Talk:Tektōn

"of Semitic origin"

I'm a bit confused by this article's assertion that "Ho Tektōn is an Ancient Greek word of Semitic origin." First, ho tekton isn't a word, it's a phrase consisting of a definite article and a noun. Second, the noun tekton is derived from the abstract noun techne ("skill, craft"), which has a straightforward Indo-european etymology from the root *teḱþ- (see wikt:τέχνη). The references provided here don't seem to support the notion of a Semitic origin.

A more important matter: why should this phrase be the subject of a Wikipedia article? I get that it's used as a description of a notable person, but I don't think we should have articles about every Greek noun/adjective used to describe Jesus (or, for that matter, Socrates, Alexander, or Caesar). --Akhilleus (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This research is quite simply brilliant Akhilleus, well done and thanks. I suggest we introduce the word "possibly" before "semitic" now to dispute that reference and add the following revised text of yours to the end of the lede: "It is a phrase consisting of a definite article and a noun. The noun tekton is derived from the abstract noun techne ("skill, craft"), which may have a Indo-european etymology from the root *teḱþ- ( wikt:τέχνη)."

Now, as for why this phrase should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Firstly, there are approximately 2.2 billion Christians living today, most of whom think that Jesus was highly notable as a "carpenter", having got the wrong impression from a bad translation somewhere along the line. I thought that we should try and explain modern scholarship, and what was originally written in the text for them, in order to help correct a harmful misconception that has been going around for a couple of millenium now.

I would suggest most people who know Socrates, Alexander and Caesar would also know what their occupation was, as that has been recorded accurately, fairly and without bias. I hope you'll therefore understand the rational behind creating this page as the revision of this concept has now become notable in three good sources. Even if one is slightly incorrect about the Semitic origins. You are welcome to change all that part at your leisure to correctly reflect your obvious expertise on the subject. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 10:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw that a link was added from Saint Joseph to here.

• As Akhilleus said there is no point in having a definite article before the noun in the article title. I was in fact pretty surprised to see it that way.

• Regarding WP:Note, I think it should be in Wiktionary, rather than here.

And it is explained in the other articles anyway, and is also the occupation of Joseph, etc. I would not have built a page for it, but will not bother doing an Afd either, but would have voted delete in the Afd. History2007 (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It is expressed as Ho Tekton because this is the rendition in the Gospel of Mark. This is the earliest and therefore most reliable source for the usage of this phrase with later renditions possibly being subject to some form of Literary forgery in my opinion. I have explained my argument about notability above giving consideration to Wikipedia:DUE#Undue_weight. Good suggestion about Joseph though, he was another notable Master of the Crafts that deserves mention for those who might be surprised to know exactly who he was. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 12:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, this is just taking up time explaining the obvious here. In the Saint Joseph article I had to clean up the addition of "he was a ho Tektōn"! Please carefully look up the terms you are building pages for, if not familiar with the subject, so others do not have to clean them up later. History2007 (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw that In ictu oculi corrected the page now to just say Tektōn, etc. In ictu knows the topic better than myself, so I will just leave it to him. But really Paul, do be careful with these obvious things, for when I first saw the page saying "Ho Tektōn is an Ancient Greek word" I just chuckled as I remembered you know who saying: "One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Vice President, and that one word is 'to be prepared'"... So just accept the page move so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

LoL at those Tomatos, or is it Potatos? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Just need noun as the page name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved, since there's no objection. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Ho Tektōn → Tektōn – Page name does not need the relative pronoun "ho" when defining the noun Tektōn (τέκτων) itself. History2007 (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I would think this is a speedy technical move. We never have "The" for an article about a common noun. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support with condition and word of thanks to In ictu oculi that we don't change the text about the notable use of "Ho Tekton" in the Gospel of Mark as per my argument above. Loving your work as always oculi. Cheers.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi Paul, thanks, and thanks for the barnstar, very kind indeed. I don't think there'd be any need to remove "(ho)" from "(ho tekton) in the quote from Mark if that's your concern. But I don't really see how the definite article is that notable in that sentence. Grammatically you couldn't say "is this not a carpenter the son of" as the sentence is definite, "xx the son of" requires a definite article. Anyway, it doesn't affect the title, so that's fine. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, a fine sensible discussion for this time of night. My hunch is that the phrase is actually a combo of Greek loanwords that has both Indo-European and Semitic origins. The particular usage in the Gospel of Mark being unique, although echoed in Matthew. I had a link for the Semitic origins, but suspect it might have got lost somewhere in all this traditional linguistic expertise. If it were in Irish you could have said "is this not Ollamh Érenn, the son of", which in my opinion was a similar title to that recorded in Mark. It may even have similar roots. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ho tekton, an unremarkable noun phrase meaning "the craftsman", is hardly unique to Matthew and Mark; it's in Plato Cratylus 389a7, b2 and Republic 597b9, Aristotle de Anima 416b1, b2, Epictetus, and others. Paul, do you understand what a definite article is? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That is evidenced by the fact that 90% of the page is now about the NT, for outside the NT the term is totally pedestrian. Even the use in the Septuagint is nothing spectacular by any measure. I still think this fits in Wiktionary, not here. History2007 (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoa horsey! You are correct History in some points, but what Akhilleus just said there is really, really fascinating. You really are a mine of useful information. I know what a definite article is, but I don't know how the term was used in those contexts and should go look them up. Notable works with great potential for further research on this article imho. Great job. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Laurence Gardner

Is Laurence Gardner and his alternative history not WP:Fringe? Gardner was a stockbroker - they are generally not known as historians but hopeful futurists. A. N. Wilson is also no scholar and wrote for the Observer, Evening Standard, etc. So why have them if they are not mainstream? Vermes is a scholar, and does not have fringe ideas. The other two do. And Dawkins is no linguist he just quotes people. History2007 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi H2007, understand your concern. Totally WP:Fringe yes, but there has to be some source for the way the naggar idea has grown since Vermes wrote in 1983. I've tried to add in scholarly sources re whether there is really any possible similarity between the craftsman found in Avodah Zarah 50b and the tekton of the NT (and Septuagint). It's pseudo, incredibly pseudo, but it is notable, and more people read the Daily Mail than Aramaic lexica. Probably drop Gardner as too ridiculous, Da Vinci Code level stuff, but Dawkins is presenting Vermes as orthodox fact, so it's worth having there as a peg alongside the Talmud itself. In the meantime I think leaving the stuff there presents a rounded portrait of what is in Google Books. Vermes is/was a bit prone to fringe btw, I don't think anyone who touched the DSS in the first flush was untouched by a bit of lightheadedness. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

We could make a bundle on this my friend, and leave Dan Brown in the dust: A new book that says that anyone who touched the DSS was somehow cursed into having hallucinations and the lightheadedness eventually resulted in paranoia, etc. I knew of Allegro, and of course Eisenman. But if we can package Vermes into that it will be great. Tentative title: The Curse of the Dead Sea Scrolls. You can be the first author, since it was your idea, but I want 50% of the royalties. And then think of the movie... And if we can show likely scenarios that by linguistic analysis Allegro discovered that genealogies of Eisenman, Vermes etc. make them descendents of the opponents of the Teacher of Righteousness, and that they were cursed for misinterpreting his teachings, it will really fly...

Anyway, I will touch it up later, start with Vermes, then lead to the others, and call them non mainstream too. Or you could do it anyway, so I will wait for you, then edit a little. History2007 (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ha, that was perhaps a bit of an unfair comment on my part, Vermes is about the best for the 1970s/80s on the DSS. As for Vermes nagar comment, it needs some light from Jastrow. He.wp just has "carpenter" as the meaning. You go ahead. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I know, I was just kidding of course, given the far out positions of Eisenman, etc. History2007 (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"artisan/craftsman"

I tweaked the opening by adding "craftsman" and links to read "artisan/craftsman". - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.180.52 (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)