Talk:Yeshu

Views, sources for article

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)

My point is that many Orthodox Jews consider texts written in the Middle Ages authoritative. That is, a text written by Nachmanides does not merely represent his own views, articulated in a particular place and time. They are views that are considered to have some current authority by many Jews. If you reject Nahmanides as a significant view concerning Yeshu, you are actually rejecting the view of many Jews. You keep insisting on "modern sources" when the real issue is not a difference between modern and medieval views. The issue is the difference between traditional Jewish views, traditional Christian views, and the views of critical (untraditional) scholars. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slrubenstein, modern WP:sources are the basis of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Otherwise the Christianity articles would all just contain the opinions of Augustine and Luther - even though Augustine and Luther are authoritative to many Catholics and Lutherans. But if you have a source that says "many Orthodox Jews consider texts written in the Middle Ages authoritative and therefore accept that the Yeshu references in the Talmud have no reference whatsoever to the Jesus of Christianity." then by all means include it. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. Orthodox Jewish men read the Talmud every Sabbath. Do Catholics read St. Augustine every Sunday? The Talmud is not a modern source if you are asking when it was composed. But it is a modern source if you are talking about when it is used. We are not talking about an esoteric source here - we are talking about something all observant Jews refer to regularly. When they get to the passages on Yeshu, most Jews do not interpret these passages as being about Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Many Orthodox Jewish men learn Talmud every single day - see Daf Yomi. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, Jayjg.

Whether Orthodox Jewish men read the Talmud every Sabbath and Catholics every Sunday is beside the point, the point is that neither is a modern scholarly WP:source for Wikipedia. Currently the lede is POV reflecting Yehiel of Paris rather than modern sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Where in the lead does it say that Yehiel is right? You are fabricating lies again. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What Slrubenstein means is that the lede doesn't "reflect the POV of Yeheil of Paris rather than modern sources", so using that kind of rhetoric isn't helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

It is not "rhetoric" it is a fact sourced and documented in the article. The view of the lede, that "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" is first documented with Yechiel of Paris. Although Slrubenstein in mentioning that "a text written by Nachmanides does not merely represent his own views, articulated in a particular place and time," may have (I don't know) intend to say that the view is not just Yechiel's but also Nachmanides (which may be correct), none of this is relevant for a Wikipedia article. Whether it is Yechiel's view (which it is according to sources in the article) or Nachmanides, these are primary sources, medieval texts, and should not be the basis of the lede. WP:source indicates that content must be from modern reliable secondary sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, is your objection here specifically to the words "or individuals"? Is this what you have been trying to say is "first documented with Yechiel of Paris"? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg,

Well my primary objection is to failure to follow WP:RS.

However yes the plural "or individuals" is particularly egregious since it can only be informed directly or indirectly, by the "theory of the two Jesuses" (Berger 1998) originated by Yechiel of Paris in 1240, possibly (?) followed by Nachmanides at the Disputation of Barcelona, and developed in its most mature form by Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillas in the 14thC. (and yes possibly still supported in 1984 by Nosson Dovid Rabinowich, maybe.

It would still be ridiculous to start the article with "Hava is an individual in Bereshith," but slightly less ridiculous than "Hava is an individual or individuals in Bereshith" In ictu oculi (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I mean about using different words; it would have been much more clear from the start if you had been specific that by "Yechiel's view" you were referring to the idea that Yeshu might be more than one individual. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

Well I apologise if my first statement "It is not "rhetoric" it is a fact sourced and documented in the article. The view of the lede, that "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" is first documented with Yechiel of Paris. wasn't clear that the view of the lede, that "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" is first documented with Yechiel of Paris. But it is clear now. So why is a 13thC view which all WP:RS in the article reject being represented as fact in the lede sentence of a Wikipedia article? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Because that's not what the lede does, and it's not just Yehiel who holds this view. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 29 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)

This article is about a highly controversial figure in Rabbinic literature - it is not just about a name (only you are making it about a name, in part by unilaterally deciding that the article should open with a modern Hebrew dictionary transliteration of a non-Hebrew name). There are conflicting significant views about the meaning of this figure and the stories about him, and there are reliable sources about the meaning of these stories. I think this is enough to justify an article. If we can have an article on Elrond, surely we can have an article on Yeshu. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slrubenstein,

(1) There is a difference between Jesus and Elrond. Elrond only exists in Tolkein, it is immediately evident what the context is. Jesus is mentioned in hundreds of Hebrew texts from the 5thC through Andalusia Hasdai Crescas, Milhamoth ha-Shem, Sefer Nizzahon Yashan, Sefer Joseph Hamekane, Ibn Shaprut, to modern Israel. If we have a text specific article Jesus in the Talmud, Toledoth Yeshu then fine, but if it's simply the Hebrew spelling of the name.... this is English Wikipedia, why does a non-English spelling justify an article?

(2) "a highly controversial figure in Rabbinic literature" I'm sorry but I have to press for a source on this. Yes the identity of "Yeshu" was controversial to Rabbi Yechiel being tortured in 13th Century Paris, etc. but where is the mainstream modern academic source that finds the reference of the Jesus in the Talmud material controversial? I have asked I think 4 times for a source for this. This sounds to me like a fringe view, in academic terms, the sort of thing we would expect in a church/synagogue Bible class pdf on a blog, not in a serious modern academic text, no matter how sincerely many believers today hold to a view of centuries earlier.

Where do you think this material would be better covered? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, the Jesus in the Talmud material is already duplicated there. If this is an umbrella article Jesus in Hebrew language literature, then it would only require a main-link out to Jesus in the Talmud, Toledoth Yeshu, Hasdai Crescas, Milhamoth ha-Shem, Sefer Nizzahon Yashan, Sefer Joseph Hamekane, Ibn Shaprut, etc..... Or if the subject is Yeshu (name) then per Isa (name). In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Make up your mind. Are you saying that the topic does not merit an article, or that it does? You said it doesn't merit an article and I explained why it does - to which you respond with arguments as to why it merits an article. i am confused. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, Jayjg asked "Where do you think this material would be better covered?" to which I answered that:

• the material on Jesus in Hebrew language literature, if it requires a separate article, would be better in an umbrella article Jesus in Hebrew language literature with linkouts to Jesus in the Talmud, Toledoth Yeshu, Hasdai Crescas, Milhamoth ha-Shem, Sefer Nizzahon Yashan, Sefer Joseph Hamekane, Ibn Shaprut, etc.....
• the material on Yeshu (name) (if Wikipedia really has to an article which is a DICDEF) then Yeshu (name) then per Isa (name).

Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is actually more with the (relatively new) Jesus in the Talmud article, which (by title alone) presupposes that Jesus is, in fact, found in the Talmud. Some versions of the Talmud refer to one or more individuals named "Yeshu", and to various other individuals (ben Pandira etc.) which some claim are also references to Jesus. This article is really a better place for much of this material, since it's more neutral and accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

WP:Source please? Which modern scholars say any use of the name "Yeshu" is other than as a reference to Christianity? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're moving the goalposts - the question here is whether the individual spoken of in the Talmud stories is Jesus, which is a different question. And Maier and Meier, for example, are modern scholars who say he is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

With respect, the article is entitled Yeshu therefore the "goalposts" of the article follow the title. The "goalposts" are what is Yeshu, and all the scholarly sources in the article say that the name "Yeshu" is a reference to Christianity (I say Christianity so that no one will misunderstand historical Jesus).

If the article was entitled Jesus in the Talmud then per Maier and to a lesser extent Meier, certainly there are modern scholars who say that Jesus is not in the earliest Talmud mss. (for what it's worth I'm more sympathetic personally to Maier's end of the spectrum than Klausner's, but that isn't the point, Maier and Klausner agree that the name Yeshu is a reference to Christianity (legends in Maier's view, some fact in Klausner's view).

As the article stands the first line of lede is POV - Yeshu is no more "an individual or individuals mentioned in the Talmud" than Hava or Avraham. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You keep changing the words, though, to make a different point. Again, the question here is whether the individual spoken of in the Talmud stories is Jesus - only that. And Maier and Meier, for example, are modern scholars who say he is not. If you want to ask a different question, that's fine, but that doesn't mean you've answered my question. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

Sorry, but please look at the titles of the articles:

Yeshu = Yeshu (name), per Yeshua (name), Isa (name), Jesus (name).

Jesus in the Talmud = Jesus in the Talmud.

If you want to have a discussion about Yeshu (name) have it here.

If you want to have a discussion about Yeshu in the Talmud have it there.

It seems to me that your argument is that this page is not about Yeshu (name) it is about Jesus in the Talmud. Is that your position? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not really. The Jesus in the Talmud article is actually about possible references to Jesus in various Jewish sources, not just the Talmud - the article is either exceeding its scope, or is mis-named. This article is about Yeshu specifically, regardless of where he is mentioned - not just the name, but the stories/details attributed to him. Yeshua is just a proposed Hebrew/Aramaic name for Jesus, nothing more - the article on Yeshua discusses the name, because there are no unique stories or details attributed to "Yeshua". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a deletion of "the historical" from my text above Maier reference?

Following on from the presumably good faith, but still wrong, misrepresentation of Theissen & Merz and P. Meier in the article I unfortunately have to note that the words "the historical", which I thought I added in (?) have gone from "Johann Maier argued that neither the Mishnah nor the two Talmuds refer to the historical Jesus"..... the whole point of Maier's work, as illustrated in the quote from Theissen above, was to argue that the Yeshu passages were late Reaktion to Christian Provokationen, not evidence of a historical Jesus. To remove the words the historical makes it appear that J. Maier believed that the Yeshu fragments refer to "another individual" in support of the unWP:sourced POV of the lede. Historically anyone can understand the significance of the "another individual" idea, it's a defence that presumably saved the lives of a few like Yehiel in 1204 Paris, but the place to document history of persecution is on Christian persecution of Jews, not puff it up as a credible scholarly view in the 21st C. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I went back to Theissen and Merz, and did not where in reference to Maier they wrote "the historical" Jesus but i can check again. 10:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,

Sorry maybe I have confused things - I meant deleted my comment "the historical" from the text, 'before the Maier ref. historical Jesus is my words, supported by what I just pasted in German. Incidentally do you have access to a paper copy of the English trans of Theissen and Merz? Only the German is on Google Books, but I presume you'll find the section heading on Sanhedrin leads you to the same content I pasted in German above. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do. I happen to agree with you, that Maier does not believe that Sanh 43a refers to the historical Jesus and I do not object to the article saying that. But we have to rep0resent Maier accurately. He believes that that there was an original story that referred to some sorcerer, and that later editors of the Talmud added in the reference to Jesus. So Maier has a more nuanced view of the Talmud and of the Rabbis, that this is a composite text that changed over time. To represent Maier then as saying that the Talmud refers to (a non-historical) Jesus is a misrepresentation. He is not saying that "the Yeshu passages were late Reaktion to Christian Provokationen, not evidence of a historical Jesus" He is saying that the passage originally was not about jesus, and it was later altered as a "Reaktion to Christian Provokationen,"

By the way, my copy of Theissen and Merz cite only Sanh 43a, and only Maier. According to your volume, do they say any other passages refer to Jesus? And do they say any other scholars believe they refer to Jesus? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein.

Either way the way that the Theissen quote is presented in this current Wikipedia article, per this Talkpage is a misrepresentation. Maier and Theissen believe that the subject of the article the name Yeshu is a reference to Jesus. Therefore the lede of this article should be changed.

The other comments seem more relevant to the Jesus in the Talmud article, you might want to make them there. Yes the German edition only refers to 1 passage in the Talmud and only cites 2 scholars, Maier and Klausner who both acknowledge that the reference to Jesus is a reference to Jesus. Which again means that the lede of this article is misleading and at odds with sources. As indeed the comment before this ref is misleading and at odds with the source. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Boy do you react poorly to people saying they agree with you! In the meantime, where does Theeissen say that Yeshu = jesus? In any event, this is a view. You cannot represent a view as a fact. Sorry to tell you this, but the world just does not revolve around Jesus! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,

Likewise I'll assume that "Boy do you react poorly to people saying they agree with you!" and "Sorry to tell you this, but the world just does not revolve around Jesus!" are further attempts to generate heat and avoid the sourcing issue. Theissen indicates that Yeshu in Sanhedrin etc is a reference to the Christian Jesus in the source already given at the page number given in the discussion of Maier and Klausner already given. This is now the 11th time I am asking. --- please find one modern scholarly published source with an ISBN to support your view in the lede sentence that any reference to Jesus in any Hebrew text is not related to the figure of Jesus in Christianity. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Theissen indicates that Yeshu in Sanhedrin etc is a reference to the Christian Jesus " I do not see Theissen saying that what are you referring to. In the meantime, stop repeating yourself I know what Maier and Klaussner say; they are expressing their interpretations of the texts which is great, we should include them, but they are interpretations, views. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, Do you not see it because you do not have access to a copy of the book? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I have the book right in front of me. Do you have the book? Where do Theissen and Merz say this? Yes, I have read their account of Maier, and of Klausner, so I know what maier and Klausner say. But you are making claims about Theissen. Where does Theissen say that Yeshu in Sanhedrin is a reference to the Christian Jesus? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As for Maier, you write, "he whole point of Maier's work, as illustrated in the quote from Theissen above, was to argue that the Yeshu passages were late Reaktion to Christian Provokationen" No, this is not hat Theissen and Merz say about Maier. "Naier comes to the conclusion that the name Jesus was inserted only secondarily into the account of the execution of some magician and deviant teacher who by chance had been killed on the eve of Passover." The "Reaktion" (since this is English Wikipedia and we are using English words, why not spell it "reaction") to the Christian provocation is to insert the name "jsus" onto an exiting passage about someone else. So Maier is NOT saying that the Yeshu passages are the "reaction." He is saying the passages are really about someone else. It is only adding Jesus' name that maier says is the "reaction." You keep preaching about sources, but you misquote and distort them. Show a little respect for real scholarship, will you? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,

Obviously Maier says it's an insertion, I have said that 3 times on this Talk page. But finally now you're agreeing with what Maier and Klausner and Theissen say - that the name Yeshu inserted into the text (per Maier) is a reference to Jesus. Why did it take this long for you to recognise what the passage is saying, that the name Yeshu is a reference to Jesus. Now that you have accepted that the name Yeshu is a reference to Jesus can you please restore the lede? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Where did I ever write anything disagreeing about what Maier and Klausen said? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You however did write that, according to Theissen, "the Yeshu passages were late Reaktion to Christian Provokationen." But this is not what Theissen wrote. Do you now agree with me, that you were wrong? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You however did write, "Theissen indicates that Yeshu in Sanhedrin etc is a reference to the Christian Jesus " I still say you are wrong. I have asked you to show me where Theissen says this. You have yet to answer. Apparently you cannot. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And, uh, no, just because two scholars interpret Yeshu to mean Jesus does not mean we can change the lead. You continue to ignore the views of Jewish authorities. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that more than just Jewish authorities say Yeshu in early Jewish literature is not Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

Jewish/Catholic/Hindu primary source authorities are irrelvant. This is an encyclopedia not a synagogue/church/temple pulpit. Provide a modern academic WP:source please.

Jayjg,

Same point: WP:source please. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Maier and Meier, for example. In icto oculi, I know you understand Maier and Meier than others here do, but I don't think it's helpful to pretend that they haven't been raised again and again as counter-examples. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

This is thoroughly painful. Why would you cling to the idea that Maier would consider Yeshu was another Yeshu when Maier says that San43a and 107b weren't even in the original Talmud? If they were references to Yeshu Smith, why would they be added in. Maier says in black and white repeatedly that the name Jesus in the Sanh43a 107b late texts refers to Jesus. Meier follows Maier. I provided these as helps:

Question i: How do you understand the word "redaction" in the following:

the identification of the condemned man as Jesus has nothing to do with that context, and should probably be ascribed, in Maier's view, to post-Talmudic redaction; Jews and Christians p105 William Horbury 2006

Question ii: How do you understand the words "were added later in the Middle Ages" in the following:

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient p108 - 2000 "While Herford was somewhat critical of their accuracy, he seems almost never to have met a possible reference to Jesus that he did not like!70 On the other end of the spectrum, Johann Maier in his Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung has concluded that no genuine Tannaitic or Amoraic references are present, even in the Talmuds when first issued, but were added later in the Middle Ages. 71 Most scholarly opinion falls between these two extremes."

Question iii: How do you understand the word "anonymous" in the following:

Maier maintains that the Pantera stories in Jewish sources were originally about some anonymous second-century figure and tradition attached them to Jesus only much later Jewish responses to early Christians: history and polemics, 30-150 p217 Claudia Setzer - 1994

Question iv, how can the addition of the name Yeshu be "reaction ..to Christian provocation" (Maier, in Theissen) if the name Yeshu is not a reference to the Christian Jesus?

Evidently Horbury, Voorst, Seztzer and Theissen have no problem understanding what Maier is saying.

In ictu oculi (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

New lede following Slrubenstein's acceptance of Maier's argument

Added:

Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) is a name used in Hebrew and Aramaic literature to refer to the Jesus of Christian traditions, although in the opinion of many scholars ref see article refs for Maier, Neusner, Meier /ref some of the earliest references to Yeshu are in fact traditions about other individuals to which the name Yeshu was attached in reaction to Christian provocations. ref Theissen Lehrbuch p88 /ref

I should say I completely expect Slrubenstein to delete what he's just agree with above because his own fixed POV is that there was another individual called Yeshu and he will revert to this when he realises what he agreed above. We will then have a reversal to Slrubenstein's view, and then I will ask for the 18th time for a WP:source. And all this in a WP:Dicdef article ripe for AdD. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say I accepted Maier's argument? Can you even read? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it because there are others who claim that Yeshu does not refer to Jesus. The meaning of the word is not certain. Our article should reflect the range of views, and the introduction should not take the position of any one viewpoint. This is not a reversal to my view (but you give yourself away - obviously you acknowledge that your edits are merely your view). I am referting to a consensus lead that I did not write and that has existed for a long time. The article names people who have provided other views. KG also named a more recent source for you. FInally, as Theissen makes clear, Maier is proposing his own interpretation, there is no claim that this is a fact. It should be presented as a view, not a fact.

Why is it soooo important to you to misrepresent htis view as a fact? I take no position on what is a fact. I think all views belong in the article. I am neutral. But you really are a zealot. Why? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

It is important to represent modern scholarly views as "fact" because that is what encyclopedias do. If we have 70 or so modern scholars who have written on Yeshu (name) in the Talmud and 70 modern scholars conclude that Yeshu (name) is a reference to Christian traditions, that should represented as fact in the lede. That has nothing to do with being a "zealot" or the various other insults you substitute for a WP:source, that has to do with Wikipedia policy that only published views from reliable sources are notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I see your proposal as incompatible with WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

Well yes it would be if the way the Maier ref is slanted in the current article is correct, but it isn't correct as restoring the original full quote and context deleted by Slrubenstein will show. In any case, I have now demonstrated this on the article Johann Maier (talmudic scholar) which hopefully will not be attacked as Maier's refs have been on this one.

Re. "The article names people who have provided other views." - you know my view on this, that primary source medieval texts are not "views" for Wikipedia WP:source purposes and should not be part of the lede, but mentioned in body of article in secondarys sources as history. If my view of Wikipedia policy on this matter is incorrect, please redirect me to WP guideline.

Back to the article

we still have the problem that the article has a conflict:

(POV A) LEDE = Yeshu (name) is not a reference to Christianity.

(POV B) SOURCES = Jesus in the Talmud has no trace of the historical Jesus

As the article (in its reverted state) has text-miswrites misreprsenting Maier, John P. Meier, Klausner, Neusner (and 100% of modern tenured scholars) who present POV B in the footnote refs we have an additional clash between bits of the texts skewed to the same POV A in lede

the identification of the condemned man as Jesus has nothing to do with that context, and should probably be ascribed, in Maier's view, to post-Talmudic redaction; Jews and Christians p105 William Horbury 2006

We still have no single WP:source for the POV A lede sentence, which therefore I have removed under WP:source and replaced with a sentence compatible with the academic secular sources in the footnotes. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Where does the Lede say that the Yeshu "is not a reference to Christianity?"? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

As I said, I will repeat myself:

It is important to represent modern scholarly views as "fact" because that is what encyclopedias do. If we have 70 or so modern scholars who have written on Yeshu (name) in the Talmud and 70 modern scholars conclude that Yeshu (name) is a reference to Christian traditions, that should represented as fact in the lede.

The current lede "Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) is an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature." is taking the "two Jesuses" explanation of Yechiel of Paris in the 1240 Disputation of Paris as a WP:POV and presenting it in the lede despite the fact that it has no modern scholarly WP:source support. So the lede is saying, per Yechiel of Paris, 1240 that Jesus in the Talmud is not a reference to Christianity. This is WP:fringe and should not be the opening lede sentence in an encyclopedia article. I will repeat myself again:

primary source medieval texts are not "views" for Wikipedia WP:source purposes and should not be part of the lede, but mentioned in body of article in secondarys sources as history.

In addition to restoring a view from a medieval disputation as the first sentence in the lede, in your bulk revert you destroyed 4k worth of supporting refs for modern academic views, and de-corrected misleading representation of Maier, Meier and other modern scholars.

I will now ask for the 22nd time: where is your modern scholarly source for the view that Jesus in the Talmud is not a reference to Christianity? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, this is an article about Yeshu, not Jesus in the Talmud, which is a different (albeit obviously related) topic. We've already discussed the fact that individuals mentioned in the Talmud are simply individuals mentioned in the Talmud. I don't think your question is really that relevant; the lede currently makes it abundantly clear than many scholars identify Yeshu with Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

Same again - why doesn't the article Abraham start: Avraham is an individual or individuals .... the only difference between Avraham/Hava/Hillel/Yeshu is that in the case of one of these names Yechiel of Paris said that Yeshu in San43a and 107b is not related to Jesus of Nazareth - which no scholar accepts, yet this article is skewed to presenting this view in the 1st line of lede. Why?

"the lede currently makes it abundantly clear than many scholars identify Yeshu with Jesus." --- Again ALL scholars, not "many" scholars. NO scholar takes the view of the lede that the Yeshu name refers to "individual or individuals" ... hence my asking 24x for an academic source for the lede. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've pointed out below, we know of "Abraham" from English translations of the Bible, which are in turn based on older Latin and Greek translations of the Hebrew original (and often translated directly from the Hebrew itself). Each of these sources tells the identical stories about this individual, but uses a different language. On the other hand, we know of Jesus from Greek texts, and of Yeshu from completely unrelated Hebrew/Aramaic sources, and the sources tell radically different stories about these individuals. These are fundamental differences which invalidate your analogy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

Sorry but what WP:source do you have for: >and of Yeshu from completely unrelated Hebrew/Aramaic sources< ALL academic sources from Maier and Neusner through to Peter Schafer agree that the name Yeshu in Rabbinical literature is not completely unrelated, no more than references to Isa in Islamic literature are completely unrelated to Christianit traditions.

Again this article's lede is POV contradicting the WP:sources. I have asked 25x for a single source saying that the name Yeshu in any Aramaic or Hebrew text is anything other than a reference to Christianity. I am still waiting. While I am waiting, you cannot say >and of Yeshu from completely unrelated Hebrew/Aramaic sources< unless you mean >and of Yeshu (which is completely related) from contexts which Maier considers were orginally completely unrelated Hebrew/Aramaic sources< in which case fine, but then the lede still has to change to reflect modern scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Hebrew/Aramaic Tosefta and the Talmud are works that are not related to the Greek New Testament; they were composed by unrelated authors, writing in different languages, living at different times and in different places, practicing different religions, for different purposes etc. In addition, the lede is replete with "modern scholarship" on the subject. I don't think you are making your point clearly, because many of the things you are writing seem to me to be at odds with simple reality and logic, so I know I must still be misunderstanding you. Can you think of radically different ways of saying what you're trying to say, or making your point? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

1. Sure, the WP:sourced lede sentence I wrote which you deleted. the name Yeshu is a reference to Christian traditions

2. "simple reality and logic" are unWP:sourced. While it may appear "simple reality and logic" to have an article saying "the name X refers to an individual or individuals" we don't normally start an article about a specific name that is only used to refer to 1 individual with such a lede-line. "the name Hava refers to an individual or individuals" for example, doesn't, since Hava only refers to one individual (at least without a surname). In this case Yeshu is even more narrow, since modern scholarship is unanimous that the name Yeshu in 100% of cases refers to Christian traditions. Please do not unilaterally amend the lede to reflect "simple reality and logic" if it is unWP:sourced.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to try different words to make your points, because in your effort to avoid the fact that the Talmud is actually telling stories about an individual (or individuals), you've really painted yourself into a corner with that "refers to Christian traditions" phrase. Should Yeshu, then, simply be a redirect to Christian tradition? Clearly not, since Yeshu isn't actually a "Christian tradition"; rather, it's the name give of an individual (or individuals) who is often associated with Jesus. By the way the Rabsaris article starts "Rabsaris... is the name or title of two individuals mentioned in the Bible." Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

Please believe me that I'm doing my best to chose my words as carefully and distinctly as possible. The choice of the wording "Yeshu is a reference to [Christian traditions about] Jesus" is a necessity since if I say "Yeshu is a reference to Jesus" it may be misread as "Yeshu is a reference to the historical Jesus". It isn't my terminology it's there in Klausner, Meier etc to prevent people misunderstanding. Rabsaris is a title, so that's not really comparable, but yes there are 2 Rabsaris in the HebBib. Just as there are 3 Herods in the NT. 20 Iesous in Josephus and so on. 198,234,200 men called Fred. But there is only one Yeshu in all of Aramaic and Hebrew literature. All uses of the spelling Yeshu (as opposed to Yeshua ben Sira etc) are always, without exception references to Jesus of Nazareth. As all the WP:RS sources after 1900 in the article agree. Plus we now have 1 source Nosson Dovid Rabinowich who may disagree. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And no Yeshu should not be a redirect to e.g. Jewish name for Christian traditions about Jesus because, at least in the opinion of Berger 1998, from Leon Modena onwards there is also an approach to the historical Jesus under the Yeshu (name). Certainly Klausner 1925 Yeshu ha Notzri includes both the Jesus of Christian traditions and the historical Jesus. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

PS > rather, it's the name give of an individual (or individuals) < if one is threatened with death in 1240 Paris, yes. But if one is a Wikipedia editor in 2011, no. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe you're trying to choose your words carefully, I just think you shouldn't get so stuck on particular phrases, particularly when they themselves are confusing (or at least confuse me). I don't think, for example, Roger T. Bekwith is "being threatened with death in 1240 Paris", yet in his Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian (Brill Academic Publishers, 2005, p. 294) he states regarding Sanhedrin 43a "... the rest of the baraita, which states he was first stoned, and that his execution was delayed for forty days while a herald went out inviting anyone to say a word in his favour, suggest that it may refer to a different Yeshu altogether. In Jermias's view (The Eucharistic Words, p. 19) it refers to the Yeshu who was a disciple of Rabbi Joshua ben Perahiah (c. 100 B.C.) and who fled from his master to Alexandria from the persecution of Alexander Jannaeus..." Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

Thank you. This could be the WP:RS that everyone has been waiting for to justify the POV in the lede first sentence. If Joachim Jeremias considers that the name Yeshu refers to a different Yehoshua, then we have our lede sentence, we can say that at least "some scholars", ie. one, consider that Yeshu can be a reference to someone else called Yeshu. Now we need to verify this. Then we can focus the article on his view. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

1. NAME material moved to Name. 2. OCCURENCES of the name structure per Eras of the Halakha

Hi Katowski's Ghost,

I've gathered the material relative to Yeshu (name) to section 1. Can you please have a look that it correctly reflects the sources that you have?

Hi Jayjg,

At the start of Section 2. I've entered a historical template and brief description:

Historically, occurences of the name Yeshu are as follows:

• Tannaim (70-200 CE) the Mishnaic period - no uses of the name Yeshu
• Amoraim (200 to 500 CE) the period of the Gemara, Talmudic commentary on the Mishnah ::- the originality of the mentions of Yeshu in Sanhedrin 43a and 107b in the Babylonian Talmud is disputed. Johann Maier, John P. Meier and Jacob Neusner consider these to be later additions.
• Savoraim (500-700 CE) - the Sefer Nestor Ha-Komer and Toledoth Yeshu may be contemporary with the Savoraim but does not form part of authorative halakha.
• Geonim (589-1038 CE) - in the opinion of Maier the Yeshu mentions in the Talmud belong to the Middle Ages.
• Rishonim (1038-1563 CE) - the Milhamoth ha-Shem of Jacob Ben Reuben 12C, Sefer Nizzahon Yashan or Nizzahon vetus 13C, Sefer Joseph Hamekane of R. Joseph ben Nathan of Paris, and The Touchstone of Ibn Shaprut belong to this period.
• Acharonim (1563 - present)

Given Maier and Neusner's conviction that the Yeshu mentions in the Talmud belong to the Middle Ages, the statement that the Talmud is the earliest use in the lede cannot be assumed. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, "conviction?" Where do they state that this is their conviction? You are refering to usually sound scholars, and professional historians of their caliber are seldom as conclusive as you are claiming they are. Are they saying that this is what they think is most plausible, or are they saying that this is a fact? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,

Saying "wow" is not going to cover for the fact that you have deleted scholarly references which do not agree with Yechiel of Paris, 1240. You have the sources, or have them in the article history before the delete, go read them. Now I ask you for the 23rd time - do you have a single modern scholarly source for the view that usage of the name Jesus in the Talmud is not a reference to Christianity? If you cannot provide a source you should not be maintaining your POV by deleting scholarly sources. Please restore the WP:sources in the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, please stop asking this question, because I don't see it as being relevant. We've discussed the fact that Yeshu is an individual mentioned in the Talmud, just like many other individuals mentioned in the Talmud. We've discussed the fact that Meier and Maier (among others) appear to say this individual is not Jesus, though I understand that you dispute this, and I'm hoping that you'll bring more detail from their work to help clarify this. The lede already also clearly states that many scholars identify Yeshu with Jesus, so NPOV is amply covered. Regarding your concern that "the Talmud is the earliest use... cannot be assumed" the lede already stated that some consider them to be later glosses, but I've changed the lede to now read "The oldest works in which references to Yeshu occur is in some anecdotes in the Tosefta and the Talmud etc.", which I think should cover any remaining concerns about this. Regarding your insertions, please don't add material while simultaneously changing the lede to be about a name (or about Jesus), rather than about Yeshu, at least until we have those sources you were going to bring, and some consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

1. "We've discussed the fact that Yeshu is an individual mentioned in the Talmud, just like many other individuals mentioned in the Talmud." ... well we have but we haven't applied that discussion to this article, we haven't resolved why there isn't a POVfork article on Hava, Avraham:

• "'Havva (חַוָּה in Hebrew and Aramaic) is an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature."
• "Avraham (אַבְרָהָם in Hebrew and Aramaic) is an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature."
• "Moshe ben Maimon (משה בן מימון in Hebrew and Aramaic) is an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature."

Why is it okay to have a POVfork article on the Hebrew spelling of Jesus, but not a Hebrew POVfork on Eve?

2. "please stop asking this question, because I don't see it as being relevant" - I'm sorry but no, absolutely not. WP:POV requires published reliable WP:sources. If we're going to have a lede sentence claiming that "Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) is an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature." we should have at least 1 source other than Yechiel of Paris, 1240. ---- doesn't it concern you that I've asked 23x for such a source and none has been forthcoming?

3. It is not the case that "many scholars identify Yeshu with Jesus," ALL scholars identify the name Yeshu as a reference to Christianity. ALL scholars. This is the point of asking 23x for a source that doesn't.

4. "We've discussed the fact that Meier and Maier (among others) appear to say this individual is not Jesus, though I understand that you dispute this, and I'm hoping that you'll bring more detail from their work to help clarify this." With respect John P. Meier and Johann Maier (talmudic scholar) do not remotely "appear" to anyone who has any knowledge of the historical Jesus debate to say anything remotely of the kind. When someone says, per Maier that the name Jesus is a later addition added in reaction to Christian provocation, how can anyone possibly read that the name Jesus is not a reference to Christianity? This is why I have asked 23x for a source that the name Jesus is not a reference to Jesus. Maier, Meier, Theissen, Neusner, you name it. ALL scholars consider Jesus is a reference to Jesus. NO scholar takes Yechiel of Paris 1240 seriously as a scholarly explanation of the occurence of the name Jesus in Sanh43a, 107b.

In ictu oculi (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, we've already gone over much of this. For example:

1. There is no dispute or question about whether or not the the Hebrew "Avraham" is the English "Abraham", in part because the primary text on Abraham is the Hebrew Bible, of which all others are a translation. However, in this case, the primary sources on Jesus are Greek texts, which use Greek names, and the Jewish sources are later, use different names (in different languages), describe the individuals differently, and the identification is disputed.
2. One needs no source for the statement that Yeshu is an individual mentioned in the Talmud etc., because this is a simple fact - one can even cite the primary sources for this, since no interpretation is required (see WP:PRIMARY). Are you disputing that the Talmud has stories about an individual or individuals named Yeshu? Clearly not, since it obviously does. It is only when one wants to identify Yeshu with Jesus that one requires a reliable source, since they are different names used in different sources. While your other questions may be valid, you are simply focused on the wrong question in this area. You can ask this 22 time or 222 times, but it's simply not relevant, and further questioning on this line won't be helpful.
3. Several scholars (including Maier and Meir) do not appear to do so.
4. When Meier says "As far as Jewish sources are concerned, while not accepting the full, radical approach of Maier, I think we can agree with him on one basic point: in the earliest rabbinic sources, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth. ", that's a very high hurdle to overcome, and I don't think you've done so yet.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

• 1. There is no dispute or question about whether or not the the Hebrew "Avraham" is the English "Abraham" -------- likewise there is no dispute or question about whether or not the the Hebrew "Yeshu" is the English "Jesus"
• 2. One needs no source for the statement that Yeshu is an individual mentioned in the Talmud etc., ------ Your edit currently allows a plural, and if someone added a line to the lede of the Hillel article that suggested there were plural Hillels someone would rightly ask for a source.
• 3. Several scholars (including Maier and Meir) do not appear to do so.--------- Appear to whom? Please give me a source that anyone has read Maier and Meier and thinks that they consider the name Jesus to refer to anyone
• 4. When Meier says "As far as Jewish sources are concerned, while not accepting the full, radical approach of Maier, I think we can agree with him on one basic point: in the earliest rabbinic sources, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth. ", that's a very high hurdle to overcome, and I don't think you've done so yet. ----------- How is (A) "in the earliest rabbinic sources, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth" a hurdle to (B) "the name Jesus means Jesus". i.e. How would "in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth" be a hurdle to (B) "the name Jesus means Jesus"?

Question i: How do you understand the word "redaction" in the following:

the identification of the condemned man as Jesus has nothing to do with that context, and should probably be ascribed, in Maier's view, to post-Talmudic redaction; Jews and Christians p105 William Horbury 2006

Question ii: How do you understand the words "were added later in the Middle Ages" in the following:

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient p108 - 2000 "While Herford was somewhat critical of their accuracy, he seems almost never to have met a possible reference to Jesus that he did not like!70 On the other end of the spectrum, Johann Maier in his Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung has concluded that no genuine Tannaitic or Amoraic references are present, even in the Talmuds when first issued, but were added later in the Middle Ages. 71 Most scholarly opinion falls between these two extremes."

In ictu oculi (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point about the original sources. We know of "Abraham" from English translations of the Bible, which are in turn based on older Latin and Greek translations of the Hebrew original (and often translated directly from the Hebrew itself). Each of these sources tells identical stories about this individual, but in a different language. On the other hand, we know of Jesus from Greek texts, and of Yeshu from completely unrelated Hebrew/Aramaic sources, and the sources tell radically different stories about these individuals. These are fundamental differences which invalidate your analogy. Regarding Maier, what is he saying was in e.g. Sanhedrin 43 before Yeshu was there? Isn't he saying it was a story about an unrelated sorcerer named Ben Pandera? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg,

No, I don't believe I've missed the point about the original sources, and what you say of "Abraham" doesn't change that an article that started "Ibrahim is an individual or individuals in the Quran" or "Abraham is an individual or individuals in the Greek New Testament" would be grossly POV. It would only be countenanced where there was a genuine scholarly debate - such as the possible references to Enoch in the Quran. In the case of the Name Yeshu there is no scholarly debate, 100% of all modern scholars consider Yeshu in all instances in Aramaic/Hebrew literature is a reference to the Christian Jesus.

>Regarding Maier, what is he saying was in e.g. Sanhedrin 43 before Yeshu was there? Isn't he saying it was a story about an unrelated sorcerer named Ben Pandera?< Correct.

So evidently Maier does not support the lede that "Yeshu is an individual or individuals in the Talmud", as far as Maier is concerned the name Yeshu is a polemic reference to Christianity added at a late date in reaction to Christian provocation.

For the purposes of the Jesus in the Talmud article there is not an enormous difference between Yechiel of Paris' "theory of two Jesuses" and Maier's interpolation argument. But here, on the Yeshu article Maier and Yechiel are chalk and cheese, and the article shouldn't be representing medieval POV at the expense of modern academic scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I still think you're failing to acknowledge the point that the English Bible or Greek Septuagint are direct translations of the Hebrew Bible, whereas Tosefta and the Talmud are Hebrew/Aramaic works completely unrelated to the Greek New Testament, and so the analogy simply doesn't work. Now, getting back to Maier, according to him there was/is, in fact, a story told about an individual in Sanhedrin 43, but that individual wasn't/isn't Jesus, but rather a second century sorcerer. Correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

Again I'd need a WP:source that any 3rd-5th C text can be completely unrelated to 1st-2nd C traditions but whether or not the compilers of the Talmud were aware of the existence of Christianity or not is another question and not relevant to this article on the name Yeshu which only occurs in some disputed late Talmud mss.

Re Maier, correct.

Now, on Maier, can you share the consensus I have reached with Slrubenstein that Maier is saying the name Yeshu was a late addition, as "a reaction to Christian provocation"? If you can, then you have no need to revert the lede away from the view of Maier, Klausner, Neusner, Meier, Schafer, etc. that the name Yeshu is a reference to Christianity. If you have a modern scholarly WP:source that suggests that the name Yeshu is not reference to Christianity, please produce it here on Talk for discussion. Please do not unilaterally alter the lede contrary to the consensus we have just reached on Maier above. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The point here is that the various language versions of the Bible are all translations of a Hebrew original (or of each other), whereas the Talmud has almost nothing in common with the Greek New Testament, and thus the analogy doesn't work. Regarding Maier, you know you and Slrubenstein did not reach any "consensus" regarding the lede and Maier, so it is, again, not fair of you to maintain that pretense here. Let's be respectful with each other please. In that vein, could you please answer my question? Is it Maier's view that there was/is, in fact, a story told about an individual in Sanhedrin 43, and that individual wasn't/isn't Jesus, but rather a second century sorcerer? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

Mutual respect might start with not telling me I am maintaining a pretence when Slrubenstein himself said, we agree, and I said we agree, but whatever. Re your question, I surely have answered this nearly a dozen times on this Talk page but yes it is Maier's view that there was in fact, a story told about an anonymous nameless individual in b.Sanh43a with no name, not called Jesus, and that anonymous nameless individual was never called Yeshu/Jesus, but rather was an anonymous second century sorcerer, with no name, who wasn't called Yeshu.?

Please re-read the quotation from Setzer (use CTRL F to scroll find). So how does Maier saying the sorcerer was never called Charles justify the sentence "Charles is an individual or individuals in the Talmud"? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand Maier as saying "there's a story about a sorcerer who is called Yeshu in the Talmud, but that guy isn't actually Jesus". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

At this point further discussion is somewhat irrelevant as you have (I'm tempted to use the word "finally" but won't) provided a WP:RS for the POV that Yeshu can be "individuals" per Joachim Jeremias 1960. Jeremias is a respected academic source although a bit dated today, so my objection, which is that religious convictions with no academic support are not sufficient for the the first sentence is now moot. Now you have Jeremias you do not need a second academic to agree with Yechiel of Paris.

As for Maier, you have read John P. Meier's comment on Maier (which could admittedly be ambiguous if one hasn't read Maier and doesn't understand John P. Meier's terms of reference re the historical Jesus in the textual critical development of the Talmud) but aside from that I have provided above Maier's own words in German "Reaktion", Theissen on Maier, Voorst on Maier, Horbury on Maier, Setzer on Maier "anonymous". Evidently there is no question that according to Maier Yeshu was not originally in B.Sotah47a. Following Maier's own words, Theissen, Voorst, Horbury, Setzer on Maier, two further on Maier below:

Jewish quarterly review: 1982 p79 cf. Maier's proof that the name Jesus was not originally in B.Sotah47a, and was interpolated later from B.Sanh.107b is that Sanh reads Yeshu... wheras Sotah omits Yeshu The interpolation also accounts ... "In regard to Rabbinovicz's statement (cited by Maier) that Haggadol Ha-Talmud, ed. Constantinople, 1511, omits these words, Diq. Sof. to B.Sot.47a (ed. Liss; p. 297) incorrectly cites this work as reading Maier's "

Shlomo Pines Jerusalem studies in Arabic and Islam: 9-10 Universiṭah ha-ʻIvrit bi-Yerushalayim. Makhon le-limude Asyah ṿe-Afriḳah - 1987 The passage is attributed to Eliezer, who lived in the third century, but Maier considers that it is a later interpolation. I believe, pace Maier, that everything points to this expression being used in the passage to designate Jesus

In ictu oculi (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Theissen on Maier and Klausner

In icto wrote "Theissen indicates that Yeshu in Sanhedrin etc is a reference to the Christian Jesus" and I asked where Theissen says this. It has now been over a day and he has still not provided a page number or quote. So this means he has withdrawn the claim. Now that he has withdrawn the claim, I think we can agree that major scholars are diverse enough in their views, that we can move one from this argument about the lead. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,

Have you seen a physical copy of Theissen and Merz' Historical Jesus textbook, yes or no?

Während Josephus ein von Sympathie getragenes populäres Jesusbild wiedergibt, ist uns bei den Rabbinen ein von Ablehnung Jesu zeugendes Jesusbild erhalten. German edition p.83 "On the sabbath of the Passover festival Jesus (Yeshu) the Nazarene was hanged" Theissen English translation p75

The page numbers, German p83-84, English p75-76, were among the scholarly WP:sources you deleted, and the quote of Maier in Theisen p83 continues as Reaktion to Christian Provokation is in Talk above. If you had looked at either the German or English edition of what is merely a chapter in a school textbook on historical Jesus sources you would see that Sanh43a is being dealt with, after Josephus, exactly because the name Jesus is a reference to Jesus. The whole point of Theissen's "historical Jesus" textbook is to examine passages with the name Jesus, as a reference to the historical Jesus. Theissen does not even give mention space to the Yehiel of Paris/Slrubenstein theory that there were two Jesuses. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have the book in front of me. Please stop misquoting it. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

I asked Have you seen a physical copy of Theissen and Merz' Historical Jesus textbook, yes or no? Please answer the question - Have you seen a physical copy of Theissen and Merz' Historical Jesus textbook, yes or no?

Yes

Who is Yehiel of Paris? Where do I say there are two Jesuses? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

Yechiel of Paris in 1240 was the first to claim (as per the lede sentence "individual") that the Jesus in the Talmud is a different Jesus, that the Jesus in the Talmud was not Jesus of Nazareth, that there were two or more Jesuses. cf. Jewish history and Jewish memory: essays in honor of Yosef Hayim 1998. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Where do I say there are "two Jesuses?" Slrubenstein | Talk 22:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

You said earlier that the Jesus in the Talmud is not a reference to Jesus of Nazareth. = 2 Jesuses. But by all means clarify.

Do you consider that the Jesus in the Talmud is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth, yes/no?. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus is not an Aramaic word. The Talmud is written in Aramaic. When you refer to the Talmud, tell me what Aramaic word you refer to, please. I am a scholar and scholars cannot work unless the terms are as precise as possible. Please be precise. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You write, "You said earlier that Jesus in the Talmud is not a reference to Jesus of Nazareth." I do not recall ever saying this. Please remind me where I wrote this. Please do try to top fabricating claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Slrubenstein

Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth?

yes/no? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Inu ict oculi:

Do you believe that texts can mean only one of two things? Do you believe that hermeneutic questions have yes/no answers? have you ever read the work of Gadamer? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Slrubenstein

You are not a text, you are a Wikipedia editor, you should be able to say what Slrubenstein thinks. In view of your deletion of academic sources and your statements on what "many Orthodox Jews" (unsourced) believe, it is reasonable to ask a straight question and get a straight answer.

For the record, my answer, based on Maier, Meier, Klausner, Neusner and every other academic source I have ever seen is yes and I know of no academic source which says no.

So please answer the question:

Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth?

yes/no? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

NOR policy states: "The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles." We are not allowed to put our own views into articles. Therefore, our own views are irrelevant. Why do you want to know what I think? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

NOR policy above means you can't edit your POV into articles, not that I can't ask you in Talk what your POV is.

Why would I want to know what you think? Six reasons:

1. You've been asking my views, and I've been honest and open.

2. You justified your edits thrice with "many Orthodox Jews believe" "Jewish authorities" and so on, leading me to understand that "many Orthodox Jews believe" "Jewish authorities" was your starting point.

3. Because you have provided no source for "many Orthodox Jews believe"

4. Because you have been deleting academic references and provided none of your own.

5. Because it would help to know what you think to understand your opposition to edits opposing the consensus view of all modern scholars that the name Yeshu in the late BTal mss refers to Christianity.

6. Because after 24x requests for a source it is time to ask if the source for your edits is your own POV.

Dear Slrubenstein

Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth?

yes/no?In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Inu ictu: once again you are fabricating lies. You write, "You've been asking my views, and I've been honest and open." Please show me where I have ever asked for your views? Please provide a time code or im possible an edit difference. I do not care what your views are. NOR policy says our views do not go into articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Slrubenstein

e.g. "By the way, do you consider the views of contemporary Orthodox Jews concerning the Talmud and other Rabbinic texts mainstream or fringe?" ... "If you reject Nahmanides as a significant view concerning Yeshu, you are actually rejecting the view of many Jews." etc.

This (plus the reasons I gave above) makes it reasonable to ask for your view.

I've been answering your questions, now please

EITHER

Now 25th time - provide a WP:source

OR

Explain yourself: Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth? yes/no? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In icto oculi, try opening your eyes and reading clearly. NOR states that our views on the topic are not relevant to the article, and I have NEVER asked your view on what you believe about "Yeshu." Never. That is the question you are asking ME< and when I ask you when have I ever asked you your views, I am actually following the line of the conversation, which is, asked you for your views on Yeshu, the question you are asking me, which I think violates NOR. Now, you bring us an example that does not answer my question. Of course I asked you whether you think Orthodox views are fringe! The purpose of this page is to discus improvement so the article. A major way to improve the article is to add significant views from verifiable sources (not our own views, significant views). I asked you if you consier Orthodox views fringe. This is perfectly in keeping with our policies for improving articles, we ought to be discussing what views are fringe and what views are mainstream.

That question is valid for this talk page because it can help us improve the article.

It is the purpose of this page to discuss what views are or are not fringe/significant; what sources are reliable; how best to organize the article. I have been very open about my views on these.

YOU are asking me whether I think Yeshu refers to the Christian Jesus. Since we cannot add our views to the article I fail to see how this information can help us improve the artical.

I ask you again: when have I ever asked you what your views are? Obviously, NOT views on how to improve the article. I mean the views you are asking me. You are asking me if I think Yeshu refers to Jesus or not. Now I ask you AGAIN: When have I ever asked you for your views on "Yeshu?" Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

You have not asked for my views on the name Yeshu you asked > "By the way, do you consider the views of contemporary Orthodox Jews concerning the Talmud and other Rabbinic texts mainstream or fringe?" ... "If you reject Nahmanides as a significant view concerning Yeshu, you are actually rejecting the view of many Jews.".< unquote.

You do not have to answer on your view. But you do have to justify your edits and deletions with WP:sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not mind telling you my views on anything. But the only questions I ever asked you related to specific ways to improve the articles, specifically, which views are significant. Now you ask me a question that seems to go against policy, viz. what is my view. I want to know why you are asking me a question that has nothing to do with improving the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Slrubenstein. I wanted to know because I was seeking to understand why you had made somewhere between 15 to 20 deletes and edits removing sources, reversing text, etc. all in one direction - away from the unanimous academic view that the name Yeshu is a reference to Christianity, towards the view that it is not. If I could understand why you are deleting sources, then that might, eventually, help improve the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it has nothing to do with my personal beliefs about the meaning of Yeshu. I am not like you, I do not go on rampages making sure my personal point of view is presented as facts in WP articles. In fact, I try to edit articles where I can bracket my personal views. You want to know why I made these deletions? Because I know that a view developed in Judaism that Yeshu does not refer to Jesus; being in the Talmud folio itself, it is in a RS, and it is a significant view. So the question of what Yeshu refers to is a matter of interpretation. Theissen and Mertz make this clear and it bothers me when someone quotes some lines from their book of context. Scholarly views need to be presented accurately. In this case, that means presenting the view that Yeshu = Jesus must b presented as a view. This is the explanation. I have reflected on the possibility that I am biased by I concluded that my own views about what Yeshu mean, in my opinion, have not infuenced my editsSlrubenstein | Talk 09:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

>I know that a view developed in Judaism that Yeshu does not refer to Jesus; being in the Talmud folio itself, it is in a RS <

Please see

The Talmud, Bible, Quran are not RS. Neusner, Maier, Meier, Herford, Horbury, Seltzer, Schafer, Steinsaltz, Theissen, Klausner, Hoffmann, Evans, Nickesburg, Charlesworth, Berger, etc. are WP:RS.

My whole position is premised on the view that the Talmud does not "speak for itself." Slrubenstein | Talk 12:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you misread my, I wrote "Talmud folio" not "Talmud." Slrubenstein | Talk 12:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slrubenstein, a Talmud folio, Catholic communion instruction class notes, Quranic commentary from an unnamed Imam, mp3 of a Southern Baptist radio show, notes from a modern Hindu guru, whatever, these are all either primary sources or sources descriptive of a particularly religion. Wikipedia is not a religious blog, it is a secular encyclopedia, deferring to academic sources and encyclopedic content must be verifiable. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Maier on the name Yeshu

In ictu Oculi wrote, "The whole point of Maier's work, as illustrated in the quote from Theissen above, was to argue that the Yeshu passages were late Reaktion to Christian Provokationen" According to Theissen, Maier is not referring to the passage itself. I have asked In ictu to provide substantiation for his claim that Maier is referring to the passage. So far he has not so I interpret this to mean that he withdraws his claim about Maier. I am glad that we can put this behind us. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,

Theissen on Johann Maier (talmudic scholar) dafür, daß es keine einzige rabbinische Jesus-Stelle' au s tannaitischer Zeit (bis ca . 220 n.Chr.) gibt."35 Vielmehr sei der Name Jesu in dem jahrhundertelangen Entstehungsprozeß des Talmud erst sekundär worden, und zwar als Reaktion auf christliche Provokationen, weshalb die Stellen keinen unabhängigen historischen Wert besäßen. Im Gegensatz dazu glauben andere Autoren, zB J. Klausner,36 zumindest einige alte und historisch ...

Just read that - and then answer this:

Does Maier indicate that the name Jesus refers to Christianity or not? yes/no?

In ictu oculi (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You have provided a qote about the name but not about the passage. Where does Maier say that "the Yshu passage" is a reaction to Christianity? This is only about the name. So you don't have any evidence? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

Article Yeshu is about the name Yeshu.

Article Jesus in the Talmud is about Jesus in the Talmud.

This is Talk:Yeshu. So please answer the question:

Does Maier indicate that the name Jesus refers to Christianity or not?

yes/no? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In ict

Article Yeshu is about a genre of Rabbinic stories involving a figure referd to as Yeshu

Article Jesus in the Talmud is a POV fork

This is the talk page for Yeshu and is meant for discussing improvements to the article.

I repeat my question, Where does Maier say that "the Yeshu passage" is a reaction to Christianity? I am quoting you, you made the claim, I want to see you substantiate it - your repeated refusal means that you cannot. I trust that you hav withdrawn the claim. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

Maier says that the Name Jesus was inserted into Talmud as a reaction on p83 in the German edition of Theissen, in the quote already given above which refers to pp219-237 of Maier's German edition.

Now,

I am going to ask you for the 24th time - please provide one scholarly secular reference that the name Yeshu in any Aramaic or Hebrew text is not related to Christianity. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying his claim is about the name? So you are now saying that he was not referring to the passage? So you now admit that Maie is not talking about the passage? Finally? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Slrubenstein

Yes, I have always said Maier is talking about the name in some mss of San43a and 107b.

No, Maier is talking about the passages.

As above I have always said that Maier says that the Name Jesus was inserted into the Talmud as a reaction on p83 in the German edition of Theissen, in the quote already given above which refers to pp219-237 of Maier's German edition.

Did you see this question

Does Maier indicate that the name Jesus refers to Christianity or not?

yes/no? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Now,

I am going to ask you for the 25th time - please provide one scholarly secular reference that the name Yeshu in any Aramaic or Hebrew text is not related to Christianity. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I corrected you a long time ago and I told you that Maier is refering to the word Yshu, claiming it is a name for Jesus (it is silly to "argue" that a name = a name; the whole point of interpretation is to take a text and suggest what it actually means). But don't lie about having "always" said maier is talking about the name, here you clearly say he is talking about the passage. Fortunately for you I have corrected you. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Slrubenstein

Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth?

yes/no? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear In ictu oculi

Do you now agree with me that when invoking Jesus Maier is referring only to the word "Yeshu" and not to the passage?

yes/no Slrubenstein | Talk 23:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Slrubenstein

No.

Repeat:

No. I do not agree with you that Maier is referring only to the word "Yeshu" and not to the passage. Maier refers to both:

When he refers to passages San43a San107b he is referring to the passages (and his conclusion is that they were not originally references to Jesus in the Talmud.

However when he refers to the name Yeshu, he is referring to the name and concludes it was not part of the original texts.

So again, please have the civility to answer the question. Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth?

yes/no? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So, now you write, when he refers to passages San43a San107b he is referring to the passages (and his conclusion is that they were not originally references to Jesus.

So, I repeat my question: Do you now agree with me that when invoking Jesus Maier is referring only to the word "Yeshu" and not to the passage? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Slrubenstein

As before No. as above. Though my main impression here is that you haven't been reading before pressing reply. It's a characterstic of Talk-ers on Wikipedia who don't provide references of their own but simply revert and argue that someone should say "So, now you write," as if you having realised what I've been saying for the last 2 weeks is somehow a change. Let me repeat again: when Maier refers to passages San43a San107b he is referring to the passages (and his conclusion is that they were not originally references to Jesus, as I have said before repeatedly, AND when Maier refers to the name Yeshu, he is referring to the name and concludes (i) it relates to Jesus, but (ii) it was not part of the original texts.

So now,

please have the civility to answer the question.

Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth? yes/no?

Or alternatively, provide a WP:source. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"when Maier refers to the name Yeshu, he is referring to the name" = "when invoking Jesus Maier is referring only to the word "Yeshu" and not to the passage." So you do agree with me. Finally! Thank you very much. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

If you are satisfied that my comment "when Maier refers to the name Yeshu, he is referring to the name" = your comment "when invoking Jesus Maier is referring only to the word "Yeshu" and not to the passage." then we agree. I will now revert the article to reflect our consensus that the name Yeshu is a reference to Christianity. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I don't think this is fair. It's pretty obvious that Slrubenstein is asserting that you are agreeing with him, not the opposite. Changing the lede wording, when I've asked you not to until we work this out, and in particular when all know that neither Slrubenstein nor I have agreed to the change, is not reasonable. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

If Slrubenstein needs to believe "I" am agreeing with "him" fine, the more important point is that we have agreed.

>when I've asked you not to until we work this out, and in particular when all know that neither Slrubenstein nor I have agreed to the change, is not reasonable.<

There comes a point when both your good self or Slrubenstein need to accept what the sources in the article say. Maier has been made the pivot of this Talk, because (a) he was misrepresented by an earlier editor, (b) he I suppose represents the no-Jesus-in-the-original-Talmud view most convincingly in modern scholarship.

I have provided sources, some have been deleted, but we now have agreement that Maier says that the name Yeshu is a late addition, a reaction to Christianity.

I must press you for a source if you intend to remove the academic view from the lede line of article and replace it with an unsourced view. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You and Slrubenstein didn't "agree" at all, as you well know, and certainly not to change the lede in the way you did. I understand you're frustrated, I think we all are, but I am disappointed now too. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

Slrubenstein says we agreed on Maier. Since Maier was the disputed source, that should have allowed Maier's view that the name Yeshu is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth go into the lede.

Yes I am frustrated, but to be honest more with your good self than with Slrubenstein. It became fairly obvious after the 3rd or 4th delete/revert that Slrubenstein will not accept a lede sentence of the article, nor refs, which present the academic consensus that Yeshu is always a reference to the Christian figure. But you are an admin, you should not as an admin be participating in deleting academic references when no alternative view has been sourced, or editing into the lede sentence an unsourced view. Even at this point, we still don't know for a fact that Nosson Dovid Rabinowich is a WP:RS for the modern continuance of Nahmanides' view, though I think Avi is right that he will be. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is also an administrator, and possibly one for even longer than me. Anyway, I'm sure it won't happen again, so let's talk about content instead, and let's try to consolidate discussion into fewer sections, to avoid repetition. Did you see my comments above regarding Beckwith and Jeremias? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes let's talk about content. I've just seen them as you've just added them. Or rather him, since the source is Jeremias and Beckwith is based on this. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC tag

I propose that the lede sentence read "The name Yeshu in Aramaic and Hebrew texts is a reference to [Christian traditions about] Jesus of Nazareth." OWTTE. (per Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus outside the New Testament 2000 ISBN 13: 9780802843685 p124 "This is likely an inference from the Talmud and other Jewish usage, where Jesus is called Yeshu, and other Jews with the same name are called by the fuller name Yehoshua, "Joshua"" and per sources in the article; 3 Hebrew dictionaries, Maier, Meier, Theissen, Neusner, Klausner, Herford, etc.) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose Our core policy: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." In ictu oculi wishes to use this article to promote one point of view as a fact (see her 11:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC) comment).

• As prominent scholars (e.g. Daniel Boyarin and Jeffrey Rubenstein) point out, "Yeshu" is a figure in a genre of stories in Rabbinic literature. These stories were written at different times by different people. According to Boyarin and Rubenstein, their identifying this word as the Christian "Jesus" has to do with their interpretation of the Yeshu stories — and they are clear that these are their own views.
• Maier takes a different view, arguing that the meaning of the name is unrelated to the story, which is actually about someone else. Confused? Yes, it is complicated! What these stories mean is a matter of scholarly debate.
• What the word "Yeshu" means is also a matter of scholarly debate (Most scholars believe that "Jesus" is derived from the Biblical name for "Joshua." In Hebrew, Yehoshuah, in Aramaic, Yeshua (these are the spellings used in the Talmud) .... "Yeshu" is neither a name nor a word in either language. Is it a corruption of Yeshua, or a rare form of this name? Is it an anacronym? this too is a matter of debate).
• Verifiable sources confirm that many do not believe it is a form of Jesus' name.",
• Many Orthodox rabbis argue that the stories have nothing to do with Jesus. Some say it does.
• Most editors know that many topics regarding Jesus are controversial. According to Jesus scholars Gerd Theissen and Annette mertz, Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, but "there is a lively discussion as to whether we should supposed that Jesus spoke Greek." Several Pharisees who lived around the same time as Jesus even had Greek names. When it comes to Jesus we should expect many different views.

This is a controversial topic. This article could be a celebration of our NPOV policy, the best kind of WP article providing different points of view in a neutral framework. The lead sentence presents one view as fact, which makes it virtually impossible to write a coherent article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I've rarely seen such clearly-worded and strong arguments on a complex topic as Slrubenstein has managed above. Basically, what he said. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Slrubenstein

I think you need to show your refs, so statements such as "Verifiable sources confirm that many do not believe it is a form of Jesus' name " - and then the ref Michael H. Cohen A Friend of All Faiths - Page 42 - 2004 "In Hebrew school, one of my teachers had explained that Yeshu (Hebrew for Jesus), rather than meaning "Saviour," in fact was an acronym that stood for yimach shemo ve-zichrono: "may his name and memory be erased " then anyone coming for the RFC can see whether the source qualifies as the view of a modern secular academic. I'd hazard a guess that your source (author Michael H. Cohen's childhood teacher) does not qualify as a secular academic, this only shows that the popular view exists, in this case according to a medieval legend per Apocryphal gospels: an introduction ：Hans-Josef Klauck p213. "An unfriendly interpretation of the child's name is offered: 'But the name Yeshu means: "May his name be blotted out, and his memory too!"' (§ 58). The three letters of which the name Jesus in Hebrew consists, yod, sin and waw," - but that's a description of a 8th century polemic, not a Wikipedia source.

Comment 1

D. Boyarin and J. Rubenstein (no relation) are odd sources to choose since, as can be seen from the below quotes, Daniel Boyarin, Jeffrey Rubenstein agree with all the other academic sources in the article and consider the name Yeshu in the texts where it occurs to be a reference to Jesus of Nazareth:

As we shall see immediately, the authority whom Rabbi Eli'ezer cited was none other than Jesus of Nazareth, who is occasionally styled in rabbinic literature "the pious fool." Dying for God: martyrdom and the making of Christianity and Judaism p104 Daniel Boyarin - 1999 ISBN-10: 0804737045; ISBN-13: 978-0804737043

given the Bavli penchent for paronomasia, my best guess is that the change has something to do with the affinity between the names “Yehoshua” (Joshua) and “ Yeshu” (Jesus), as Joseph Klausner conjectured almost a century ago.58 Having identified the disciple with Jesus due to the association with Gehazi, ... Stories of the Babylonian Talmud p138 Jeffrey L. Rubenstein - 2010 ISBN-10: 0801894492; ISBN-13: 978-0801894497

Comment 2

>Many Orthodox rabbis argue that the stories have nothing to do with Jesus. Some say it does.<

You are welcome to publish the views of Orthodox rabbis if you can please provide author, title, date, ISBN page number:

Our core policy: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

However, this is not a blog, for a celebration of diversity, this is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

Comment 3

>"Yeshu" is neither a name nor a word in either language<

The article contains the refs of the 3 most notable Hebrew dictionaries (Yehuda, Alcalay, Bantam-Meggido) all 3 contain the Hebrew name Yeshu and give "Jesus". The article also contains several other refs which say that in passages where Yeshu appears it is a name:

In the Talmud, this name occurs in conjunction with Ben Stada in b Shabbat 104b and its parallel passage in b ... Not only does this passage name Jesus explicitly, but it gives other information that allows us to confirm Jesus as the subject.Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence 2000 p117 ISBN-10: 0802843689; ISBN-13: 978- 0802843685

In ictu oculi (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Slrubinstein said it better than I could. Regarding many Rabbis arguing, many of those works predate the existence of the United States, let alone ISBN numbers. Gil Student aggregates a number of these instances and the issues with them here, if you are interested. I wouldn't use the angelfire webpage as a reliable source, but the texts he brings (e.g. cf. Tosafot HaRosh, Sotah 47a sv Yeshu, Shabbat 104b sv Ben Stada; Tosafot (uncensored) Shabbat 104b sv Ben Stada; R. Abraham Zacuto, Sefer Hayuchasin 5:6, R. Natan David Rabinowitz, Binu Shenot Dor Vador, pp. 422-425), most certainly are reliable and verifiable sources -- Avi (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  As an aside, Student brings Josephus as referring to twenty different men called Jesus throughout his works, of which, at most, only one could be referring to the founder of Christianity. It was a popular name at the time, and certainly not exclusive to one man. There were scores of different Tannaim and Amoraim named Elazar (it makes learning a blatt Gemara complicated at times); popular names were reused during that time frame. -- Avi (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  Also for in octuli, Student brings some more modern scholars here who state that reference to Yeshu in the talmud does not refer to Jesus. Once again, this and the other website links are not RSV in and of themselves, but should be viewed as convenience links to the sources brought therein. -- Avi (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Avi,

We don't normally present Wikipedia views from religious/sectarian viewpoints - otherwise we could start the article on Hillel with the views of a Muslim, Catholic, a Hindu, a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon. I'm sorry but Abraham Zacuto, 1452-1514 is too far back to be admissable on Wikipedia as modern WP:sources in forming the lede. He would however be relevant if you wish to start a section on historical views further down the article. Ephraim Urbach, "Rabbinic Exegesis About Gentile Prophets And The Balaam Passage" (Hebrew), Tarbitz (25:1956), pp. 272-289. might however be the reference that this article is looking for to balance all the seculars scholars. Does Urbach actually say that he considers the name Yeshu is not a reference to Jesus? Or does he say that the rabbis say it. "Rabbinic Exegesis About Gentile Prophets And The Balaam Passage" (Hebrew), Tarbitz (25:1956), p. 284 n. 56. There's a big difference. Does he argue it or does he say the rabbis do? Can you check this please. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment So, "neutrality" = "discriminating, or taking sides." Finally we have a clear confession from In ictu oculi that she does not respect our NPOV policy and is not going to follow it in her edits. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Avi,

I checked. Sorry but Ephraim Urbach reads that Balaam in Gittin 57 isn't Yeshu. He doesn't say that Yeshu isn't Yeshu.

Ephraim Urbach on Balaam in Gittin 57: "See his article דרשות חז"ל על נביאי אומות העולם ועל פרשת בלעם p281-287, where he refutes a long chain of scholarly opinions (the last being, Lauterbach, supra, ibid., pp. 545ff.) drawing a parallel between Balaam and Jesus. However Urbach tended to accept the anti-Christian sentiments in various rabbinic interpretations of the Balaam episode" Matthew Kraus How should rabbinic literature be read in the modern world? p182

That still leaves this article reflecting a POV from the 13th C, rather than a single modern scholarly source. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to understanding how the Talmud, which is in and of itself a religious work, deals with Jesus, to carte blanche eliminate over 1000 years of reliably sourced and verifiable Talmudic commentary by people who spent their entire lives engrossed in its study and exegesis due to age or religiosity strikes me as foolish. Do we prevent women from commenting on women's issues because they are women? Can we only have the works of people who associate with the LBGT lifestyle be used as sources on heterosexuality? Can only Moslem scholars be used on articles regarding the history of Christian beliefs? Is Thomas Aquinas unable to be used as a source for the state of Christian belief in the time and texts of the 13th century? Of course not. Often, the best people to use are the ones who have made the most study of it. It is arguments such as yours above that often remind me of the, unfortunately somewhat prescient, dystopia set out in E. M. Forster's The Machine Stops, specifically the paragraph describing the lectures (see chapter III [1]). -- Avi (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Slrubenstein. The purpose of an RfC is to seek wider Community input, not to lobby for your POV by bludgeoning the process. Ovadyah (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment In ictu oculi, in response to your comments about how Wikipedia works, you are incorrect. Wikipedia is a mirror and needs to present both sides of an argument dispassionately. The fact that you fervently agree with one side of the argument and think the other side discredited does not negate its existence. To take your metaphor of Hillel, if there was strong argument in RS regarding Hillel that disagreed with the traditional Jewish view, yes, we absolutely should and would have to reflect that. Please see WP:NPOV. --Dweller (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Dweller.

So where's the modern reliable published source?

Ovadyah.

Same point. So where's the modern reliable published source?

Avi,

Unfortunately Wikipedia disregards medieval views, otherwise Wikipedia would have alchemy in science articles. However so far you are the only person who has attempted to provide a WP:source for the reading that today anyone supports the medieval view of (apparently) Nahmanides. Ephraim Urbach turned out to be talking about the name Balaam, not Yeshu, but that leaves Rabbi Nosson Dovid Rabinowich. The question now is, is Nosson Dovid Rabinowich describing the medieval view, or is he looking at the text and saying he considers it is. I expect it's the latter, which would make him the first source in the article which actually supports the lede sentence, and the source I've asked for 27 times. In which case fine, this RFC has served purpose. Can you please supply the original sentence and page number where Nosson Dovid Rabinowich says that the name Yeshu is not a reference to Christianity? This is a serious request. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Soooooooooooo ... I guess that when you requested comments, you didn't really mean that you anted people to comment ... Slrubenstein | Talk 21:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

You are correct, I didn't want comment for the sake of it, I was hoping to attract non-interested editors to come here and uphold Wikipedia policy on WP:sources - however Avi has attempted to do that by providing potential sources. Of which one, Nosson Dovid Rabinowich‎ looks possible. You could help Ari by getting a copy of Rabinowich's book and finding the page and sentence where Rabinowich says that he (rather than Nahmanides) considers that there are two Yeshus, in the Talmud. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The only text I have easy access to is the Tosefos HaRosh (Sotah 47a), a synopsis of which I can verify as being: "that the Yeshu discussed in Sotah is not the one discussed in Sanhedrin who was hanged on Erev Pesach as the latter (Sanhedrin 43a) was contemporaneous with Queen Hilni and close to the destruction of the second Temple whereas the former (Sotah (47a)) was contemperaneous with R' Yehoshua Ben Perachia who predates Simeon ben Shetach." Simeon ben Shetach predates the destruction of the second temple by around 200 years, so the two Yeshu's were certainly different people according to the Tosafos HaRosh. The Tosafos HaRosh was edited by Asher ben Jehiel, which places it in the early 14th century. I still maintain that in an article discussing the intentions and meaning of a 1500 year old document, a 700 year old document is not "too old", especially if it is considered authoritative and written or edited by one of the most pre-eminent Halachic authority and Talmudic scholar, ever. So "Yeshu" is certainly not exclusive to the person known as Jesus of Nazareth, if it means him at all (even 43a is debatable as to meaning Jesus see Student). -- Avi (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Avi

I appreciate greatly that you in the first post, and in this second post are helping the article by bringing a source. I'd be more than happy to see Asher ben Jehiel added to the same section that already contains Yechiel of Paris and Jacob Emden. The problem is that I could provide those myself, and add at least 3 others myself to that historical section - for example Berger (1998) places Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillas (fl.1370s) as the strongest advocate of what Berger calls "the theory of two Jesuses". In fact I believe I have added 14th-16th Century views and they weren't deleted. But again generally, we don't encourage Roman Catholics fill up Wikipedia ledes with the views of St. Augustine, Mormons with Joseph Smith - and even modern views, the current pope, whoever the Mormon high priest is, aren't usually put in the lede. We aim for WP:RS. I'm not 100% certain Nosson Dovid Rabinowich qualifies as WP:RS, but he is apparently Mara d'Asra of Ahavath Torah Institute, so I would suspect he does, and also I'd suspect that his book describes his own view rather than as Berger, simply describing medieval views. Is there a pdf of his book in Hebrew? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that I could find; according to the Library of Congress it seems to be published only in Hebrew in Israel (http://lccn.loc.gov/91826638). -- Avi (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

According to page 5 of Peter Schafer's Jesus in the Talmud (per Amazon preview), he claims that “According to Maier, there is hardly any passage left in the rabbinic literature that can be justifiably used as evidence if the Jesus of the New Testament. The rabbis did not care about Jesus, they did not know anything reliable about him, and what they might have alluded to is legendary at best and rubbish at worst—not worthy of any scholarly attention, at least after Maier has finally and successfully deconstructed the "evidence."” So Schafer claims that Maier doesn't believe that Jesus is credibly mentioned in the Talmud, and with the name "Yeshu" being used, it remains pretty clear to me that we cannot say in the lead that "Yeshu" definitively refers to the Christian Jesus. As an aside, Schafer himself says that his book is based on the "deliberately naive assumption" that Yeshu is Jesus until proven otherwise, not the converse, which obviously demonstrates the perspective of the entire book (see page 7). -- Avi (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Avi

>with the name "Yeshu" being used, it remains pretty clear to me<

Correct, if it's true Maier agrees >with the name "Yeshu" being used<

Please search CTRL F for "Claudia Setzer" on this Talk page. Claudia Setzer expresses Maier's position more clearly than Peter Schafer (possibly because she is sympathetic to it and Schafer isn't, I don't know). Schafer has failed to make clear the reason why Maier thinks there is no clear ref to Yeshu, because Maier has removed the Yeshu passages. Or rather Maier has chosen minority mss which don't have Yeshu. Hence Claudia Setzer describes the sorcerer as "an anonymous sorcerer", because Maier's thesis depends on mss where the sorcerer is anonymous. Which is why Jacob Neusner's edition of the Talmud follows Maier and Meier in omitting Yeshu from the sorcerer passage. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per my many comments on this page, and Slrubenstein's comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Needs Revision,

(1) Should it not be "Yeshu or Yeshu HaNotzri?" (Jesu of Nazareth)?

(2) The various references appear to refer to widely separated periods of history. It's rather clear that at least some are referred to Jesus or refer to him (the probably satirical Sefer Toldot Yeshu, for example, which both refers to Jesus in detail and starts with a Talmudic quote regarding Yeshu), some deny it refers to him, and some probably differentiate between which osurce it is (i.e. several people referred to by that name).

(3) A rather good (almost) modern compilation of Jewish polemic writing on Christianity is J.D. Eisentein, compiler of the encyclopedia Otzar Yisroel (please ignore Wikipedia article; it needs work), Otzar Vikuchim, circa 1900. I have a copy here.

(4) If we do not use medieval writing, there will be little on traditional Judaism in Wikipedia. It works here because it tends to continue to be accepted. Traditional viewpoints are valid among others, as per RS FAQ.

(5) Yeshua is used as a name among Jews who do not live in Christian countries. For one example, see Dear Brothers, Shammai Press.Mzk1 (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mzk1, these are useful comments. On (4) other articles on trad. Judaism I have noticed generally try to give secondary modern WP:RS describing ancient/medieval views rather than direct quoting from ancient/medieval primary sources, which is WP:OR. But this is a problem with all religion related articles. Christian, Islamic, Buddhist. WP can easily become a pulpit citing primary sources and ancient/medieval authorities. In this particular article we still, after all this talk, have an unsourced first sentence as the lede which is (today at least) a fringe religious conviction based on a 13th-15thC polemic defences, and contradicted by the scholarly WP:RS sources in the same article. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed lead sentence. The use of the name Yeshu may well be a reference to Jesus of Nazareth in some or even all cases in Aramaic and Hebrew texts, but this is obviously disputed. It's a perfectly valid POV, and may even be right, but our NPOV is specifically designed to prevent just this sort of preferencial statement. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Restoring the deleted academic refs

Judging by the material on various blogs on American haredi rabbi Nosson Dovid Rabinowich‎ it looks as though Avi may have provided what the article was missing, a modern source who holds (not describes) holds the view of Nahmanides (1194-1270) that Yeshu is not a reference to Christianity. If that is the case, and if it is published in a reliable source, then evidently it should go in the article.

But if we now have a source for a modern ref, there's no need any more to make false claims about Johann Maier and Adin Steinsaltz in the article. Maier and Steinsaltz are currently being represented to make it appear that they support the view that Yeshu is not a reference to Christianity, and sources from them which show the opposite have been deleted. If an orthodox haredi rabbi can be provided as a WP:source for the view of the lede sentence, then there is no longer any need to distort or delete WP:sources supporting the scholarly view. Can these sources now be undeleted? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please quote Maier and Steinsaltz stating Yeshu is not an individual, but rather a "reference to Christianity". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg,

As before, per "Hillel is an individual or individuals in the Talmud," the issue is identification. Maier and Steinsaltz and Neusner identify the name Yeshu is a reference to [Christian traditions about] Jesus of Nazareth. Among the academic references which were deleted here were these 3:

• ref William Horbury Jews and Christians p105 2006 "the identification of the condemned man as Jesus has nothing to do with that context, and should probably be ascribed, in Maier's view, to post-Talmudic redaction;" /ref

We have already included Maier's view, so we do not need to cite someone who simply refers to his view. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• . ref The Blackwell companion to Judaism p157 ed. Jacob Neusner,- 2003 "The Jewish criticism of Christianity began early, disparaging both Jesus and the subsequent religion. Toledot Yeshu, an early parody written in Hebrew, presented an unflattering biography of Jesus. Hebrew chronicles written during and .." /ref
• ref Steinsaltz The essential Talmud - Page 105 2006 "Wherever the Talmud makes derogatory reference to Jesus or to Christianity in general, the comment was completely erased, and the name of Christ was systematically removed, even when the reference was not negative." /ref

Which has a certain delicious irony to it, I add in the ref from Adin Steinsaltz saying that the name of Christ in the Talmud was erased, and then Adin Steinsaltz are erased for saying so, and Jacob Neusner and Johann Maier are erased for identifying Yeshu in Jewish texts with Jesus of Nazareth.

Do you see me erasing religious sources? What gives others the right to erase academic ones? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

SO, you conceed that according to Steinsaltz the Yeshu passages may be references to Christianity and not to Jesus? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Steinsaltz says "reference to Jesus or to Christianity in general" but I think we can safely assume based on Steinsaltz' other writings that he only means reference to [Christian traditions about] Jesus rather than any real historical Jesus, and so, FWIW, Steinsaltz on the Maier/Neusner/Meier side of the spectrum rather than Herford/Klausner. But where he says "name" he evidently means "name." Have you restored the ref? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Steinsaltz is not an "Achranomin" but his is a significant view. I created a new subsection for him and potentially others. I added a basic statement but feel free to expand on it. Have you checked to see how he translates Yeshu into Hebrew or English in his translationss of the Talmud? That itself would be relevant and you should be able to add the information in a straightforward way. Do you have his Hebrew or English edition? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, thank you for restoring the Steinsaltz ref. Can you restore Berger Neusner Voorst Horbury and Setzer too please? No, but I'll have access in about 2 weeks time and can report back. I don't know Steinsaltz' view on textual criticism, he may like Neusner simply exclude it. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I hope you do not mind but I would like to ask Jayjg to put these other citations and views back in. He is a better writer than I am. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, as long as the text above the WP:RS matches up.

We still need a modern WP:RS for the two Jesuses theory in the first line. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You single out "Berger Neusner Voorst Horbury and Setzer." I do not own them. Apparently you do. Can you provide the following information:

• do they attach the name Yeshu to the stories, or like Maier do they think the name is a later interpelation to an older story?
• When, exactly, do they date the story itself, and if they think "Yeshu" was added later, when?
• Do they say that the story (or name - whichever they say) is a reference to:

• Jesus of Nazereth, who preached and healed in the first century?
• Christians in general
• minim in general
• something else? if so, what?

Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, no I don't own them, but I added the academic refs/sources and I would like them to be undeleted. They say in each case what presented with " " in the source. Also in each case they contradict the unsourced OR in the first line of the article lede. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant, if you have taken them out of your library. in any event, can you please provide the information, since you have the sources? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to undelete? Okay I'll add them back in tomorrow, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Before, they were taken out of context and poorly written. I have asked you some reasonable questions. The answers were not in the text you added, in he process making much more majo edits to the consensus version. Now, I am politely and in good faith asking you if you can profide the following information about these views you wish to add: Can you provide the following information:

• do they attach the name Yeshu to the stories, or like Maier do they think the name is a later interpelation to an older story?
• When, exactly, do they date the story itself, and if they think "Yeshu" was added later, when?
• Do they say that the story (or name - whichever they say) is a reference to:

• Jesus of Nazereth, who preached and healed in the first century?
• Christians in general
• minim in general
• something else? if so, what?

Can you please work collaboratively with me? For the views you wish to add, can you please answer the above question? Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, yes the deleted academic references do make clear the above in the quotation marks following the publication year and page number " ". If you restore them it should be evident. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Joachim Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu 1935, 3rd Edition 1960

Jayjg, has found a source which supports the first line of lede, i.e. has found a WP:RS of a modern scholar who considers a use of Yeshu in an Aramaic or Hebrew text to be a reference to another Yeshu than Yeshu ha-Notzri. Roger T. Beckwith cites the 1966 English translation of Jeremias' Eucharistic Words of Jesus, which in Joachim Jeremias says:

Footnote: "On the other hand, as Gustav Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, London and New York, 1922 (ET of Jesus-Jeschua, Leipzig, 1922), 89, rightly supposed, the often quoted passage b. Sanh. 43a (Bar.) : 'on the day of preparation Jeshu was hanged' does not refer to Jesus but to a namesake, a disciple of R. Joshua ben Perahiah (c. 100 bc), cf. b.Sanh. 107b ( Bar.) par. b.Sot 47a. 8 E. Schwartz, 'Osterbetrachtungen', ZNW 1 (1906) Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu 1935, 3rd Edition 1960 / Eucharistic Words of Jesus English translation 1966

So that's it, we have found a source to justify the first line of lede. This changes everything, although this was published in 1935 Jeremias updated this work extensively following the Qumran discoveries retracting some earlier material, so the 1960 edition represents his 1960 position on Jesus having a namesake called Jesus 100 years earlier. I would like to offer my congratulations to Jayjg for sticking with it and having found a verifiable WP:RS to support what, evidently, is not just a medieval view. I would still request however that scholars after 1960 should not be deleted simply because they disagree with what Berger calls the "theory of two Jesuses".In ictu oculi (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's not just Jeremias who says this, of course. For example:

• Roger T. Beckwith, in his Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian (Brill Academic Publishers, 2005, p. 294), concurs with Jermias, stating regarding Sanhedrin 43a "... the rest of the baraita, which states he was first stoned, and that his execution was delayed for forty days while a herald went out inviting anyone to say a word in his favour, suggest that it may refer to a different Yeshu altogether."
• Mark Allan Powell, in Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Westminster John Knox Press, 1998, p. 34) writes "Scholars debate whether there may be obscure references to Jesus in some of the collections of ancient Jewish writings, such as the Talmud, the Tosefta, the targums, and the midrashim". Note, not that "all scholars agree that there are references to Jesus", but rather that they "debate whether there may be obscure references to Jesus".
• Amy-Jill Levine, in The Historical Jesus in Context (Princeton University Press, 2008, p. 20) writes "Similarly controversial is the Babylonian Talmud's account of Jesus' death (to the extant that some Rabbinic experts do not think the reference is to the Jesus of the New Testament!)".
• John P. Meier, in A Marginal Jew, p. 98, writes "... I think we can agree with him on one basic point: in the earliest rabbinic sources, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth." Despite our differing understandings of what this means, we both seem to agree, for example, that Meier thinks that the story about Yeshu in Sanhedrin 43a is not actually a story about Jesus.

Sources aren't "deleted simply because they disagree with what Berger calls the "theory of two Jesuses"". It's not the sources that are the issue, it's the re-writing of the entire focus and meaning of the lede so that it states specific POVs as fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

Please do me a favour and scroll up and look how many times I have been asked specific questions, and I have answered. Then compare how many times I have asked you specific questions and you have answered. Now I'd like you to look at a text and tell me what it means:

"but since he is not mentioned by name"

What does that mean?

Could you humour me plase. What does this statement mean?

As for POV, I think you know my view that secular POVs are facts, while religious POVs are not facts, unless it's in article describing religious belief such as Judaism's view of Jesus in which case primary sources are more acceptable.

Re the above:

• Beckwith is just footnoting Joachim Jeremias, that's still only one WP:RS source in this article supporting what Berger 1998 calls "the theory of two Jesuses." = Jeremias 1960
• Unfortunately Amy-Jill Levine does not say "some Rabbinic experts..!" Do you have any idea who she means by "some Rabbinic experts..!"?
• Mark Allan Powell follows Maier and does not consider the name Yeshu is even in the Talmud so he can hardly be saying that he thinks the name in the Talmud refers to another Yeshu can he? And likewise note that he says "debate whether there may be obscure references to Jesus" not "debate whether the name Yeshu is a reference to Jesus." There is no notable scholarly debate today about Yeshu, all scholars today accept that in the texts where it occurs it is a reference to Jesus. Including Mark Allan Powell.
• John P. Meier, as per refs deleted earlier, clearly says Yeshu is Jesus in Hebrew texts. And anonymous characters in texts which don't mention anyone called Yeshu are not references to another Yeshu. But as above, please I'd like you to look at a text and tell me what it means:

"but since he is not mentioned by name"

What does that mean? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Lighter note

Even The Daily Mail understands WP:NPOV, with its use of "many". Now they just need to learn WP:V and they'll be doing just dandy. Are hacked voicemails "reliable"? --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

I see there are contradictory references to the opinion of Rav Steinzalts (Even-Yisrael) in two sections. Also ,would there be any objects to my adding the opinion of J. D. Eisenstein in Otzar Vikuchim? (I presume a lot of the contradiction is because of ambivalence; whether and when Jesus existed does not particularly affect Judaism, which tends to be more concerned with what he was not than with what he was.)Mzk1 (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mzk1, no objection from me, Julius Eisenstein's Treasury of Debates is a WP:RS, but references should quote in the ref enough of the Hebrew text that we can distinguish what is simply (a) primary source of a 1922 author recording a 13thC debate or (b) secondary source where Eisenstein is saying "and in my scholarly opinion the medieval debater's analysis was correct." In ictu oculi (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)