Talk:Yeshu

manuscripts and the reliability of Dennis McKinsey

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

Both authors seem to be partially wrong, the Florence manuscript for example ommits completely the mention of Yeshu in the beginning of the Sanhedrin 107b reference, no Yeshu and no Notzri, but it does have "Yeshu Ha-Notzri" in the end part. The manuscript can be viewed online here Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

He has an entry Dennis McKinsey which doesn't seem either notable or reliable. And the article's mention of him isn't even sourced to his own works. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Is jesus the only one mantioned there?

is he the only preacher wich the talmud remainds?, or there are other preachers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.106.25 (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Rubenstein and Boyarin

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

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

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

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

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

Huh?

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

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

Boy, do you not understand liberal scholarship. No matter. NPOV is all that matters, we include even views you do not like or understand. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Balancing points of view

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

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

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

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

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

• For Hebrew speaking people, a website called ישו הנוצרי and ישוע הנוצרי —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.191.143 (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Could use some improvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laible and Herford

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

Contradictions

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

I see your point and I am working on it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Iesat Nassar

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

Accuracy

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

You changed the lead to say that Yeshu refers to Jesus in anti-Christian accounts. This may be so, but many scholars do not say this, it is only one view among several. The consensus lead does justice to the range of views; your edit pushes your own view.

You also added an unverified tag to this line, "However Eisenmenger's book against Judaism was denounced by the Jews as malicious libel" without providing appropriate justification for the tag.

These changes are not editorial or minor, they represent your efforts to impose yor own POV on the article. These are not copyedits, and to characterize them as copyedits is disingenuous. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Good Stuff

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

Merge with Jesus in the Talmud?

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

Schaefer interpolation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can anyone supply some sources?

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

Looks like most of these citation tags are nonsensical asking for citations for statements describing what is plainly in the source under discussion e.g. asking for a citation that Miriam the daughter of Bilgah is not connected with Mary in the Talmud - this is simply describing the reality that the source under discussion which makes no such connection. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that common knowledge needs no sourcing, plus, no one tries to prove the negative. Miriam is a pretty common name; a sourc should be required only qhen claiming that a particular Miriam is Jesus' mother. I did not think Bilgah was the name of Jesus' grandfather. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

KurGhost: I respect your opinion, but I have found some material in this article that was factually incorrect, so in accordance with WP:Verifiabilty, I am challenging the uncited sentences. The WP:Verifiabilty policy says: "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed". So if you could help provide citations, it would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The challenge has to be reasonable. It is not enough to disgree with the article, one must have reason to believe it is wrong. You say you have encountered factually incorrect mteriall - this is a strong reason to request verification. But it is not enough simply to add the citation tag; can you tell us why you consider the material factually incorrect? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say "one must have reason to believe it is wrong"? WP:CHALLENGE is quite clear. --Noleander (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Since when is it every unreasonable to ask someone for a reason? One must have reasons because that is the definition of "reasonable." Are you saying you have no reasons? Are your tags arbitrary? If you do have reasons, why is it so hard for you to explain them? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Burden. --Noleander (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, I asked you what your reasons were, politely and in good faith. you didn'g give them. I asked again, and you still will not give them. i can only conclude you have no reasons. If you have no reasons, there is no burden on anyone. I know WP:V quite well; you might want to read up on WP:Citation overkill. You might object that that is an essay not a policy but then if you want policy I would say: see WP:Ignore. You are wasting your time wikilawyering. If you want to talk about how to improve this article, do so in good faith. When someone asks for reasons it is simple curtousy to give them. That is, if you have any. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My reasons are stated at the top of this section: "my research shows that some of the unsourced sentences are factually incorrect, so I'm a bit skeptical about them in general". It has been standard practice to supply citations, especially in complex topics like this, since around 2005. An editor added a lot of unsourced material to this article in late 2009. I'm challenging that unsourced material. See WP:CHALLENGE and WP:Burden. The burden is on the person that is adding or restoring material to provide sources. Don't turn it around. Do you have sources for the uncited material? If not, it will be removed. --Noleander (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Slrub: Have you been able to find any sources for this suspect material? Three months notification is plenty. See WP:V, WP:Burden, etc. --Noleander (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The passages you are deleting name the sources, they provide th names of the books and in some cases page numbers. What you are removing is straightforward description of the text. If you want to be consistent, go to the Jesus article and remove the entire section on the Gospel accounts of Jesus - that too is a straightforward summary of a source. Why haven't you deleted that? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

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

This is a valid example, and I think it is appropriate to add the citation needed. But this is not representative of what you are deleting. You deleted long passages attributed to Rubenstein and Boyarin, whose books are provided in the bibliography. You deleted passages in which a page of the Talmud is provided, and a rief account of what it says is given - the citation is in the sentence itself, one need only look at that page of Talmud. You are deleting huge amounts of content, and what most of it has in common is that it is either a plain account of what the sources say (when necessary specifying the edition), or what Jewish scholars have to say. Do not delete content. If you think more precise information is needed, go out and do some research to find the additional information - that improves the encyclopedia. But to delete content that is attributed is unwarranted. You claim that such material is questionable without ever providing any reasons or evidence to support that. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about this section: "The original Aramaic for her name is Miriam megadela neshaya in which many[who?] see Mary Magdalene. Some[who?] have thus identified her with Mary Magdalene while others[who?] are more cautious merely suggesting dresser of women's hair as a possible meaning of Magdalene alternate to the traditional understanding of the name as a toponymic surname (Migdolit, from the town of Migdol).[citation needed]". Is there some attribution in the article that Im not seeing? --Noleander (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Here too I think the citation needed tag is appropriate. Look, I do not think that these tags are entirely unjustified or unconstructive. I do think you or others have been overzealous in adding them often in cases where they are inappropriate or unjustified. Perhaps I have been oversealous in removing them, but if so i apologize as i have tried to be careful. I appreciate your now taking this one-passage-at-a-time approach. In the above passage i know that it is a fact some have suggested Magdalene is from Migdol. I do not know who. So keeping the passage but keeping the citation needed tag makes sense.

My main objections are two: first, you were deleting very straightforward accounts of primary source material where the citation was provided in the text (the name of the masechet and the daf) - deleting such material is entirely unjustified. Second, you were deleting material where there was attribution but the page number was missing. In these cases I think it is justified to ask for the page number (but the standard is, put the request within the citation, not after it), but it is very wrong to delete the material since it provides valuable and verifiable content. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and what we need at this article is more people doing research, not more people deleting substantive and verifiable content. Finally, there are passages where I would fully agree with you that citastin needed tags are appropriate and justified. But here too i would distinguish between ones that make relevant claims where we probably should not cut them - much better to wait until Wikipedia grows and attracts more people interested in this topic and willing to do research who can investigate this - this is after all the whole gamble behind a "wiki" pedia, that someone else's research will begin where mine ended, that collaborations will add valuable content ... if we cut them, the content is lost forever and a future editor willing to do some research in order to help the encyclopedia won't even know where to start or what to look for - and then passages that really seem fringe and unverifiable and should be cut. Do you see, i just distinguished between four kinds of cases, only one of which I think merits deletion. In short, i agree that some stuff should be cut, but you seemed just to be hacking away, cutting much important, in many cases verifiable, and in some cases fully attributed, material.

i am a firm believer in people collaborating to do research. So i think one test should be: If this passage really is true (i.e. comes from a verifiable source), does reading it teach me something I did not know before, that is relevant to thte article? If so, add the citation needed tag, fine - but don't cut it - give someone who really wants to help the project a chance to help. Let another volunteer editor look for the source, or the page number. Three months is not enough time to let pass. If this were an article on Sarah Palin I would say 3months is plenty of time because thousands read that page and dozens are constantly working n it. But Wikipedia's resources are not evenly distributed. Thousands of people do NOT read this article each day and we do not have dozens of people working on it. Right no no one is working on it. Maybe one person a year wil spend a few days working on it. So the number of volunteers who work on the Sarah Palin article in three months might not be met for this article for several years. Sad, but true. But under thsese conditions one must allow a lot more time for volunteers to come by and offer to do the necessary work. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I repeat for the third time: since around 2006, the standard for all new material in WP is to include good footnotes for all material, especially material in complex articles like this one. An editor added tons of material to this article in 2009 without citations, and no one said a thing (it was not on my watchlist at the time). I've investigated some of the new, unsourced material and found it to be wrong. I'm now applying the WP:Verifiability policy. The burden is on editors wishing to keep the material to find the sources ... see WP:Burden and WP:CHALLENGE. If you want to open a report at WP:RS go ahead, but I'm certain that the outcome will be that sources are required. --Noleander (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I repeat for the gazilianth time: you cannot delete material just because you do not like it. I have been referring to sourced material that represents the mainstream view. I do not object to your removing unsourced conjecture and I never have. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

added POV tag

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

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

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

I find the words "skeptical" and "liberal" to be subjective, but critical Talmud scholars I know of all reject claims that Yehu in the Talmud refers to the historical Jesus. I do not know the literature on the Toledot Yeshu. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't see the issue here.
2. "Virtually all"? Source?
3. Where does Toledot Yeshu do this?
4. Why do you assert this is "fringe"? Source?
5. The material is presented chronologically, as happens in many articles. Why is that a POV issue?

Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The POV tag is pretty well justified. A merge tag might be called for too. Why is this article separate from Jesus in the Talmud? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jesus in the Talmud was formed after this article, and as a POV-fork - I think that the article should be deleted as a POV fork but as I have contributed to this article I am involved.

The main argument for keeping Jesus in the Talmud is that this article covers other sources - notably, Toledot Yeshu. Also, some texts in the Talmud that some believe refer to Jesus use other terminology (e.g. ben Pandera). But the vast majority of texts, even in the Talmud, taken to refer to Jesus are texts that use the name "Yeshu."

In the cited passages, "skeptical" and "liberal" are words favored by another editor, Kuratowska's Ghost, to refer to secondary sources. These words refer to theological differences. Personally, I think that the important distinction in secondary sources is between religions and non-religious, i.e. critical, scholars. And the facgt remains that the overwhelming majority of both Jewish religious sources and critical (non-religious) sources say Yeshu and ben Pandera and other stories do not refer to the historical or Gospel Jesus, although several critical scholars do believe these stories are about Jewish-Christian relations. Does this help make things clear to uninvolved editors?

Is it time for an RfC? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, thanks that's a clear and sensible answer to my question. If there is a RfC on this or any related topic where there are attempts being made to improve WP sources/NPOV, feel free to let me know by talk. In the last 12 months I've become increasing aware that any Wikipedia article where early Jewish-Christian "origins" intersect seems prone to OR/primary sources/synthesis/fringe and some articles read more like a fringe church blog than an encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Mark 2:1-2 ??

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

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

Yeshu in translations of the NT into Hebrew

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

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

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

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

Removed reference to Jesus in the Talmud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

Re the NT references, as I said "It's generally recognised that "of fornication" and "a Samaritan" relate to accusations against Jesus' parentage" per D. A. Carson, F. F. Bruce, Leon Morris etc. and this connection is not WP:synthesis but is WP:sourced per e.g. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1995 p992 "And in Jn. 8:41 Jesus' opponents insist, "We were not born of fornication." Here "we" (Gk. hemeis) is emphatic, ... of Celsus that the Virgin Birth was invented to cover up Mary's adultery with a Roman soldier (Contra Celsum i.28.32)."

Re "I do not have to prove that Yeshu is not Jesus, or that ben Pandera is not Jesus - the whole reason Wikipedia is based on the principle that our threshold for inclusion is not "truth" but "verifiability" is to enable us to avoid this silly kind of argument --- perhaps I should make it clear that you do not get to use bold caps to me, or talk to me in this manner, and you do not get to dismiss refs such as Carson, Bruce, Morris or indeed the The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1995 above as "silly" because they are new to you. (You can apologise at this point if you realise you overstepped the mark, and want to continue to talk peer to peer) The only reason I am asking you if a modern scholar shares your view is because you cited rabbis at the disputation of Tortosa as a source, which is neither modern nor objective given Spanish history. If I was a rabbi in 14thC Spain I'm sure I would say the same thing. This is one reason why we depend on modern sources.

Re the Talmud, that's more or less what I thought, though I'm by no means that familiar with the subject, but by quick exposure to the mainstream sources it seems that no mainstream scholar departs from the view in the article, per Peter Schäfer, Perelman Professor of Jewish Studies and Professsor of Religion at Berlin, etc. etc. that some of the Jesus refs in the Talmud are dependent on the Jesus of Christianity. I was simply asking you of any moderns that don't take this view, it appears not, so the article(s) should reflect that.

Thanks also for this comment from my Talk page: I am not sure how interested you eally are in this topic, but if you really are interested, I highly recommend this website: http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesus.html which tells you the mainstream Jewish interpretations of many of the texts Christians cite. It also provides the original text in Hebrew/Aramaic with a literal translation. I have looked at it and the translations are reliable. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC), In answer I'm not really that interested, I consider this a fringe subject, but that's no reason to see more fringe and unsourced content build up on these pages. And thanks for the translations - my own Hebrew was learnt half-heartedly as a teenager and is nowhere near good enough to verify that the translations are reliable without a lot of dictionary work, but I'm sure you're right, the problem is that other than as an entertaining link from a Talk page comment, fine, it has little utility as the translations are not sourced. Though it does provide 2 useful sources: Johann Maier, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Uberlieferung (Ertrage der Forschung 82; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978). which apparently takes the "radical position" that the "Jesus of Nazareth" etc. content in the Talmuds are interpolations, which doesn't in itself challenge Schäfer's view that the texts are related to the NT, and Ephraim Urbach, "Rabbinic Exegesis About Gentile Prophets And The Balaam Passage" (Hebrew), Tarbitz (25:1956), pp. 272-289. which the blogger reviews as "debunking the theory that Balaam is a talmudic codeword for Jesus" which given the lack of NPOV in the blog may or may not be a reliable review of Urbach's book, though Urbach's conclusion would follow R. Travers Herford who specifically says Balaam is not a codeword (p69), FWIW. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Dictionary entry, lede

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

Does Alcalay's dictionary provide Yeshu or Yeshua or both? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, rather than just the page number it would be how the reference looks and which spelling it lists first, for example: "Jesus, pn. ישו In ictu oculi (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it is just "Jesu, L ישו" and the L is explained on one an unnumbered page of abbreviations at the front of the dictionary. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I expected, since Yeshua is only used by Israeli Christians so wouldn't be in a secular dictionary. I will restore the wording in the lede. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Then it is important to include that it is also the transliteration of the Latin Yesu. It would be misleading for this article to imply to readers that these dictionaries are claiming that the Gospel Jesus's Hebrew name is Jesus. They are transliterating a name in Latin and modern European languages into hebrew. I am restoring some of the earlier language. I do not mind if you change it as long as your change communicates this distinction clearly. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You've edited in "Yeshu' (ישו in Hebrew) is the spelling of the Latin Yesu and the name Jesus in modern European languages, provided by Hebrew Dictionaries and widely used in modern secular Hebrew." but evidently Ben Yehuda and Bantam-Megiddo don't give the "L", which you're saying above is an etymological abbreviation used by Reuben Alcalay. It might well be true - though in the case of Andalusia some Hebrew works mentioning Jesus were first written in Aragonese or Catalan so "L" might not always be true. Why is it important to have Alcalay's etymology from Latin in the first line of the article? I actually don't strongly object, but not sure about the reasoning or not having it in a more normal place. Re "It would be misleading for this article to imply to readers that these dictionaries are claiming that the Gospel Jesus's Hebrew name is Jesus." This isn't misleading since Ben Yehuda, Alcalay, Bantam-Megiddo's spelling is found in rabbinical texts from Andalusia, North Africa, and modern era Hebrew prior to Delintzsch and Salkinsohn. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Re "Although there is no direct evidence, all scholars believe that Jesus's Hebrew or Aramaic name was a word that is translated into English today as Joshuah." doesn't the article already mention this in an etymology section? .......not that I really understand why Wikipedia needs an article on the Hebrew spelling of a name anyway. This is DicDef stuff and the content here is mainly duplicate. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, do you consider the views of contemporary Orthodox Jews concerning the Talmud and other Rabbinic texts mainstream or fringe? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If a modern author has published according to WP:source criteria with an ISBN, date, and page number saying for example "the Yeshu references in the Talmud have no reference whatsoever to the Jesus of Christianity" then whether he is tenured academic, an orthodox rabbi or a reform rabbi, or anyone else would not make any difference to the availablity of a modern secondary source. At this point I have no objection to you providing a published modern WP:source for this view from anyone. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Thinking more broadly, what is this article about that is not covered in other articles? And why does a name in Hebrew need an article in English wikipedia? Likewise why does Yeshua need an article? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)