing for "the great unwashed" (is that a very british term)? like me who sees it as a load of squiggles. Very interesting squiggles but I need to be prepared for it. The first sentence should just be to confirm that you've got the correct article. From then on it's up to personal taste/style etc but that first sentence should be clean in my uneducated POV. Sophia^TalkTCF 11:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone, take a deep breath

Now, don't you all feel a little better?

A few things: first of all, Haldrik is correct. I have yet to see a Biblical scholar or historian that doesn't flat out assert Jesus = Y'hosua. Can anyone find a counter quote?

Second, Jayg is right. We do not have an untranslated text of the New Testament that uses the Aramaic form of Jesus' name.

In my book, we could put some form of the name in Hebrew here, but why? Please address only that issue. You all are never going to convince each other. --CTSWyneken 11:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Archie makes a good point with the Socrates article. There is room for "squiggles" if the initial sentence is separated from the main body of the text either as it's own paragraph or with the nice picture I keep going on about! It is much easier on the eye as to most people the lettering is so new it all just becomes a blur. It does seem a bit odd to only have the Greek name when most people know he was a Jew and would probably have spoken Hebrew everyday. So my suggestion is either move the "squiggles" lower down or allow a gap below the first sentence containing the "squiggles" to make it easier to read. Sophia^TalkTCF 11:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a rational, to-the-point comment. Any others? --CTSWyneken 11:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again, but again with Socrates I was merely affirming Haldrik's point. My point had to do with Abraham, Moses and Malachi. I still don't understand why the hobbit above (Drogo) is so opposed to etymology. Myself, I am being encylopedic and arguing for a consistent format between articles. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 13:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Haldrik. There are so many "points' I've got a bit lost. I may be wrong but I don't think Drogo is opposed to etymology as such but it's a matter of where this info goes so as to be easy on the eye and not just ignored by a confused reader. It's imortant to be consistent across articles but Socrotes doesn't try to tackle as much as we do in the first paragraph. Maybe the lesson to be learned (as I suggested above) is that "less is more" and we give a little room to all these names by having this as just an intro paragraph by itself. Sophia^TalkTCF 13:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've gotten used to seeing foreign script in introductions to articles, so it obviously doesn't bother me as much as it does Drogo, even though I can't read it, either. It is important to include the information somewhere to forestall misinformation. I think someone mentioned the misinformation that Jesus derives from Zeus. We need to address the correct derivation, and also any controversies that may revolve around that derivation. However, I also think an entire section devoted to the name would be too much for this article. Such a section already exists in the Historical Jesus article; in the Jesus article, I doubt we need more than a sentence or two. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 14:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have made that exact point on Haldrik's talk page. This is all great information and should be somewhere. All I was suggesting for the first line was the various names but then a gap, as in Socrotes, which I think reads better that Abraham etc as it is separated and so looks less cluttered. You're right that the intro is not the place for a full blown debate. Sophia^TalkTCF 14:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I still feel that the best way to handle this controversy is to place a brief, one or two sentence acknowledgement of the debate in the Life and Teachings section, with a link to the appropriate article (probably Yeshua, or possibly Historical Jesus.) However, I am very close to simply walking away from the discussion entirely. Dealing with other intransigent editors has destroyed my tolerance for such stubbornness, and I frankly do not need the stress. Justin Eiler 14:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"I was suggesting for the first line was the various names but then a gap, as in Socrotes": sounds like a good idea. --Haldrik 15:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, enough is enough, Haldrik has provided more than enough citations to back up his claims, and let's be real here, it's not THAT bad to put it there, I mean, it's in parenthesis, it's not that horrible of a stumbling block grammer-wise. What is the real problem here? Homestarmy 16:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No real problem. It amounts to preference. The only reason this really matters to anyone is that Jesus is important to people emotionally and spiritually, some for and some opposed to what he stood for and what he stands for. Take that out of the mix and it's simply a matter of preferences. I prefer not to include it for asthetic reasons and because we will almost without a doubt have to document it. So, whichever is fine by me. But please give enough time for all to weigh in before allowing everyone to say their peace. --CTSWyneken 16:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So why is emotional and spiritual importance coming into play over inserting the Hebrew word for Jesus? Besides, the article actually talks a bit more about the Joshua thing at the very last section, we can just expand on it there and then there will be plenty of room to not clutter the intro with things if for whatever reason people want to see more about the sources that say that the hebrew word for Jesus is Joshua. Homestarmy 16:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental problem from my view is that even if Haldrik is right, he went against consensus. That, in and of itself, has me irritated to the point that I'm starting to ascribe bad faith to Haldrik ... which is a good indicator that it's time for me to walk away from this particular discussion, rather than allow my irritation and stress to interfere with the process.

Haldrik, I realize you sincerely believe that your edit is the "best way" to phrase things, but at this point your seeming unwillingness to listen to other points of view only leads to more contention. I would earnestly recommend that, no matter how confident you are with your conclusions, you stop acting in a manner that makes it look like you have no regard for community consensus. Such behavior--even with the best of intentions--only leads to stress and contention.

And at this point, I bid you all a respectful adieu. If I can get my wikistress under control, I may come back to this article, but right now my stress level can only be deleterious to further progress. Justin Eiler 16:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I, Haldrik, followed established procedure. I am acting in good faith. --Haldrik 16:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Justin messaged me the following: "Do keep up the good fight, ... but it would make it easier if you acknowledge other opinions, even if you disagree with them." In response, there seems to be two arguments.

Argument 1 is asthetic. They don't want intimidating technical information in the opening sentence. However, that is the standard format for historical figures described in Wikipedia. If we don't include this information, a future Wiki-editor will eventually come by and include it for the sake of Wiki standardization. It's not acceptable to treat this historical person differently from other historical persons. Arch suggests placing a gap after the technical info, and start a fresh paragraph afterward. This seems a good compromise. In addition to Arch's suggestion, it seems ok to avoid Nonenglish alphabets and give transliterations only. The necessary details can be provided below.

Argument 2 is historical. They hestiate because the primary sources are in Greek, and they may not be familiar enough with the issues to be confident about the Hebrew (not Aramaic) name. However, this scenario is noteworthy but not as serious as some might fear. Scholars who are familiar with the issues know the Greek form represents the Hebrew name, and agree with confidence it is the case for this historical person too.

I can't help but feel that Argument 3 is not an argument but an agenda. For what appears to be a religious motive (primarily from Habad), there are certain contributors who want to do everything in their power to disassociate the historical person from his ancient Jewish context. They don't care what the historical consensus is. They don't care what the archeologists say. It seems they are not satisfied with clearly explaining their minority point of view in a separate paragraph. It seems from my perspective, they feel free to sabotage the historical information from scholars in other paragraphs for their agenda. They have been enormously disruptive to the Wiki discussion. Their activism, as opposed to discussion, reminds me of the disruptiveness of the historicity extremists. The opinion of religious groups should be included, but they shouldn't disrupt other views. Especially when reporting scholarly consensus.

All scholars in Jewish Studies who research the Second Temple Period consult the Gospels and Josephus extensively. They are the primary sources for understaning Judaism between the Qumran and Mishnaic texts. All ancient texts present difficulties for historians (if they are too fact oriented then they have no contextual meaning and if they are too explanatory then their bias poses problems), despite this, these texts are important in Jewish Studies.

We need to treat this historical person like any other historical persons. It's as simple as that. --Haldrik 17:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik, those kinds of statements you keep making about "Habad" (this time in Argument 3) lead me to believe you are not very familiar with Judaism in general, nor with Chabad. Personally knowing the backgrounds of some of the Jewish editors who've been involved in this discussion, I have to laugh at your incorrect presumption, and that's all I'll say. If there's any religious motivation going on in this argument, I'd say it appears to be coming from a Messianic Jew who wants to dress up Jesus in Hebrew names etc to appear as authentically Jewish as possible. For my part, it's academic. I would make the same argument in the Prince William article that "Gwilym" should not be put in the intro as his name, because he's never actually been called that even though he is the Welsh prince and Gwilym is the Welsh name, though I would not be opposed to describing the etymological relationship between William and Gwilym in a separate section. By the way, for others, I'm not sure Haldrik was out of line adding the updated intro, while maybe there wasn't complete consensus, he may have interpreted it as such since the debate seemed to quiet down. I don't think he acted in bad faith adding it. I myself had indicated that his version, if it had to go in was at least at an acceptable point. I still prefer it not be there at all, but if it does go in, it should be that version, since at least the qualification makes it more accurate. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

MPerel, I contrast the attitudes among Habad with attitudes among academically-oriented Orthodoxy and attitudes among Reform. I want to avoid naming names because the activism itself is what matters here, but noting Habad isn't inaccurate. Reform feels the historical context of each Rabbinic text weighs in on its understanding.

By the way, occasionally in my own synagogue, our scholars have held studies on the historical Jesus and the historical Muhammad, pointing out aspects relevant to Judaism. These lectures have been well attended by our congregation! We're not involved in the Jewish-Christian dialogue, but I've been in synagogues that are. Obviously the portrait of the historical Jesus is religiously sensitive. But all the more reason to be historically neutral! I've only met a few Messianic Jews, and so far my impression is they may misunderstand the historical Jesus whose own religion appears to be Judaic, Torah-observant and monotheistic. My own motivation is pure historical neutrality. The nature of history includes weighing the evidence. It's worth noting, Jesus does not intimidate the Israeli scholars - in any way whatsoever! Haldrik 20:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, Haldrik. On your last note re Israeli scholars, I imagine it's likely due to Israeli culture having some insulation from a dominant Christian culture that throws it in your face (in a very misrepresentative way) all the time. The sheer numbers of Christians outnumbering Jews sets the stage for allowing distorted notions of Jesus' Jewishness to dominate, e.g., there tends to be picking and choosing of only the facts about his Jewishness that might validate Christianity. In reality, it is quite probable that Jesus was just an ordinary Jew protesting the Roman state's oppression of Jews like many other Jewish revolutionaries of that time, who would not be very happy about the new religion that sprang up in his name, but you won't see that in this article. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (s.v., G2424) says that Iēsous comes from Yehôshûa‛ / Yehshûa‛ (s.v., H3091). Thayer's is a standard lexicon for Koine Greek. The Online Etymological Dictionary (s.v., Jesus) says the same thing. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (s.v., Jesus (Christ)) says the same thing. So does Smith's Bible Dictionary (s.v., Jesus). So does the Catholic Glossary (s.v., Jesus), as well as the Catholic Encyclopedia (s.v., Origin of the Name of Jesus Christ). So does the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (s.v., Jesus Christ).

Unless one can present a sufficient number of etymological sources (i.e., not OR) to show that the view given in the sources above is not the scholarly consensus, there is absolutely no reason to leave the etymology out of the article. It doesn't have to go in the intro, but it needs to go somewhere. It is not conjecture or speculation, it is the accepted etymology derived from the LXX Hebrew to Greek naming convention, where recorded instances of the Hebrew name are consistently translated by the Greek name. --MonkeeSage 18:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no argument about etymology, only whether Jesus actually went by the name. I don't think anyone is opposed to discussing etymology in a section somewhere. Only the intro is not the place. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There is some arguments presented, besides for whether Jesus went by that name, that the etymology is incorrect see http://www.messiahtruth.com/name.html --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

PinchasC: I'm the one who posted that site in an earlier discussion. I'm aware of it. It presents some interesting information, but it is still OR, since no lexical / etymological source I can find gives any other etymology than the one given in the sources I cited above.

MPerel : I don't care where it goes in. I used to not care if it went into this particular article at all. But then I got to thinking; if we're going to give the Greek portion of the etymology of the English in the article, we should also give the Hebrew portion of the etymology of the Greek (somewhere) in the article. --MonkeeSage 19:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the Greek name should go under the section entitled: ===Historical reconstructions of Jesus's life===

Examining the New Testament account of Jesus in light of historical knowledge about the time when Jesus was purported to live, as well as historical knowledge about the time during which the New Testament was written, has led several scholars to reinterpret many elements of the New Testament accounts. Of special interest has been the names and titles ascribed to Jesus. Jesus is the Greek version of the Hebrew name rendered Joshua in English. It literally means "God saves". Before the J written glyph was invented (16th century), Jesus was written as Iesus in English, as seen in the 1611 KJV Bible.

Historians agree the historical person didn't use the Greek name. Perhaps we should leave the Greek out and only include the Hebrew, which he himself did use. --Haldrik 20:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that this section specifically begins, though incompletely, the etymology of the name of Jesus. I agree that it should go in, but I am opposed to it going in the introduction. As much as we have discussed the first few paragraphs, I find it difficult to understand why someone would knowingly just change it. Further, why not read the entire article before editing so that edits go where it is most appropriate? Storm Rider 19:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as the one who invited Haldrik to this discussion after I noticed his first edit, I think he was just being bold. I cannot say whether or not he was being discourteous. Perhaps he is still learning what a hornet's nest he has entered into ;) Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this territory, folks! No one is going to convince the other side. Why? Because both are right! I hope we can get to what we want in the article and not aruging etomology.

Oh, and please stop talking about other editors. The one grace about this latest discussion is we've not descended to name calling... yet! If you want to do that, run for Congress... or Parlement! 8-) --CTSWyneken 00:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

--CTSWyneken 00:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, let's not put the focus solely on the debate over historical usage. Remember, Wikipedia policy advocates use of common names; and I think the fact that Arab Christians as well as converted Jews commonly use the name Yeshua is enough to warrant its mention in the article. —Aiden 00:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Etymology / Placement

Can we please settle the etymology and placement issues?

1. If the etymology of Hebrew → Greek → Latin → English is the scholarly consensus, then we need to put it somewhere in the article. It is the scholarly consensus. That only leaves the question of placement.
2. So, where should we put the etymology? The standard practice is to put it in a parenthetical after the initial English name (e.g., Jesus (from the Latin Iesus, from the Greek Ἰησοῦς Iēsous, from the Hebrew יהושׁוּע Yehôshûa‛) ). But people seem to be complaining that this clutters the intro. Their problem seems to be with the convention, not this article, but even so...they object to doing it that way. I've suggested an "Etymology" section like the Isa article, but nobody seemed to want that either. So where should the etymology go? It needs to go somewhere.

!!! PLEASE DO NOT BRING UP ANY OTHER ISSUES IN THIS SECTION, SUCH AS: what language Jesus spoke, what form of his name he went by, whether he was a good or bad Jew, whether he really existed, passim !!!

This section is only for etymology / placement discussion. --MonkeeSage 20:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer the intro, but failing that, I think it needs a one-or-two sentence explanation within an existing section. Storm Rider's suggestion (Jesus#Historical reconstructions of Jesus's life) is the best I've seen. I seriously doubt we need a separate etymology section in this main article, when we already have such a section in subarticles. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider's suggestion seems reasonable to me. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually have little problem with the current form of that section, but I would suggest a slight change: can we interlink to the Names and Titles article like so:

Of special interest has been the names and titles ascribed to Jesus.

Would that be alright with everbody? --MonkeeSage 21:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Done --MonkeeSage 22:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Sophia^TalkTCF 22:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK with me. How about others that haven't been by in 12 hrs.? --CTSWyneken 00:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Friends, I must say that I laughed out loud to come back and see positive edits. Of late I have been getting the feeling that WIKI was moving away too far away from me. Please know that each of you impress me and that I am glad to work with you! It matters not that we agree, but that we understand each other's position as we strive to produce articles of excellence. Thank you. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like, dare I say it, consensus. Would someone do the honors of posting it so that this guard dog can go *woof*? --CTSWyneken 10:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

May I add my own "Looks good" before the consensus boat sails? Yoninah 23:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Opening Etymology

I minorly edited the opening etymology to handle the polytonic Greek. It now reads correctly as:

(Greek Iēsoũs Ἰησοῦς)

While the English transliteration can be put after the Greek letters, it is friendlier to place it before it, so readers who are not familiar with the Greek alphabet can know what it means before they look at it (if they look at it). By the way, the most precise transliteration of the Greek includes the "tilda" above the ũ to represent the Greek Perispomeni diacritical mark.

If the opening etymology mentions the Greek form it should also mention the Hebrew=Aramaic form, since that is the form the historical person went by. It's possible to not use the Hebrew or Greek alphabets at all, and just use English transliterations. This is friendlier for readers unfamiliar with these alphabets. Details about the etymology, including the foreign alphabets, the Latin and so on, can be described briefly in a subsection below with links to articles providing a scholarly discussion.

(Hebrew Yēshûa‘ reconstructed from Greek Iēsoũs)

--Haldrik 20:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The standard practice is to put the Greek lettering first, then the transliteration in italics second. And that is not the accurate transliteration. Greek diacritics (in polytonic or monotonic) are not represented in the Latin transliteration by any transliteration scheme I'm aware of (with the exception of the rough breathing being represented by h). The circumflex accent on the upsilon (ῦ) is not represented, and the smooth breathing on the iota (Ἰ) is not represented. The only reason the eta is transliterated as ē is to distinguish it from epsilon, which is transliterated as e, not because of any Greek diacritics. See: Transliteration of Greek into the Latin Alphabet. --MonkeeSage 21:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Unicode added characters in the Latin Extended Additional block and elsewhere to enable scholars to transliterate the Greek diacritical marks. Either way is fine with me tho. Precision or simplicity: both are good. --Haldrik 21:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I suppose you could transliterate with diacritics...but I have never seen it done that way with Greek (a Google search for Iēsoũs only finds Wikipedia and deritives, and one other site). The macron over eta and omega is the only Latin diacritic I've seen used. It would also be somewhat ackward when the accented vowel in Greek is eta or omega (e.g., ἐγὼ egō "I", or ἀμὴν amēn "amen") -- how would one show the macron and the acute accent both? --MonkeeSage 22:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ἰησοῦς Iēsoũs, ἐγὼ egṑ, ἀμὴν amḕn, ὧδε hȭde

However a more convenient Unicode system is:

Ἰησοῦς Iêsoũs, ἐγὼ egồ, ἀμὴν amền, ὧδε hỗde

--Haldrik 23:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Haldrik, I wasn't even aware of combining diacritics for Latin glyphs. BTW, I also like the (Latin) circumflex rather than the macron (Project Helen and Project Gutenberg use it). I continue to use the macron for the benefit of people trying to cross-reference / search for the standard transliteration. --MonkeeSage 01:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, NM, wikipedia has an answer for that too ;) Combining Diacritical Mark -- ḕ ṑ --MonkeeSage 22:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ps. While it is possible to use the extended unicode for transliteration, I still think it is a good idea to stick with the established transliteration schemes, for cross-reference and internet search purposes if nothing else (compare the number of Google results above with this Google search for Iēsous). --MonkeeSage 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud here, but...

1. It seems goofy to me to say "Greek" followed by a transliteration, followed by the actual Greek! I've never seen that done before, and I've been looking at journal articles, theology books, sermons, blogs and so on that give the Greek along with a transliteration for like 6 years now. They always give the Greek followed by the transliteration (whether they are scholastic or amateur works).
2. While I would not be averse to representing the accent Greek diacritics in the transliteration in it ever became a standardized scheme. But currently it is not. Currently the only widely accepted diacritic is the macron (ISO/R 843:1968 :1997 -- though like I said I'm not personally against using a latin-circumflex in place of the macron), and this is seen on the transliteration charts right here on wikipedia. Plus it makes sense why -- it was used to show long vowels in later Latin texts, and both η and ω are always long: the macron serves a dual purpose (differentiation and phonetization). What is more, there may be display issues with the extended unicode codepages like the combining diacritics. AND (perhaps most importantly) it breaks cross-referencing and internet searching to represent the Greek accent diacritics in the transliteration.

For these reasons I maintain that the form of the article needs to be: Ἰησοῦς Iēsous --MonkeeSage 06:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Simplicity or precision: both are good. :) --Haldrik 20:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik has inserted the Hebrew

Moved this section and its subsections to Archive 41. Man that is a long archive! But isn't that where they should go? If not, I trust someone will fix it, and sorry for the trouble. --MonkeeSage 07:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think Archive 41 is long, you should see Archive 22! Since Archive 41 is all about the languages issue, you might also create a separate topic subpage. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)