Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:10, 6 May 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: What should this article be named? A1: To balance all religious denominations this was discussed on this talk page and it was accepted as early as 2004 that "Jesus", rather than "Jesus Christ", is acceptable as the article title. The title Christ for Jesus is used by Christians, but not by Jews and Muslims. Hence it should not be used in this general, overview article. Similarly in English usage the Arabic Isa and Hebrew Yeshua are less general than Jesus, and cannot be used as titles for this article per WP:Commonname. Q2: Why does this article use the BC/AD format for dates? A2: The use of AD, CE or AD/CE was discussed on the article talk page for a few years. The article started out with BC/AD but the combined format AD/CE was then used for some time as a compromise, but was the subject of ongoing discussion, e.g. see the 2008 discussion, the 2011 discussion and the 2012 discussion, among others. In April 2013 a formal request for comment was issued and a number of users commented. In May 2013 the discussion ended and the consensus of the request for comment was to use the BC/AD format. Q3: Did Jesus exist? A3: Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information. Q3a: Is "virtually all scholars" a phrase that can be used in Misplaced Pages? The issue was discussed on the talk page: Based on this Misplaced Pages search the phrase is widely used in Misplaced Pages. The definition of the term virtually is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary in clear terms. The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus. Q3b: What about asking on the reliability noticeboard? Yes, people involved in the page can discuss matters, but an independent opinion from the reliable source noticeboard can further clarify and confirm the sources. An outside opinion was requested on the noticeboard. The outside opinion there (by user:DGG) stated that the issue has been discussed there many times and that the statement in the article (that virtually all scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed) represents the academic consensus. Q3c: What about the books that claim Jesus never existed? The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed at length on the talk page, e.g. a list of over 20 such books was addressed in this talk page discussion. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that: Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the non-self-published authors on the list were found to just write popular books, have no academic position and not scholars, e.g. Christopher Hitchens. Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. Tom Harpur holds that Jesus existed but mythical stories were later added to the gospel narratives about him. The analysis of the list thus indirectly shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus. Q3d: Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves? The formal Misplaced Pages guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Misplaced Pages guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states the "academic consensus". Q3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead? A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to to have that issue clarified. And note that the statements regarding existence and other attributes need to be kept separate and stating that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was from Galilee" would not be accurate, because scholarly agreement on existence is much stronger than on other items. Q4: Are the scholars who study Jesus all Christian? A4: No. According to Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God (2014, ISBN 978-0-06-177818-6, p. 187), "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian". However, scholars of many faiths have studied Jesus. There are three aspects to this question: Some of the most respected late-20th-century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus (e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen) are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book Soundings in the Religion of Jesus, by Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 978-0-8006-9801-0, p. 132). While much of the older research in the 1950–1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field, The Historical Jesus in Context, by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan (2006, ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6), is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. The Muslim Reza Aslan wrote the number-one bestseller Zealot (2013). Regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, the article lead quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover, G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based – although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book Can We Trust the New Testament (pp. 49–50). While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global. It is misleading to assume that Christian scholars will be biblical literalists who cannot engage in critical scholarship. Catholic and non-Evangelical Protestant scholars have long favoured the historical-critical method, which accepts that not all of the Bible can be taken literally. For example, the Christian clerics and scholars Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn all argued in their scholarship that Jesus did not claim to be divine, Conrad Hyers, a Presbyterian minister, criticizes biblical literalism: "Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty." Finally, Misplaced Pages policies do not prohibit Buddhist scholars as sources on the history of Buddhism, Jewish scholars on Judaism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc. Q5: Why are some historical facts stated to be less certain than others? A5: The difference is "historically certain" versus "historically probable" and "historically plausible". There are a number of subtle issues and this is a somewhat complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first: Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion. A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" – some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization. More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc. As the article states, Amy-Jill Levine summarized the situation by stating: "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate." In that statement Levine chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciples" instead of followers there would have been serious objections from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of "gathered", there would have also been objections in that some scholars hold that Jesus preached equally to all, never imposed a hierarchy among his followers, etc. Scholars have very specific positions and the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, e.g. follower to disciple or apostle, etc. Q6: Why is the infobox so brief? A6: The infobox is intended to give a summary of the essential pieces of information, and not be a place to discuss issues in any detail. So it has been kept brief, and to the point, based on the issues discussed below. Q6a: Was Jesus Jewish? Yes, as mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. An RfC at the Village Pump says to include religion in the infobox only if it's directly related to the subject's notability and there's consensus. Some editors want to include his religion in the infobox and others do not. With no consensus, the default is to leave the religion out of the box. Q6b: Why is the birthplace not mentioned in the infobox? The question came up in this discussion and there is no solid scholarly agreement on Bethlehem, so the infobox does not address that. Q7: Why is there no discussion of the legacy/impact of Jesus? A7: That issue is inherently controversial, and has been discussed on the talk page for many years (see, e.g., the 2006 discussion, the June 2010 discussion, the November 2010 discussion). One user commented that it would turn out to be a discussion of the "impact of Christianity" in the end; because all impact was through the spread of Christianity in any case. So it has been left out due to those discussions. Q8: Why is there no discussion of Christian denominational differences? A8: Christianity includes a large number of denominations, and their differences can be diverse. Some denominations do not have a central teaching office and it is quite hard to characterize and categorize these issues without a long discussion that will exceed the length limits imposed by WP:Length on articles. The discussion of the theological variations among the multitude of Christian denominations is beyond the scope of this article, as in this talk page discussion. Hence the majority and common views are briefly sketched and links are provided to other articles that deal with the theological differences among Christians. Q9: What is the correct possessive of Jesus? A9: This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's. Do not change usage within quotes. That was decided in this discussion. Q10: Why does the article state "ost Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ...?" Don't all Christians believe this? A10: Misplaced Pages requires a neutral point of view written utilizing reliable scholarly sources. It does not take a position on religious tenets. In this case, the sources cited clearly state "most", not "all", Christians hold the stated beliefs, as some sects and persons who describe themselves as "Christian", such as Unitarians, nevertheless do not hold these beliefs. This was agreed upon multiple times, including in this discussion. References R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49 Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024. Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26. Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

	Jesus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2013.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 17, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 3, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 3, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept October 6, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 15, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 14, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 27, 2006 Peer review Reviewed April 21, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 21, 2007 WikiProject A-class review Approved July 12, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted May 5, 2013 Good article nominee Listed May 28, 2013 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited August 15, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Royalty and Nobility / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Jesus / Theology / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Jewish / Anglicanism / Latter Day Saints Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Jewish Christianity (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bahá'í Faith High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ancient Near East Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece: Byzantine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force. Template:Vital article

Other talk page banners

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013. Caitlin Dewey (6 November 2015). "Demon cats, helicopter escapes and crayon colours: The most fascinating Misplaced Pages articles you haven't read". National Post. Retrieved 10 November 2015. Omer Benkajob (27 April 2017). "Why Jimmy Wales' WikiTribune Won't Save the News". Haaretz. Retrieved 30 April 2017. Richard Cooke (17 February 2020). "Misplaced Pages Is the Last Best Place on the Internet". Wired. Retrieved 27 February 2020. Archives Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137 Obsolete subpages Cited Authors Bios Christian views in intro Scribes Pharisees and Saducees Dates of Birth and Death Historicity Reference Comments, PR, FA Sockpuppets Languages Spoken by Jesus Historical Jesus Related articles Rewrite Topical archives 2nd Paragraph Debate This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Midnight inquest before High Priest, Morning arraignment by the chief priests and elders, trial before Pilate and Herod

This is important and currently missing from the article, it shouldn't be reverted. If my "English" is bad, fix it instead of reverting WP:PRESERVE, WP:PARTR.

The synoptics concur that early the next morning, the the chief priests and elders gather and decide to arraign him before Pilate.  Only in Luke's account is there an investigation, in which the ask Jesus if he is the Christ, to which he responds "from now on, the son of man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." They ask if he is therefore the son of God, and he responds, "you are right in saying that I am."  They then take him to be tried by Pilate for sedition.Jaredscribe (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Also there is no (good) reason to revert the inclusion of the Jewish law on the conduct of capital trials:

The Sanhedrin was a Jewish judicial body, and the talmud's Sanhedrin (tractate) 32a reads: Hebrew: דיני נפשות דינים ביום וגוםרים ביום‎, lit. 'In cases of capital law, the court judges during the daytime, and concludes the deliberations and issues the ruling only in the daytime'.

Jaredscribe (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

1. Matthew 27:1, Mark 15:1
2. Luke 22:66-71

Have you considered editing the Misplaced Pages in your native language? Misplaced Pages:Competence is required#Responding to suspected lack of competence.--Moxy-

WP:PRIMARY: in the way you’ve worded it you should use a secondary source. (E.g. “The Synoptics concur”, particularly but not only, because one is missing; and “Only in Luke”. Even if corrected it still should be secondary. again on the Sanhedrin point, a secondary source should be used to clarify the relevance (context and historically) to Jesus. DeCausa (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

There is very good reason not to include what became Jewish law re the Sanhedrin trial. Apart from the WP:OR aspect of wedging in primary source material into what is a paraphrase of another corpus of writings, the Jewish laws find their classical formulation in a much later period. They may be authentic reflections of what was the case centuries before (though we know many cases were they are not), but only a solid academic secondary source citing those laws in the context of the synoptic mention of a trial can provide the technical warrant for such inclusion. Whatever Sanhedrin (tractate) 32a states, Moses Maimonides, the highest authority on Jewish law, still maintained that a figure who appears to be identical to the Jesus of the gospels, was put to death by a beth din on Passover eve, which your edit suggested was impossible in law. It's for reasons like this that editors should not fiddle around inserting original research. Everything here requires a quality source apposite to every point in the narrative.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The Mishna (which is quoted here) was written down in the same period as the gospels, and transmitted orally even earlier, and this one was accepted as is by later authorities. For example, according to Maimonides his "classic formulation" of Jewish law, the Mishneh Torah - which as Nishidani observes would be probably the best secondary source, He quotes that mishna Mishneh Torah: The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 11.1 "A capital court must convene during the day and conclude during the day... A capital court may acquit the same day, but if they judge guilty they must wait for the following day (to announce the verdict)" I quoted the Talmud instead, because it is a source roughly contemporaneous with the gospels, which are quoted in this article. But I'll go ahead and quote Maimonides instead. Yes, he did assume that Jesus had been tried and found guilty by a Jewish court, but there is no evidence that he ever read the gospels (which were suppressed by the Roman church at the time, not available to non-clergy to read). Maimonides was judging not the historical Jesus, but the Jesus of faith as represented by the church who declared himself God and abrogated the Torah. Although the historical Jesus represented in the gospels did neither of these things, he would have been a heretic if he had done them, and in this sense Maimonides judged correctly. But none of this is relevant to the point of whether "Caiphas's court", or the morning "council" as depicted in the gospels conducted a trial according to Jewish law.Jaredscribe (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is this relevant? According to both the talmud and Maimonides - and despite the Jewish antipathy toward the Jesus of faith, the council that arraigned him in the morning before Pilate would not have been a lawful "sanhedrin", but by that body's own laws it would be rather an unlawful assembly. Even more so the midnight inquest at Caiphas house where he was supposedly tried for "blasphemy". I'm sure I'm not the first scholar to observe this. This is not to deny the historicity of the account - they could have been breaking the law. Supporting that theory, its also well known that the high priests who condemned him were Sadducee heretics and Roman collaborators - Caiphas had been installed by the roman procurator, according to Josephus. (I added this fact to the article) The house of Annas is depicted elsewhere in the talmud as oppressing the people. In no way can the Jewish people as a whole, or the Pharisees (who later defended Paul in the sanhedrin) by held responsible for the crimes of that "council", if it can even be called that. But instead of making this clear, the article makes every insinuation otherwise. It misrepresented the talmud on Yeshu, and I corrected that. Not even close to WP:NPOV, before I got here in 2021. More like anti-jewish propaganda of medieval quality. By the way, WP:Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If this is what you are trying to convey (and I’m not making any comment on that one way or the other) you should definitely not be doing so via primary sources. You need to support your edits with secondary citations. DeCausa (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The Mishna (which is quoted here) was written down in the same period as the gospels, and transmitted orally even earlier, and this one was accepted as is by later authorities.

No. You are playing fast and loose with dates, which should not be devoured like the fruit, but masticated carefully. Judah ha-Nasi's redaction of the Mishneh occurred approximately a century after the final form of John's Gospel (putting aside the issue of last chapter of Mark, which is only attested for around 180 CE). The 'authorities' we accept are contemporary scholars of early Judaism writing according to the methodologies of modern historiography.

Secondly, the bolded part is question-begging, in repeating the Talmudic gloss that it was organized by Hillel the Elder, whose floruit is roughly contemporaneous with the putative date range for the birth of Jesus. All this overlooks the fact that such texts, like the Gospels over their 50 year span of tinkering, were constantly reworked from several distinct oral and written traditions (like the Tanakh itself), and what we get with Judah ha-Nasi's recension is the final arbitrated form. Take any one passage that appears to attest to an historical datum, like the events at Yavne, and scholarship will give you a huge range of commentary outlining various theories for the date of composition, or the reliability as an historical datum for the events referred to, of this or that element. So your problem is using an orthodox set of takes on the primary text, and ignoring the scholarly analyses of these books. That is why you need a secondary source linking the Sanhedrin tractate to the putative event recounted in the synoptics. I'd help you with my copy of Joel Carmichael's Death of Jesus (1963) which, from memories of reading it 56 years ago, used such details to challenge the veracity of the Gospel account. But at the moment, I can't find it where it should be in my stacks.Nishidani (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

What if the dates are sundaes? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

98.114.254.117 (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Jesus Christ birthplace is believed to be Bethlemen.

 Not done: This has been discussed numerous times on the Talk Page. See archives. Bethlehem is mentioned as Jesus's birthplace according to the gospel nativity accounts, but few if any reliable extrabiblical sources support this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Birth

Jesus birth and death dates are out of line with most scholars. Jesus birth was 4 B.C - 6. B.C. and death was A.D 28- A.D. 30 (of course B.C.E and C.E should be used in line with guidance.) TheeFactChecker (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Going by the notes in the infobox, what is stated about birthyear there seems similar to what you say. On death, you'd need some good sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It just seems odd that the death is marked as disputed but not the birth, when both the birth and the death have a margin of error. TheeFactChecker (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The margins of error are different though - the death is not "30 to 33" but "30 or 33". And no - the guidance says we should use BC/AD. StAnselm (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid established encyclopedias and most articles say born from about 6 B.C - 4.B.C (check britannica) and that is a bold claim to say 30. A.D or 33 A.D as any time from 30.A.D -33.A.D is better as you are arresting that he could only have died on those 2 dates, which is less plausible. TheeFactChecker (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• asserting TheeFactChecker (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll go further: it was either April 7, AD 30, or April 3, AD 33. Those were the only two years where the Passover fell on a Saturday. See Chronology of Jesus StAnselm (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Note also that reliable secondary sources are generally prefered over WP:BRITANNICA when availabe. On this topic, they are available (not saying I know what they are). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I really don't know how to put references in but even the wikipedia article chronology of jesus says 4-6B.c with 5 references "on this basis, assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC." TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

On adding references, try WP:TUTORIAL. It's a very good skill for a WP-editor to have. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand your other point about death (but this section is mainly about birth, hence title) TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

John P. Meier (1991). A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, v. 1; The Roots of the Problem and the Person, ch. 11, ... "A Chronology of Jesus Life," pp. 373–433. Anchor Bible Reference Library.
Dunn, James D.G. (2003). "Jesus Remembered". Eerdmans Publishing: 324.
D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo & Leon Morris. (1992). An Introduction to the New Testament, 54, 56. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Michael Grant. (1977). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, p. 71. Scribner's.
Ben Witherington III. (1998). "Primary Sources". Christian History, 17 (3), 12–20. TheeFactChecker (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

There's also Date of birth of Jesus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes but these 5 references prove that Jesus was born between 4 - 6 B.C. I believe it is unbalanced to have 30 or 33 A.D for his death, but no range for birth. TheeFactChecker (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Right, but we have two reliable sources saying the consensus of scholars is for 4BC. Having that with a "circa" in front of it is adequate for the infobox. StAnselm (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Why then not just put a.d. 33 as his death date then. I don't get the inconsistency of Misplaced Pages articles. TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Because there is no consensus in choosing between 30 and 33. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Jesus in Islam in the Lead ¶

I was about to make two changes that I thought were non-controversial, but as soon as I opened the edit window I saw the warning, so I'll pitch them here first, & then toss in a third potentially more controversial change. The final ¶ of the lead section currently has the following:

In Islam, Jesus (commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's important prophets and the messiah… Muslims believe Jesus was born of a virgin, but was neither God nor a begotten God. The Quran states that Jesus never claimed divinity… Muslims do not believe that he was killed or crucified, but that he was physically raised into Heaven by God.

The bold marks points where I'd like to change the wording:

1. (often referred to by the Arabic name `Isa): Isa is not a transliteration of "Jesus"; it is a transliteration of عيسى, but what's important in the context of the sentence is its contrast with the name used in the title of the article—not the distinction between Latin script & the unmentioned Arabic script. Another possibility would be (often referred to as Template:Lang-ar).
2. …nor begotten of God: There's a redundancy in referring to Jesus as a 'begotten God' in the context of this ¶ that obscures that there are two key points: First, that Jesus is held by Muslims not to be divine (already addressed earlier in the sentence); second, that he is held not to be the son of God. It is true that Muslims hold that Jesus is not a begotten god, but he was begotten so this phrase as it stands adds nothing but confusion.
3. Most Muslims do not believe…: This one may be more controversial. There's a minority position within both Sunni & Shi'i Islam that Jesus was in fact crucified, & an even less common position that he died on the cross. (Dr Ali Ataie has a fascinating lecture on this topic for anyone who's interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09-JthSnyic. The lecture in part summarises Todd Lawson's The Crucifixion and the Qur'an, which would be an appropriate citation for this sentence in the lead.)

Please let me know if you object to these changes. Pathawi (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. These all sound like helpful changes, and I have no objections. StAnselm (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I also concur with these changes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pathawi: Good points!

1. Yes, "transliterated as Isa" is incorrect, and should be replaced. However, "Arabic name" also isn't entirely accurate, since Arab Christians call him Yasūʿ (يسوع, the Arabic WP has articles on both the former name and the latter). Most accurate would be often referred to by his Qur'anic name ʿĪsā.
2. Your point is absolutely correct, but I think nor begotten by God would be clearer?
3. Yes, but this would need an explanatory footnote to go along with it. Ideally, we should also like to refer to some more sources than Lawson alone. Perhaps something useful may be found in Islamic views on Jesus' death and in Jesus_in_Islam#Death? This whole question of Islamic docetism is fascinating, but also rather complex, so tread carefully.

Finally, please hold in mind that for every change in the lead, the section Jesus#Islamic needs to be changed too, which especially in the case of 3. may prove to be a bit of a challenge. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 03:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Fine with all these modifications. I suspect 'begotten of' came to my mind because it's the consistent KJV wording & that of the version of the translation of the Nicene Creed used in the church I grew up in. It's antiquated language that doesn't need reproduction in this context; in fact I think the simpler 'nor a son of God' might be preferable. I like your choice of 'Qur'ānic' over 'Arabic': I had struggled for wording to accommodate the naming difference between the faith traditions, but ultimately decided it was unnecessary detail for the lead. Your suggestion is preferable. I don't think the section changes should prove all that challenging. Pathawi (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the "begotten of" formulation is an artifact of the 4th-century Christian controversies over the nature of Jesus' divine substance, but those are of course largely irrelevant in the Islamic context, where it is not just consubstantiality but rather Jesus' divinity itself which is denied. Nevertheless, the term "begotten" has remained central to the Islamic discourse, which tends to speak in terms of God not begetting anything (e.g., in al-Ikhlas) rather than of him not having a son, and since God definitely created Jesus in the Islamic view, the denial of begettal could and probably should be read as a denial that Jesus (or anything really) proceeds from God. On the other hand, while the Qur'an tends to be concise and call prophets by a single name, Jesus is most often referred to as Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus the son of Mary), which clearly functions to stress that he was 'just' the son of a human being. But what is perhaps more relevant here is that the formulation nor a son of God may be clearer to the lay reader than nor begotten by God. Anyways, I think you can just proceed with your proposed changes, which definitely constitute an improvement. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 15:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Thanks for making the first two changes. I was going to give it a week to see if anyone else weighed in. I still will on the third. Pathawi (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Pathawi, I very much admire your patience, but I fear that I could not wait for so long. I worked a whole day and a whole night on preparing new content for the Islamic views on crucifixion, so I just put it in. Any comments are of course very welcome! Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 04:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Jesus's name is originally in Hebrew and to be congruent with other names on Misplaced Pages that are not native to English, the following edit should be made to align with the rest of Misplaced Pages.

Change "Jesus (c. 4 BC – AD 30 / 33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ" ->

To "Jesus (Hebrew: ישוע;‎ c. 4 BC – AD 30 / 33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ"

For reference:

"Adi Shamir (Hebrew: עדי שמיר‎; born July 6, 1952)" Aidani123 (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aidani123: Check the superscript note right next to his name. The Hebrew version is right there. I've left your request unanswered in case anyone else thinks this would be a helpful change. I'll happily do it if a rough consensus emerges. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's common practice to put original language names in the lead, and there's not really a good reason to hide it away in an explanatory footnote here. Perhaps what previous editors were thinking was that beginning the article with three foreign language names (Greek, Hebrew and Arabic) would be a bit long and distracting, but actually the Quranic name ʿĪsā is derivative and is also mentioned later in the lead, so we could leave that one out, and just have something like:

Jesus (Template:Lang-grc; Template:Lang-he), c. 4 BC – AD 30 / 33, also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ,

I removed the wiktionary link for the Greek name (Ἰησοῦς) and the link to the article on the Hebrew name (Yēšūʿa) to avoid a sea of blue, but these should then perhaps be inserted in the etymology section. I also specified a label to have it say "Greek" rather than "Ancient Greek", to avoid the overlong "Template:Lang-grc". Any thoughts? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 02:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm okay with this suggestion. There's a part of me that doesn't like the translations hiding behind a note like that. If nobody objects I'll make this edit tomorrow. If you don't feel like waiting for more input and go ahead and make it sooner, I'll not object. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I did a search of the Talk archives as it struck me that this must have come up before. It is common to include original language names in the lead, but far from universal (check out Saint Peter & Christopher Columbus—literally the first two I tried). If I could summarise the gist of past arguments, it's been something like: 'Jesus probably spoke Aramaic in daily life. Jesus probably knew Hebrew. We can surmise that his name was or was equivalent to Hebrew/Aramaic ישוע, but maybe he went by Hebrew יהושע. In any case, the name in the sources that we're drawing from is actually Ἰησοῦς. The Hebrew/Aramaic surmisal is reasonable, but as an assertion it amounts to original research unless we peg it to a secondary source.' It seems like that should be easy to address… it just never happened.

I don't think there's any reason the Arabic needs to be in there. But actually the Syriac from the Peshitta might have as much claim as the Greek… Pathawi (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The Hebrew/Aramaic surmisal is reasonable, but as an assertion it amounts to original research unless we peg it to a secondary source. Per WP:LEADCITE, if there's a source anywhere in the body that has the Aramaic name, then it's not OR, it's just not cited. The two examples you gave both used footnotes; so I'm curious if you object to taking the Aramaic and Greek names out of the footnote, here? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't object to elevation from a footnote, no. In both of those cases (Columbus & St Pete) the footnotes are doing something a little different from what's being proposed here: They give the name as a reader may find it in various relevant languages, rather than the "original" name. I wouldn't want those footnotes elevated into the lead because I think that would be a case of excessive foreign language info cluttering the lead (MOS:NAME). That's not what Aidani123 is requesting. Pathawi (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The article gives plenty of sources for the Hebrew origin of the name, so that should be OK. I don't know enough about this stuff by far to confirm whether it would be accurate to say that the short form Yeshua (as opposed to the long form Yehoshua) is as much Aramaic as it is Hebrew (in which case we could have something like Template:Lang-he)? If so, this should first be added to the article itself (in the etymology section, with a good source of course). If, however, the short form is pure Hebrew, and Aramaic just literally adopted it without influencing its formation, calling the form "Hebrew/Aramaic" in the lead would perhaps be misleading. If no one is knowledgeable enough to make this call, just keeping "Hebrew:" as in my proposal above seems to be the safest option, and perhaps accurate enough. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 03:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The Aramaic form of his name is actually ܝܫܘܥ in the estrangelo script used in the peshitta. Tiamut 06:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, I do think the Arabic forms should be included. Issa appears 39 times in the Quran and that's relevant to the more than a billion of the Islamic faith in the world. Tiamut 07:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Aramaic has been written in multiple scripts over the millennia, including the script that many people think of today as Hebrew (which is, in fact, Aramaic). It looks like the name יֵשׁוּעַ Yēšûaʕ mostly occurs in the Jewish Bible in Ezra & Nehemiah. There are two further occurrences in 1 & 2 Chronicles. In Ezra 5:2, the term appears in an Aramaic passage with identical reference to the same name in nearby Hebrew passages. In 1 Chronicles, the full Hebrew name יְהוֹשׁוּעַ Yəhōšûaʕ refers to the same individual as Hebrew יֵשׁוּע Yēšûʕ. I'm drawing this all from Brown-Driver-Briggs. It is unclear to me why the name would be described as 'Aramaic', but my guess (ONLY A GUESS; DO NOT CITE) is this: Ezra, Nehemiah, & Chronicles are all post-Exile; at this point, Aramaic was displacing Hebrew as the most common language of the Jewish people. As the abbreviated name begins to appear in this period & as it does appear in Aramaic—& especially as it is believed that the יֵשׁוּעַ we're interested in here spoke Aramaic as his everyday language—it becomes easy to characterise it as an Aramaic name. The name does appear in Marcus Jastrow's Dictionary of Targumim, Talmud and Midrashic Literature, in which he cites many post-Biblical Aramaic sources: Mishnah Yadayim, Mo'ed Katan, Tosefta Hullin, Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, Pesikta Rabbati… Nonetheless, he identifies the name as Biblical Hebrew. It appears that the verbal root that leads to the name י-שׁ-ע does not appear in Aramaic. But then, of course, it would be perverse to say that 'Joshua' is not an English name, despite this language's lack of the same roots. 🤷‍♂️ Pathawi (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

With regard to Arabic: I think it would be intellectually irresponsible of us not to mention the Qur'ānic name in this article & to have substantial information on the Islamic view(s) on Jesus. However, the role of the introductory sentence is to give the name as it's most commonly used in English, then potentially the name in the original language. As best I know, at least Sunni mufassirīn have understood the Arabic name to have been derived from or a representation of Syriac. If there's a position that his original name was the Arabic one, that's surely a minority position. We similarly don't have the Arabic names for Moses & Abraham in the introductory sentences of those articles. Pathawi (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware that Aramaic square script is identical to Hebrew, but the script used in the Peshitta is the estrangelo (biblical script) I used above. Also, Jesus may not be a Hebrew name at all. There is a record of a Hadad Yis'i, a ruler of Guzan from the 9th century, and the name is Aramaic. Yis'i meaning "to save", so 'Hadad is my salvation". So I see the Hebrew alone as a gloss over of the still as yet unknown etymology. Tiamut 09:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That's really interesting. Do you have any source that connects the Yis'i of Hadad-Yis'i's name to Jesus? They seem etymologically related, but historically? Pathawi (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Just added a source that does that to Hadad Yis'i. It says: "The second element contains the same base as certain ancient names in Hebrew, Ugaritic, and Old South Arabic. This is y-sh-' in Hebrew, seen in Joshua (=Jesus) meaning to "to save"." Tiamut 09:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

But that's still an etymological connection—not a historical one. It doesn't cast any doubt on the claim that Ἰησοῦς is from Hebrew or Aramaic: It just shows that the pattern in Hebrew has older Semitic parallels or precedents. It's really interesting! But there are lots of sources that identify this name as Hebrew/Aramaic יֵשׁוּעַ. I think until we have one suggesting that it's something else, this is (very interesting) original research. Pathawi (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The etymological link is elucidated further here, if you are interested in the linguistic aspects. The formulation "x is my salvation" is an ancient Semitic one, predating the monotheistic traditions. Perhaps though all of this is better explored in Jesus (name). Tiamut 10:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Another etymological exploration here .Tiamut 11:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I politely disagree with some users above, as there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to have the Arabic version in the first sentence. Yes, Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, but by that logic we'd need the name in every language in which people venerate him (Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Gaelic, Tagalog, Mandarin etc.). The name of individuals is usually limited to their own language (when different from English), meaning that Hebrew/Aramaic would suffice and possibly Greek as the first language in which Jesus is mentioned and the first attested of the name. No need for any other language (unless we want a very long list). Keep in mind that Coptic, Syriac, Latin and Armenian versions predate Arabic with several hundreds of years and would also need to be included under this logic.Jeppiz (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

... as well as the Geʽez version! Including the Quranic Arabic ʿĪsā may seem like a good idea because Islam is the second major religious tradition after Christianity to feature Jesus as an important figure (from a contemporary perspective, ignoring the now near-extinct Manicheism), but this is indeed not the rationale for inclusion in the first sentence of the lead, which is to give the original name whence the common name "Jesus" as used in the title derives from (and again, both Manicheism and the Islamic Jesus are given some attention further down in the lead). That original name would be the Hebrew (and Aramaic?) Yēšūʿa, though the inclusion of the Greek Iēsoûs is surely warranted given the fact that this is how the name is attested in its earliest and most important source, the New Testament. Perhaps we should switch the order though, since the Greek is obviously derived from the Hebrew:

Jesus (Template:Lang-he; Template:Lang-grc), c. 4 BC – AD 30 / 33, also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ,

As for having Template:Lang-he instead, what we need is not speculation but a good secondary source which clearly explains that and why this is correct (e.g. on the basis of Ezra 5:2). For what it's worth, our Yeshua articles says: This later form developed within Hebrew (not Aramaic). Jews of Jerusalem tended to spell the name as they pronounced it, , contracting the spelling to ישוע without the letter. Later, Aramaic references to the Hebrew Bible adopted the contracted phonetic form of this Hebrew name as an Aramaic name. So even though the name originally developed within Hebrew, it seems that it also became an Aramaic name, and saying that it is Hebrew/Aramaic with regard to Jesus of Nazareth would seem to be correct. Still, the article would first need to be updated by someone who knows what they're doing, and as long as no one has done that, it's better to play it safe and stick to "Hebrew:". Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 18:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not Hebrew, a predominantly liturgical language at the time, when the vernacular was predominantly Aramaic - they are not interchangeable. And since the first mention of him is in the NT Greek translated from Aramaic, that follows.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There's not a shadow of a doubt that Yēšūʿa is Hebrew: the article cites plenty of sources for that. The idea that the NT was translated from Aramaic is a fringe view which is of no importance here. As I said, while Yēšūʿa as an Aramaic name seems plausible, we would need a good secondary source for that to be added to the article. Anything else would only be wasting our time. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 22:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The idea that the NT was translated from Aramaic is a fringe view which is of no importance here. I think the connection here is that Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic, not that the gospels were written in it. I think everyone here seems to be fairly mainstream, so it's a safe bet that we're all on the same page about them being written in Greek. P.S. I really like your suggestion, two edits above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was already thinking I might have misunderstood that one (?). But the principle would be the same: we'd be inferring from Jesus' Aramaic background that his name was also Aramaic, without citing a source. Put like that, it really does seem obvious, and I won't protest if the preference is for "Hebrew/Aramaic:"; it's just that I'm always weary about things that seem obvious when it's in a field I'm not at home in. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 00:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

A couple quick notes: 1) I'm seeing 'Yēšūʿa' repeatedly here. My Biblical Hebrew is pretty rudimentary, but I think יֵשׁוּעַ is Yēšûaʿ (or Yēšūaʿ). I'm guessing that people are following the general rule that Hebrew vowels follow the consonants that carry the diacritics. However, final חַ עַ are read /aC/, & as such are usually transcribed ‹ah› ‹aʿ›. I'm seeing ‹Yēšûaʿ› in the material that I'm looking at that doesn't consist of mirrors of Misplaced Pages pages. I will be happy to be corrected by someone whose Hebrew is better than mine.

2) I think it's solidly established from BDB & Jastrow that יֵשׁוּע is an "Aramaic name". I don't think we have a question of fact that's going to be solved by any reliable source. I take the following as well established:

1. ישׁוע is both a Hebrew & an Aramaic name, but
2. that distinction within the context of his time is probably ahistorical.
3. ישׁוע is generally understood by many scholars to have been Jesus' name.
4. Jesus probably taught in Aramaic.
5. Jesus may have been fluent in Hebrew.

The issue we have is a citational issue. Right now, we have published reliable sources that describe Jesus' name ישׁוע as a Hebrew name. We don't have one doing the same for Aramaic. I think we should move forward with the term 'Hebrew', & if anyone finds a good reliable source describing the name in relation to Jesus as 'Aramaic', then it would be fine to modify that 'Hebrew' to 'Hebrew/Aramaic'. I really don't think we have anything to debate without something to cite. Pathawi (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

See Aramaic#Christian Palestinian Aramaic for such a source. Also should note that they include the name Isho, which may be exactly where Arabaic Issa comes from. Tiamut 06:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Also see . This is an ongoing debate in scholarly circles too. Privileging Hebrew alone in the intro would be taking sides. Tiamut 06:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

So, the source you cited is page 35 of Emran Iqbal El-Badawi's The Qur’ān and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions. The Misplaced Pages page that cites El-Badawi uses the phrasing "the name Jesus, although ישוע Yešua’ in Jewish Aramaic…" However, page 35 of El-Badawi doesn't actually say this. It instead says: '…hat truly distinguishes the CPA Gospels from the Syriac ones is the strong influence that Greek Biblical traditions had upon it. This is evident, for example, in the syntax of the Gospel passages and even in the spelling of proper nouns, both of which duplicate the Greek Gospels. Therefore, unlike Syriac where "Jesus" is spelled īšū‘, in CPA it is spelled īsūs.' That doesn't make any kind of case for the name ישׁוע being Aramaic, or Greek Ἰησοῦς coming from something other than ישׁוע. It's about a literary tradition from four to seven centuries later! As for the blog post, I think there are two problems: First, I don't think it counts as a reliable source; second, it's not arguing that the name Ἰησοῦς doesn't come from ישׁוע: It's arguing against the Messianic Jews' insistence on "Yeshua" as the correct name of Jesus now, in favour of an acceptance of local language names. Furthermore, that blog post identifies ישׁוע as "His original Hebrew name". (It does later identify ישׁוע as a Hebrew & Aramaic name.)

I'd really like to split this into two issues:

1. Whether or not we can find a reliable source identifying Jesus' name ישׁוע as an Aramaic name. (I suspect we can. We have not yet.)
2. Whether or not ישׁוע is the source of the name "Jesus". (I don't see any reliable source making this claim yet.)

You posted that info on Hadad-yith'i earlier; are you interested in arguing that ישׁוע is not the origin of the name "Jesus"?

As for taking sides: I think this is an unfair allegation. I don't think you've presented material yet that says that the source of Ἰησοῦς is anything other than Hebrew ישׁוע. If this is an open debate in scholarly circles, I think we need to see where that debate is occurring. You've presented neither any material that argues against a Hebrew ישׁוע origin nor any debate of any kind within scholarly circles. Pathawi (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry if you understood my comment as a personal attack. It certainly was not intended that way. And I have not yet had time to look very thorougjly for sources. Its Orthodox Easter here today and I am busy. Hopefully this edit is not urgent and can wait for more and better sources. Tiamut 10:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I'd forgotten! If you're Christian, Happy Easter from a Muslim brother. If not, well, have a nice day anyhow. Pathawi (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I spent some time years back noting in a discussion of notable Jews to be included on that page, that Jesus merited inclusion - born and died a Jew. This indisputable fact produced diffuse anxiety. The proposal was knocked back. It was thought deeply offensive. Now in registering his name, Hebrew is prioritized over Aramaic. The POV changes according to context. The connection is disowned on one page, and then asserted on the other. Peter/Pierre/Pedro/Pietro all have a common root, but if you call a Frenchman by that name Pedro, or an Italian Pierre, you are engaged in linguistic one-upmanship. As an Aramaic-speaking Galilean Jew, the name of Jesus would have been articulated as was normative in Palestinian Aramaic - distinct from classical Hebrew - though very similar. To posit Hebrew as the default form is POV pushing, a linguistic prioritizing of Hebrew over Aramaic.Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree fairly strongly with this characterisation. The only reason that anyone I can see is prioritising Hebrew over Aramaic is the lack of a source to cite. At this point, I favour listing Ἰησοῦς as derived from Hebrew יֵשׁוּע but that is exclusively because I can find several sources that make that claim & none so far that describe the name as Aramaic. I think I've made a good argument above that the name in general (tho not yet in the specific case) can fairly be characterised as Aramaic, & I've said that I think the distinction for Jesus himself is probably ahistorical. I would be very happy to see the description include the word 'Aramaic'. But I don't yet see a source to cite that would support that wording. This is basic Misplaced Pages editorship: If you want an article to say something, present a reliable source that supports the claim. I think that it is very likely that there is a good reliable source out there that says something like 'The name Ἰησοῦς that appears in the Gospels is derived from the Aramaic name יֵשׁוּע.' I have honestly been actively looking for it, but have yet to find it. I'm frustrated that opponents of the characterisation of this name as Hebrew have resulted to the accusation that this is 'taking sides' or 'POV' when they could instead be hitting the books & trying to find a source that will support the wording they'd like to see. Meanwhile, multiple sources characterise the name as Hebrew. It is not POV to prefer that the article reflect the sources. It is the opposite of that. Pathawi (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Far be it from me to accuse you of POV pushing. The evidence of your diligent pertinacity is hunting for strong sources speaks to the contrary. The point is (WP:Systemic bias) that in several area of scholarship we have habits in naming which persist. I once brought to bear over 100 academic sources which referred to Jesus as a Palestinian Jew. The evidence didn't count: editors without any sense of history or historical method just disliked the adjective, perceiving it as a political, rather than a geographic term - it being the default term in historiography for that land. So, yes, sources are very important, but less so if they contradict commonsense: a Jewish carpenter's son in humble Nazareth would not grow up being addressed in Hebrew, a predominantly liturgical idiom, but in terms of the contemporary usage of Galilean Aramaic. The closest sources to his period use the koine Greek form. To establish the Urname in what was his probable environment, we make hypotheses and conjectures, which is what the Hebrew Yeshua is. That name, like the Aramaic one (Yeshu, also in the Talmudic sources that appear to refer to him, which is closer to the Greek), ascribed to him, is not an attested fact, but conjectural, an attempt to descry the shadowy semitic form behind Ἰησοῦς. What is the status of conjectured names on Misplaced Pages? With regard to the real pronunciation of the name of Jesus, not only Aramaic, but also Hebrew forms are reconstructions based on inferences from prior usage for a name of that form in epigraphic and textual sources like the Tanakh. They are not, bref, transcriptions of a factual datum. This is merely a nice point, and could be taken as philological pettifogging. It isn't.Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I've dived a bit into the sources, and found the following:

• @Pathawi: yes for Yēšuaʿ rather than Yēšuʿa: Misplaced Pages has the latter both in this article and in Yeshua, but the sources (Stegemann 2006 and Robinson 2005) actually give the former.
• Both Stegemann 2006 and Robinson 2005 only call the name Hebrew, but Ehrman 2012 (who actually was already cited in the article) calls it Aramaic. Now Ehrman 2012 is just mentioning this in the passing and not citing any sources, but given the obviousness I guess it should still be good enough?

Based on this, I suggest the following:

Lead: Jesus (Template:Lang-he; Template:Lang-grc), c. 4 BC – AD 30 / 33, also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ,

Main body: The English name Jesus is derived from the Latin Iesus, a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs). The Greek form is probably a rendering of the Hebrew and Aramaic name Template:Rtl-lang (Yēšuaʿ), a shorter variant of the earlier Hebrew name Template:Rtl-lang (Yehoshua), or in English, "Joshua", meaning "Yah saves".

Bibliography: Stegemann, Ekkehard (Basle) (2006). "Jesus". In Cancik, Hubert; Schneider, Helmuth (eds.). Brill’s New Pauly. doi:10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e522560.

Already present in the article, but included here for reference: Ehrman, Bart D. (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperOne. ISBN 978-0-06-208994-6. Archived from the original on August 3, 2020. Retrieved October 8, 2020.; * Robinson, Neal (2005). "Jesus". In McAuliffe, Jane Dammen (ed.). Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān. Brill. doi:10.1163/1875-3922_q3_EQCOM_00099.

References

1. Maas, Anthony J. (1913). "Origin of the Name of Jesus Christ" . In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
2. Stegemann 2006; Robinson 2005. For Yēšuaʿ as an Aramaic name, see Ehrman 2012, p. 29.
3. Wycliffe Bible Dictionary. entry Hebrew Language: Hendrickson Publishers. 1975.
4. Sumner, Paul. "The Hebrew Meaning of "Jesus"". Archived from the original on May 3, 2019. Retrieved March 31, 2019.
5. Ehrman 2012, p. 29.
6. "Joshua". Merriam-Webster. Archived from the original on July 8, 2013. Retrieved August 4, 2013.
7. New American Bible Numbers 13:16 commentary Archived March 10, 2020, at the Wayback Machine Joshua: in Hebrew, "Jehoshua," which was later modified to "Jeshua," the Hebrew pronunciation of the name "Jesus." Hoshea and Joshua are variants of one original name meaning "the LORD saves."
8. New American Bible Matthew 1:21 commentary Archived January 19, 2019, at the Wayback Machine Jesus: in first-century Judaism the Hebrew name Joshua (Greek Iesous) meaning "Yahweh helps" was interpreted as "Yahweh saves."

We might also want to trim some of the refs 3–8? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 19:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's another source for Yeshua as an Aramaic name . I would focus on the uncontroversial of the Greek form. So:

Lead: Jesus (Template:Lang-grc), c. 4 BC  – AD 30 / 33,from Template:Lang-he; also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ, Tiamut

Main body: The English name Jesus is derived from the Latin Iesus, a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs). The Greek form is a rendering of the Aramaic and Hebrew name Template:Rtl-lang (Yēšuaʿ), The same Greek rendering is used for the earlier Hebrew name Template:Rtl-lang (Yehoshua), or in English, "Joshua", meaning "Yah saves".

References

1. Maas, Anthony J. (1913). "Origin of the Name of Jesus Christ" . In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
2. Stegemann 2006. Robinson 2005. For Yēšuaʿ as an Aramaic name, see Ehrman 2012, p. 29.
3. Wycliffe Bible Dictionary. entry Hebrew Language: Hendrickson Publishers. 1975.
4. Sumner, Paul. "The Hebrew Meaning of "Jesus"". Archived from the original on May 3, 2019. Retrieved March 31, 2019.
5. Ehrman 2012, p. 29.
6. "Joshua". Merriam-Webster. Archived from the original on July 8, 2013. Retrieved August 4, 2013.
7. New American Bible Numbers 13:16 commentary Archived March 10, 2020, at the Wayback Machine Joshua: in Hebrew, "Jehoshua," which was later modified to "Jeshua," the Hebrew pronunciation of the name "Jesus." Hoshea and Joshua are variants of one original name meaning "the LORD saves."
8. New American Bible Matthew 1:21 commentary Archived January 19, 2019, at the Wayback Machine Jesus: in first-century Judaism the Hebrew name Joshua (Greek Iesous) meaning "Yahweh helps" was interpreted as "Yahweh saves."

Tiamut 20:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

P.S. A straightforward reference for the Greek form being used for Jesus/Yeshua & Joshua is here. Tiamut 20:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, I would remove refs 3,6,7,8 & add the two refs I provided above from Strong's Concordance of Hebrew and Greek. Tiamut 20:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tiamut: I've removed the repeated citation of Stegemann 2006 from your comment because it causes harvnb errors, and added a {{reflist talk}} template to make sure the refs show up here rather than at the bottom of the page.

• Yes to adding Strong's Hebrew to Ehrman 2012 as a source for the name being Aramaic.
• Yes to replacing refs 3,6,7,8 with Strong's Hebrew and Strong's concordance.
• Strong no to reversing the order to "Aramaic/Hebrew:": the name Yēšuaʿ is originally Hebrew, and so it makes no sense at all to call it Aramaic and Hebrew: it's like calling the name Ahmad "English and Arabic", or the name Mario "English and Italian". Moreover, the sources overwhelmingly just call it "Hebrew", probably not because of any bias, but because it's intuitive: many would just call the name Ahmad "Arabic" and Mario "Italian" if not asked for more context.
• Yes to mentioning that the Greek Iēsoûs is also used to render Yehoshua, and we should add: in the Septuagint (source: Stegemann 2006).
• No to leaving out the mention that Yēšuaʿ is a shortened form of Yehoshua, thus obscuring the Hebrew origin of the name.

Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 21:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I am very, very happy that we've got an Aramaic citation. Just a minor wording thing: יֵשׁוּעַ Yēšûaʿ means 'God saves'; יְהוֹשׁוּעַ Yəhôšûaʿ means 'God is salvation'. We should make sure not to say that the latter means 'God saves'. It's not just elision. (BDB if you want a reference.) And the 'u' in both should have a macron! Pathawi (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pathawi: care to formulate your own edit proposal (you can start from a copy of one of the proposals above)? You seem to have the best linguistic expertise here, so that would probable be helpful. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 22:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I was making a cowardly attempt to avoid expressing a preference for one of the two proposals. Here goes:

Lead: Jesus (Template:Lang-gr; earlier likely יֵשׁוּעַ Yēšûaʿ), c. 4 BC – AD 30 / 33, also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ…

Main body: The English name Jesus is derived from the Latin Iēsūs, a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs. The Greek form is probably a rendering of the name יֵשׁוּעַ Yēšûaʿ meaning "Yah saves," which appears in Hebrew and Aramaic portions of the Ketuvim. This in turn is a post-Exilic variant of the earlier Template:Lang-he, usually represented in English as "Joshua", which means "Yah is salvation." In the Septuagint, Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs is used to represent both of these names.

Could someone grab a print copy of Strong's to insert the appropriate citation? These Bible study Websites just mash all the reference sources together & it's hard to tell what's what. Pathawi (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks great content-wise, but apart from some copy-editing, it needs some changes in order to make it more accessible to lay readers:

• You apparently chose to avoid controversy by neither calling Yēšûaʿ Hebrew nor Aramaic, but that's not really a good option, since lay readers haven't got any idea what language is represented by these strange letters, and need to be informed about that.
• Most readers won't be familiar with the term Ketuvim, but they will understand later books of the Old Testament (some versions of which, incidentally, also contains Greek portions, like Wisdom of Solomon), which fulfills the same purpose here.
• Likewise, the term post-Exilic is jargon and should be avoided where possible. I suggest This in turn is a shorter variant of the earlier.
• Septuagint might perhaps be glossed as (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, c. 300 – 100 BC)?

You may also want to add the source for the last sentence, like so: I agree that it would be better to cite a print copy of both works by Strong, but unfortunately I have got none in my possession. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 05:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Maas, Anthony J. (1913). "Origin of the Name of Jesus Christ" . In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
2. Stegemann 2006; Robinson 2005. For Yēšûaʿ as an Aramaic name, see Ehrman 2012, p. 29.
3. Sumner, Paul. "The Hebrew Meaning of "Jesus"". Archived from the original on May 3, 2019. Retrieved March 31, 2019.
4. Ehrman 2012, p. 29.
5. Stegemann 2006.

I am not going to argue for my wording, but I will explain it here:

• I did choose to avoid the present controversy. This is because… Well, I have this sugar bowl. You can tell it's a sugar bowl because it matches the rest of the tea set it comes from. But I don't keep my sugar in a fricking bowl: I keep it in a jar. I use the "sugar bowl" for soup. So for me it's a soup bowl. In origin & design, it's a sugar bowl. In my use, it's a soup bowl. So in describing it, which is the correct term to use first?
• Many Jewish people quite understandably object to the description of their scripture as the Old Testament. My usual practice is to refer to this collection of books as the Hebrew Bible, but given that Hebrew versus Aramaic is at question here, I opted once again for cowardice. As a Muslim, I don't have a dog in this fight because: 1) the books in question are neither the Tawrāh nor the 'injīl nor the Zabūr; &, 2) because maybe we're not supposed to have dogs in the first place. It seems to me that if people want to know the "original" name of Jesus beyond the identification in the lead ¶, it's actually not asking that much of them to become familiar with the terms Ketuvim & Septuagint & to be familiar with the Babylonian Exile. These are terms which many lay people in the relevant faith traditions know, & this is a section of the article in which we're digging into philological issues a little. Perhaps 'the latest books of the Jewish Bible' for Ketuvim?

I'm not actually sure what the Strong's citation is supposed to support. Tiamut proposed using it, but didn't say specifically for what. Apaugasma understood it as support for the identification of ישׁוע as an Aramaic name. I don't have a print copy of Strong's. The page in question doesn't actually say anything about the name being Aramaic. I was trying to follow the citational conversation, but wasn't sure where to put that citation or what it was meant to support.

Totally fine with the citation for the final sentence.

Now I'm going to go cut my fingernails with a toenail clipper, & not think about what to call it. Pathawi (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the cite that say Yeshua is Aramaic . Note too the previous entry in Strong's says it is also Hebrew. Tiamut 07:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: As much as I don't care whether we say 'Hebrew' or 'Aramaic' first, I care very much that we Romanise יְהוֹשׁוּעַ as either Yəhôšûaʿ or Yəhōšūaʿ & יֵשׁוּעַ as either Yēšûaʿ or Yēšūaʿ. Placing those here so that they can get incorporated into future drafts. The choice of versions with circumflexes or macrons isn't important to me, but we should probably be consistent. The circumflex means that there's a māter lēctiōnis; the theoretical pronunciation of ‹ū› versus ‹û› is not different (both /uː/). Pathawi (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think Pathawi's wording is good too (though I would include Aramaic/Hebrew, and in that order, alphabetically, because the name Yeshua is both). One of the earlier quotations I brought up on this page notes that this is an ancient Semitic formulation, not exclusive to Hebrew, which is why I resisted describing it as a direct derivation from Yehoshua ... I think the scholarship shows it could have another Semitic origin. Nishidani's point above about systemic bias on favor of Hebrew is relevant. Tiamut 07:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I would also suggest adding the example of Hadad Yith'i as an ancient Semitic example, this one rooted in Aramaic, of this 'x is my salvation' formulation. Its not original research, as the source cited in the Hadad Yith'i article makes the connection to Jesus & Joshua itself. Tiamut 08:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I too commend Pathawi's lead compromise, though like Tiamat I think Aramaic/Hebrew (in that order) is correct, covers all bases, and that adding the gloss is pertinent.Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pathawi:: I don't think your sugar bowl/soup bowl analogy is entirely applicable, but as far as it goes, I would say this: to those who idiosyncratically use the bowl to eat soup, it would of course make sense to call it a soup bowl, but to any uninvolved outside observer (the great majority), it would clearly and undoubtedly be a sugar bowl. Now if you as an idiosyncratic user would be asked to neutrally present the item to an outside observer (which is what we do here on WP), wouldn't you agree that it would be much less awkward to say that it's a sugar bowl that you happen to use to eat soup in, than to say that it's a soup bowl that is actually a sugar bowl but that you call a soup bowl because you happen to eat soup in it? Something similar seems to be happening here: the great majority of sources call the name Yēšûaʿ "Hebrew" without further ado, but there are some editors here who for some reason attach much importance to Jesus' Aramaic background, and are prepared to idiosyncratically describe his Hebrew name primarily as "Aramaic". To justify this, they invoke Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias, but that essay is about bias among editors, not about bias among scholars. So even if the majority of scholars would call the name "Hebrew" out of some form of systemic bias in scholarship (which in itself certainly exists!), I would go so far as to say that Misplaced Pages must reflect that bias. That is because the moment we give up WP:NPOV and start to decide for ourselves which sources are biased and which are not, we will be giving free reign to our own biases, which are much, much worse. And that is in fact what is happening all too often already: only on Misplaced Pages do you get that completely undue focus on ethnicity, and these strange prioritizations such as the "Aramaic/Hebrew:" proposed here (also leading to such things as the use of Ketuvim where Hebrew Bible is indeed the standard scholarly term). Anyways, it's still better to describe a sugar bowl used to eat soup in as a "soup bowl/sugar bowl" than to entirely leave out the mention that there's any kind of bowl at all, so if you don't agree with my reasoning, let's have "Aramaic/Hebrew:" in the lead. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 20:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: The truth is that I actually don't own any bowls. (This is oddly true at the moment.) Let me break this into a couple of numbers to make the conversation easier:

1. With regard to the names, what I care about is that the claims we make can be substantiated by reliable sources & that the textual representations are linguistically legit. I can't get excited about whether we say 'Aramaic/Hebrew' or 'Hebrew/Aramaic'. To break out of my imperfect bowl analogy: If I get to know an American woman in Chinese class, & at first I only know her by an assumed Chinese name, then later she tells me that her name is 'Mary', it seems to me that both of the following sentences would be true: 'Mary finally told me her English name.' 'Oh, Mary is a Hebrew name.' On the other hand, it seems to me that it would be perverse to say that Mary doesn't have an English name because her name is Hebrew. So with regard to how we choose to identify Mary's name, it seems to me that the core question is: What are we identifying it for? It seems to me obvious that Jesus' name was Hebrew etymologically: The roots involved are not a productive set in the Aramaic of the era. It was also an Aramaic name, insofar as it was a normal name for an Aramaic-speaking person to have (&, in fact, enters documented history at the time when Aramaic was displacing Hebrew). I think it's possible that readers will take 'Aramaic/Hebrew' & 'Hebrew/Aramaic' differently, but I can't predict how. I've been avoiding weighing in on this not because I think that any of the parties who do care are right or wrong, but because I don't have an opinion. If the Romanisation is correct & the claims are substantiated, I'm satisfied. This attitude is not prescriptive: You are welcome to demand more of life.
2. You, Tiamut, Nishidani, & I are not the only people who have participated in this conversation so far, but we're the only ones who have been discussing the order of languages named. There's no need to rush. This is a high-profile article & one that attracts controversy. I think it would be best to allow some time for other editors to weigh in. Moving quickly on controversial issues—& this appears to be one—doesn't tend to lead to satisfactory results.
3. Ketuvim… Yes, you're right. (I still think it's reasonable to expect readers to know the Babylonian Exile & the Septuagint within the context of a philology section.) Pathawi (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Pathawi, it's fairly predictable to me that describing Yēšûaʿ as Aramaic/Hebrew will mislead at least some general readers into thinking that it's an originally Aramaic name which is also Hebrew in some unspecified way. There's just no reason at all to turn the logical (in terms of linguistic derivation) and chronological order on its head here, except if the aim is to misinform readers in order to push Jesus' 'Aramaicness', or to downplay his 'Hebrewness'. If your suggestion is that this thread has just started, and that we will just have to wait out the POV-pushers for days if not weeks to see who tires first from this senseless tug of war, I'll tell you upfront that I will not be participating in this. I like contributing to Misplaced Pages, but I'm not by far tolerant enough of chauvinistically inspired non-arguments to engage with them for much longer. Let's just put in "Aramaic/Hebrew:" and be done with it. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 23:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying: 'Let's wait for one side to get tired.' I am saying: 'Let's wait for other interested parties to weigh in.'

Just a little more on the order of elements in the name: When I read 'x/y', I think I tend to ascribe equal importance to the elements on either side of the stroke. I think I would not read 'Aramaic/Hebrew' as 'basically Aramaic but also Hebrew in some vague way'. I think I would read these two languages as having equivalent value… 'in some vague way'. It's not obvious to me what criterion should govern the order: etymology (Hebrew first), alphabetical order (Aramaic), number of sources (Hebrew), contemporary use (Aramaic). I am bothered by the efforts below to de-Hebraise the name, & am pushing back against those insofar as they are not reflective of the scholarship. But it's not clear to me that the ordering achieves that de-Hebraising end. That's why I'm not particularly excited about the matter of order.

In any case, my honest opinion is that with this discussion still very much alive, there's no reason to consider any portion of it settled until more people have weighed in. I don't think we're close to a resolution, & I think too few of us have been heard from. Pathawi (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Pathawi's proposal again, I actually find it problematic. The linguistic consensus today is that the Hebrew y-s-' has its roots in proto-Semitic y-th-', as per my edit to Jesus (name):

"Likely originating in proto-Semitic (yṯ'), it appears in several Semitic personal names outside of Hebrew, like in the Aramaic name Hadad Yith'i, meaning "Hadad is my salvation". Its oldest recorded use is in an Amorite personal name from 2048 B.C.

The problem here in my view, is the privileging of a biblical archaeology approach to etymology over a Semitic linguistics one. The passages being proposed ignore archaological epipgraphs and inscriptions and the scholarship surrounding those, in favour of biblical texts as linguistic historicity. Maybe "Aramaic/Hebrew" should even read simply "Semitic". But definitely the sentence of "Yeshua" being a post-exilic derivation of Joshua reads wrong to me. The sources don't know that in light of the same Semitic formulation, based on the same root, having such antiquity and widespread use. Tiamut 20:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you've made some leaps of reasoning. What's argued by Aitken & Davies is that the second element in the name ישׁוע goes back to other, pre-Biblical names in other Semitic. This entry actually never addresses the name ישׁוע as such. This doesn't crack the argument that ישׁוע is in its origin (whatever you want to describe it as in the first century CE) a Hebrew name. Pathawi (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I have made no leaps. The Aitken & Davies source is not about Hadad Yith'i alone. He is only one example mentioned in their lexical breakdown of the root ישע, which is to root of both Jesus (ישוע) and Joshua. This Semitic root is then traced back by the same authors to the proto-Semitic yt'. "The Proto-Semitic root *yṯ' now seems to lie behind Hebrew , being attested in proper names in NWSem and most of the ESA languages. The Ug evidence attests to the second consonant being ṯ (Sawyer 1975:78). This new evidence counters some earlier interpretations based on Arb (see B.1). The main arguments outlined by Sawyer (1975) are the evidence of proper names in NW Sem (A.3, A.4, B.3), the collocation of yṯ' terms with deities’ names (as with ישׁע; see A.1, 3, 5, 7-10; also Syntagmatics A.1), chronological evidence (see A.5, 7-10) and phonological equivalence (B.1). Earlier KB (412, along with wasiʿa), Huffmon (1965: 215) and Stolz (1971: 786, citing Sawyer 1965:475-76, 485) had supported this view; and at the conference where Sawyer originally presented his paper T.L. Fenton and H.W.F. Saggs had indicated their strong agreement with it (Sawyer 1975: 83-84). Significantly this view was adopted in the latest Hebrew lexicon to incorporate philological data (Ges18: 510 )." (Aitken & Davies, 2016)" Note that rhis isn't a novel or contested view in Semitic linguistics, as indicated by the last sentence in that quote. Tiamut 05:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

But you have indeed made a leap: Aitken & Davies do not make the claim for "Jesus"/"Joshua" that you're putting forward. (They in fact don't specifically mention those names in this article, except the latter as the title of the Biblical book.) You are drawing the conclusion from their work—which makes this at a minimum original research—& I think your logic is missing a step: The name ישוע in all mainstream work is analysed as being comprised of two components: The second is possibly a development of the Proto-Semitic root *yṯʕ that this article addresses.* The first is the name יָהּ Yāh—a shortening of יהוה YHWH. Here is my key point: The fact that one of the two components predates Biblical Hebrew does not mean that the collocation of the two predates Hebrew.‡ This article does not mention that collocation. What you can reasonably infer from it (& this is an inference, tho not a huge leap) is a statement along the lines of: 'The Hebrew name ישוע follows an older Semitic pattern.' But that name itself is not shown by this to be pre-Hebrew, nor do Aitken & Davies claim that it is. If we accept that YHWH was worshipped by other Semitic peoples, it's unlikely that the specific name has a pre-Hebrew origin.

But there's more: In section A.1, Aitken & Davies mention names that have the element שׁוע, of which this is one, & they direct the reader to three different document—not this article. You can find those here:

1. שׁוּע http://www.sahd.div.ed.ac.uk/_media/lexeme:pdf:mnn-sua%CA%BF-aitken_davies-cam-2016.pdf
2. שׁוֹע http://www.sahd.div.ed.ac.uk/_media/lexeme:pdf:mnl-soa%CA%BF-davies-cam-2016.pdf
3. תשׁועה http://www.sahd.div.ed.ac.uk/_media/lexeme:pdf:nyo-tesu%CA%BFah-aitken-cam-2000.pdf

The first of these refers us (A.1) to the second for the etymology of proper names. The second is by Davies alone. Fascinatingly, Davies breaks with tradition, & says that he thinks the שׁוע that appears in theophorous names—including explicitly יהושׁוע—is not derived from the verb ישׁע, & possibly not related! If you want to follow Aitken & Davies' scholarship, the explicit claim that they are making is that the name יהושׁוע is not related in form to the name hdysʕy (Hadad-yith'i), or to the other names mentioned in the article you're drawing from. Pathawi (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

*I'm a little surprised by their identifying this root as Proto-Semitic. They identify it for Northwest Semitic & Old South Arabian, but not for other branches.

†"Probably" because we're dealing with a proto-language.

‡In fact, what I'm saying would hold even if both components pre-dated Biblical Hebrew.

Aitkens & Davies do not make the link to Jesus explicit, but Millard & Boudreuil do, as I noted in the article on Hadad Yith'i by excerpting the relevant text: "The second part of the name is a derivation of an ancient Semitic root meaning "to save", so that the translation of the full name into English is "Hadad is my salvation"." So this is not my original research (though I am flattered that you think it could be :). Tiamut 10:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't change anything, though: What Millard & Bordreuil are doing is showing that that portion of the name has an early Aramaic cognate. They note that the element י–שׁ–ע appears in יהושׁוע. They are not saying that יהושׁוע is a pre-Hebrew or pre-Biblical name. We should expect that many (most?) elements of most Hebrew or Aramaic names would be eventually traceable to Proto-Semitic elements. We might hope (I do) that these elements would eventually be traceable to Proto-Afro-Asiatic elements. This doesn't make these composite names simply 'Semitic' or 'Afro-Asiatic', & that's not somethign that Millard & Bordreuil or Aitkens & Davies claim. The step from 'Here is a Proto-Semitic root' to 'This name as a whole predates the Hebrew Bible' is what I'm identifying as original research. Pathawi (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Pathawi, Jesus isn't derived from Joshua. Linguistically speaking it makes no sense. The "Yah saves" translation is of the name Joshua יהושוע, where there is "yah" spelled out in the first two letters. Jesus' name does not have 'יה' in it. It is a derivation of the root ישע. This same root is probably the basis for Joshua's name but might not be. It is certainly the root for Jesus' name. Tiamut 10:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You could be right. I disagree with you, but I'd want to be a better Semiticist than I am to stake a claim strongly. The problem is that a great wealth of sources identify the name Jesus as a derivative form of the name that equates to Joshua. You haven't yet put forward a source that says something different. What you've shown is that one of the components in the name can reasonably be considered to have Proto-Semitic origins, but that should be expected. For me, the core problem isn't the argument that you're making—tho there are portions of it I have & do disagree with—it's that the argument you're making doesn't appear in the sources, & is thus original research. Millard & Bordreuil & Aitkens & Davies don't in any way claim Jesus ≠ Joshua. They don't say these names aren't Hebrew. Pathawi (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not arguing the names are not Hebrew. And sources claiming Jesus is derived from Joshua are not reliable linguistic sources, because that is not how Semitic roots work. The most one can say is that they etymologically related. The Semitic root of Jesus' name is  y-š-ʕ (Hebrew: ישע‎), meaning "to deliver; to rescue." And its an ancient root, probably originally meaning "wide/spacious", a meaning still preserved in the arabic word واسع (was') . We also have sources from above, including fromStrong's Concordance that say Jesus' name is both Aramaic & Hebrew. And I might also mention that the more commonly used form for Jesus' name is Hebrew is ישו and not ישוע, dropping the ayn and changing the meaning. ישוע is used for other Old Testament characters in Hebrew but not as commonly for Jesus. Tiamut 11:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Formatted refs to add for the Greek and Aramaic forms

• "2424. Iéosus, Strong's Concordance: Greek". Bible Hub.
• "3443. Yeshua, Strong's Concordance: Hebrew". Bible Hub.

Tiamut 14:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is an addition I just made to Jesus (name) with info on the proto-Semitic root, and think some allusion to this here too would be good, as its a very ancient root/formulation echoed in several other Syro-Palestinian religious traditions. Tiamut 14:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This conversation has gotten very long. I really want to hear from other editors. I think that the length of this conversation may be a barrier to entry. Does anyone object to my posting the following summary, & collapsing the above conversation? (People could still click the 'show' link to be able to read all of the conversation that's gone before.)

On 30 April, Aidani123 proposed including the "original" form of Jesus' name in the first sentence of the lead paragraph. Editors who have contributed to the conversation thus far have generally achieved consensus that this should be done, & that the parenthetical addition should include Greek Ἰησους (as the language from which the name entered English) and the name ישׁוע from which the Greek name is derived. The possibility of including the Qur'ānic Arabic name عيسى was discussed but rejected on the grounds that the purpose of the parenthetical addition is not representation but origin.

There remains some dispute about how to characterise the name ישׁוע. Some editors prefer 'Hebrew/Aramaic' on etymological grounds: The name in this form originates in Hebrew, & was later adopted by Aramaic. Some editors prefer 'Aramaic/Hebrew' on historical grounds: Jesus is presumed to have spoken Aramaic, while Hebrew at the time would have already been principally a liturgical language. One editor proposes 'Semitic' on the grounds of its similarity to other names in other Semitic languages.

The following may be taken as a draft starting point for discussion:

Lead: Jesus (Template:Lang-gr; HOW TO CHARACTERISE? יֵשׁוּעַ Yēšûaʿ), c. 4 BC – AD 30 / 33, also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ…

Main body: The English name Jesus is derived from the Latin Iēsūs, a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs. The Greek form is probably a rendering of the name יֵשׁוּעַ Yēšûaʿ meaning "Yah saves," which appears in Hebrew and Aramaic portions of the Hebrew Bible. This in turn is a post-Exilic variant of the earlier Template:Lang-he, usually represented in English as "Joshua", which means "Yah is salvation." In the Septuagint—a Greek Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible—Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs is used to represent both of these names.

1. "A.2 The Proto-Semitic root *yṯ' now seems to lie behind Hebrew , being attested in proper names in NWSem and most of the ESA languages. The Ug evidence attests to the second consonant being ṯ (Sawyer 1975:78). This new evidence counters some earlier interpretations based on Arb (see B.1). The main arguments outlined by Sawyer (1975) are the evidence of proper names in NW Sem (A.3, A.4, B.3), the collocation of yṯ' terms with deities’ names (as with ישׁע; see A.1, 3, 5, 7-10; also Syntagmatics A.1), chronological evidence (see A.5, 7-10) and phonological equivalence (B.1). Earlier KB (412, along with wasiʿa), Huffmon (1965: 215) and Stolz (1971: 786, citing Sawyer 1965:475-76, 485) had supported this view; and at the conference where Sawyer originally presented his paper T.L. Fenton and H.W.F. Saggs had indicated their strong agreement with it (Sawyer 1975: 83-84). Significantly this view was adopted in the latest Hebrew lexicon to incorporate philological data (Ges18: 510 )." (Aitken & Davies, 2016)
2. Maas, Anthony J. (1913). "Origin of the Name of Jesus Christ" . In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
3. Stegemann 2006; Robinson 2005. For Yēšûaʿ as an Aramaic name, see Ehrman 2012, p. 29.
4. "2424. Iéosus, Strong's Concordance: Greek". Bible Hub.
5. "3443. Yeshua, Strong's Concordance: Hebrew". Bible Hub.
6. Sumner, Paul. "The Hebrew Meaning of "Jesus"". Archived from the original on May 3, 2019. Retrieved March 31, 2019.
7. Ehrman 2012, p. 29.
8. Stegemann 2006

The name in this form originates in Hebrew,

The name is semitic. Of course if you add in this form then the premise establishes that its origin is Hebrew/Aramaic, not Hebrew. So again, the dice are cogged to privilege one textual possibility over another.

& was later adopted by Aramaic

Where is the evidence for this adoption into Aramaic of a specific northwestern Semitic name in Hebrew? Were those parts of the Tanakh where the longer form of his name emerges written before the parallel and much wider diffusion of old Aramaic?

appears in Hebrew and Aramaic portions of the Hebrew Bible.

So there is textual evidence for Yehoshua in the specifically Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra?

In short, I think we were close to a solution but this tweaking appears to me to raise more problems than it resolves, problems that emerge by insisting on a closeting of Hebrew for priority from a world where there was great fluidity of a kind later orthodox redactions and histories felt uncomfortable with.Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the summary Nishidani. I would note that this is precisely the problem I have with the proposed texts which assume as fact that Jesus is derived from the earlier Hebrew Joshua, when there is lots of scholarship on the preponderance of names formed from the same root that are much older and span all Semitic languages. That is why is the version I proposed above, I thought it best to stick to a description of the cognates without specifying derivation from where exactly. I have to say it is also very irritating to be talked about (rather than to) by other editors in this discussion, as though my edit suggestions are aimed at erasing Hebrew ( which isn't the case actually, and seems like a prejudiced assumption being made on the basis on my background). Tiamut¥ Tiamut 10:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Tiamut, I'm sorry about talking about you rather than to you. It was in the back of my mind, but I didn't see a way to avoid it. Now perhaps I am prejudiced, but I just can't explain the arbitrary reversal of Hebrew and Aramaic, and your lack of a serious reply to my arguments about that, in any other way. Maas 1913, Robinson 2005, Stegemann 2006, Sumner 2019, they're all saying that the Greek Iēsoûs probably renders the Hebrew Yēšûaʿ, which according to them in turn derives from the earlier Hebrew form Yəhôšûaʿ. None of them even mentions the fact that since Aramaic-speaking Jews such as Jesus of Nazareth also carried the name, it was an Aramaic name too, which clearly is incidental. All you're offering in turn is a vague and unfounded application of systemic bias, alphabetical order, and some very interesting but clearly original research. But what we need are good secondary and tertiary sources. Nishidani (EDIT: Pathawi) did a very neat job of summarizing the previous discussion, except for that one crucial thing: I do indeed also prefer Hebrew/Aramaic on etymological grounds, but I prefer it first and foremost because sources widely describe the name merely as "Hebrew". In fact, it's not just I who prefer it, it's Misplaced Pages and its WP:NPOV policy. We need to follow the POV of the sources, even if we disagree with it, and –crucially– even when we know it is wrong. I know for a fact that on many points in my particular field, Misplaced Pages is completely and utterly wrong. Yet I leave these things be, because I know I don't have the sources to correct them. To do that, I will first have to get my own relevant research published, so I'm also not going to bother other editors with my theories. Here, we follow sources. I hope you can appreciate the wisdom in that. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 12:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you addressing me directly. We have two high quality sources that say Jesus is both an Aramaic and Hebrew name (one provided by Pathawi & the other by me from Strong's Concordance). I reviewed the four sources you cited as examples representing a consensus (that I do not believe exists) that Jesus is etymologically derived from Joshua:

• Paul Sumner has a MA in Old testament studies, is not a professor or serious scholar of linguistics & has some religious axe to grind readily apparent in his writings ... I don't think he qualifies as a wp:rs
• Maas doesn't say anything beyond what i did in my proposed edit in response to your own; which is that the Greek Iesous was used to transcribe both Jesus and Joshua. it does not imply a derivation of one from the other.
• I cannot access what Robinson and Sumner say. Could you provide the relevant text for review? Tiamut 13:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was already suspecting Sumner 2019 would be a bad source (I just found him already cited in the article), but here are the other three:

• Maas 1913: The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation."

• Robinson 2005: The English form “Jesus” is derived from the Latin Iesus which in turn is based on the Greek Iēsous. It is generally held, however, that because Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, his original name must have been Hebrew and that the Greek Iēsous represents the Hebrew Yēshūaʿ which is an abbreviated form of Yəhōshūaʿ (or Yəhōshuaʿ). The original meaning of Yəhōshūaʿ was “Yahweh helps” but it was popularly understood to mean, “Yahweh saves.” The grounds for thinking that Jesus' original name was Yeshuaʿ are: 1) The Hebrew scriptures mention several people called Yəhōshūaʿ, Yəhōshuaʿ or Yēshūaʿ, including Moses' successor Joshua son of Nūn whose name is spelled in all three ways. In the Septuagint, these names are almost invariably rendered as Iēsous (Brown et al., Hebrew and English lexicon, 221). 2) By the first century, only the short form Yēshūaʿ was in use. 3) The New Testament refers to Moses' successor, Joshua, in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, and in both instances it gives his name in Greek as Iēsous. 4) According to Matthew 1:21, an angel told Joseph in a dream that Mary would have a son, and added “Thou shalt call his name Jesus for it is he who shall save his people from their sins.” As there is no play-on-words in the Greek, Matthew's readers were presumably familiar with the original Hebrew name and its etymology. Western scholars, because of their conviction that Jesus' authentic Hebrew name is Yēshūaʿ, have been puzzled by the Qurʾān's reference to him as ʿĪsā. . (there's much more here about the etymological speculations surrounding ʿĪsā that you will find very interesting from a linguistic perspective, but which is too long and not relevant enough to justify copy-pasting here under fair use)

• Stegemann 2006: The Greek name Ἰησοῦς/Iēsoûs is, in the LXX, a rendition of the Hebrew Yəhōšuaʿ (‘JHWH helps’) as well as of the later form Yēšuaʿ and was, until the 2nd cent. AD, common among Jews.; perhaps also relevant: Aramaic was the colloquial language in Galilaea at the time of J.; Hebrew was the holy language or the language of the religious doctrine, hence it can be assumed that J. had knowledge of Hebrew. Knowledge of Greek is improbable. Hebrew and knowledge of the Bible and of religious traditions were probably taught to Jesus by his father, like to so many other children (or maybe in school); .

• For contrast, here is Ehrman 2012: It is the Greek name for the Aramaic Yeshua, Hebrew Joshua. It is found in the Greek Old Testament, for example, long before the Gospel writers lived and is a common name in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus.

I think's it quite clear that the first three sources (all top-quality encyclopedias) are not representing their own researched views, but rather a certain scholarly consensus that Yēshūaʿ is originally a Hebrew name (all three), and that it is a shortened and later form of Yəhōshūaʿ (Robinson 2005 saying that it's an abbreviated form and that by the first century, only the short form Yēshūaʿ was in use & Stegemann 2006 calling it the later form). Ehrman 2012 provides evidence that scholars also consider it to be an Aramaic name (though it is very much mentioned in the passing here). I can see how without access to Robinson 2005 and Stegeman 2006 this would have been difficult to determine, but now it should be pretty clear that this is the general view. Unless you can show us how and by whom that view has since been overturned, it is what we should represent in the article. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 18:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The name is semitic. Of course if you add in this form then the premise establishes that its origin is Hebrew/Aramaic, not Hebrew. I don't understand this sentence. Can you clarify what you mean? The form יֵשׁוּעַ is presumed to be Hebrew in origin by the mainstream theory that sees the second component as deriving from י–שׁ–ע, as this root is productive in Hebrew & otherwise absent from Aramaic. The research by Aitken & Davies that Tiamut has pointed to rejects the י–שׁ–ע root, & instead connects the similar theophorous names in Hebrew to a nominal שוֹע, which is an independent noun present elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. It is potentially found in two Phoenician names. It does not appear in Aramaic aside from in the names that Aramaic shares with Biblical Hebrew. But the main point for Misplaced Pages is that we should draw on secondary sources. The very great majority of sources that we've been able to identify thus far identify the name solely as Hebrew. (They don't deny it as Aramaic: They just don't mention Aramaic.) Jastrow's Aramaic dictionary explicitly identifies it as a borrowing from Hebrew. Brown-Driver-Briggs identifies it explicitly as a borrowing from Hebrew. Our job as Misplaced Pages editors is to go by the sources in good faith. I see no source that proposes an independent development in Aramaic. I see two major mainstream lexical sources that explicitly identify the Aramaic name as a borrowing.

Where is the evidence for this adoption into Aramaic… More importantly for Misplaced Pages, where are the sources. See the previous ¶.

Were those parts of the Tanakh where the longer form of his name emerges written before the parallel and much wider diffusion of old Aramaic? Oh, I'm not a Biblical historian. Joshua first appears in Exodus, right? If we take the source listed for the Exodus Misplaced Pages article (Mark McEntire, Struggling with God) as authoritative, the date of composition was between 600 & 400 BCE. It was, then, likely drafted during the Exile, which means that it was written in a context in which the imperial language was Aramaic. But there's no evidence of Aramaic within Exodus. But again, more importantly for our purposes: Is there any source that posits that the name יהושׁוע had anything other than a Hebrew origin? I have seen nothing.

So there is textual evidence for Yehoshua in the specifically Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra? No. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you or failing to follow your implication, but I think you misread what I wrote.

In short, I think we were close to a solution but this tweaking appears to me to raise more problems than it resolves, problems that emerge by insisting on a closeting of Hebrew for priority from a world where there was great fluidity of a kind later orthodox redactions and histories felt uncomfortable with. I'm trying to summarise two positions succinctly to make it easier for other editors to enter this conversation without reading, at this point, over 9,000 words of conversation. There's a distinction between disagreeing with the arguments & disagreeing with the characterisations of the arguments. Could you propose another characterisation? Pathawi (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pathawi: yes, summarizing and collapsing the previous discussion is a great idea. You might want to add that most sources we've seen so far talk about the name Yēšûaʿ (better use the transliteration, since not everyone reads Hebrew letters) as Hebrew only, though we've found some sources for its adoption in Aramaic. I would also like to make sure that Tiamut has seen my reply above before we collapse. Thank you for the great work you're doing here, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 13:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I think the best thing to do would be to start the summary in a new section, because this one is so long that the spell checker is refusing to process it. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 18:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

No need to collapse anything here yet. As the only pagan here, just let me clarify. I approach these things in terms of anthropological history or historical anthropology, and the difficulties of reconstructing historical matters in antiquity when (a) we are given a mastertext whose voluminousness trumps the scanty remains of cultures that coexisted in parallel, and (b) esp. when the mastertext has exercised an extraordinary powerful, one might say, 'hegemonic' influence over scholarship and our civilization(s) down to recent times, and (c) is known to have undergone successive recensions to elide the cultic and cultural diversity of Palestine (just as we find in Greek foundational texts). The premise is to tow so much that defies our immediate understanding by towing matters invariably to whatever evidence in the master text which might appear to throw suggestive light on the crux we have, i.e. always to refer back to Hebrew usage in the Tanakh, (but I could adduce examples from Homer in Greek or early Chinese classics), a text that represents the doctrinal priorities of a small class (not particularly powerful in the period we are speaking of), with its selective bias, Hebrew (as opposed to the vernaculars, Aramaic and later koiné Greek, which were dominant by Jesus's time). If, as Pathawi argues, there is one source for the contention that his name was borrowed into Aramaic from Hebrew, and is not attested in the former (not surprising, given the scarcity of Aramaic texts for this specific area at that period), it does not in my view warrant asserting this in the lead, but can be noted in the name section. My reserve is one grounded in minimalist methodological skepticism - you all know of the so-called Copenhagen school - but this can be challenged on the grounds of RS as just a principle of historical scruple rather than an argument drawn from pertinent sources. That is why I share, coming from a different perspective, Tiamut's formulation and, if I recall, Pathawi's attempt at compromise. It is easy for us all to second-guess POVs here, but I think the safe way to compromise is by adopting a minimalist formulation, where, I believe, agreement is solid, rather than complicate matters.Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

As I already asked Tiamut elsewhere, please put off your scholarly hat and put on your Wikipedian hat. It does not matter here that you are pagan, that you take an anthropological approach, or that you proscribe to the Copenhagen school. What matters here is reliable secondary sources. These sources are saying that Iēsous is derived from the Biblical Hebrew name Yēšūaʿ, in itself an abbreviated form of Yəhōšūaʿ, consisting of the short form of the tetragrammaton Yah + the Hebrew biform of the root y-š-ʿ, šūaʿ. It's Hebrew. Some sources also call it Aramaic, quite obviously because it was in use by Aramaean Jews. Again, it does not matter at all here that you or Tiamut don't like this Biblical derivation. Unless you come up with sources at the same level as those already provided, there should not even be any discussion. What you and Tiamut have been doing to this thread is bludgeoning, which is disruptive. It eats away at one of other editors' most valuable resources, time. It is disrespectful. Please stop doing this now. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 18:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

To clarify: I see that in the last bit of your comment you concede that there are no reliable sources for your view, and call for a compromise minimalist formulation instead. But WP:NPOV clearly says that the relative prominence of each viewpoint among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered. If it has no basis in a reliable source, your view is strictly personal and should carry no weight at all: it would be violating core content policy to compromise between the view of reliable sources and the purely personal views held by editors. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 19:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I am very disappointed in you characterizing my contributions here as "bludgeoning" and "disruptive". I provided sources from Strong's Concordance about Jesus being an Aramaic name, and axknowledged it is Hebrew too. It seems that if you don't get exactly what you propose accepted immediately you become uncollegiate. Or perhaps your apparent prejudice against me from the beginning is at work. Whatever the case, I am done with this discussion. Go ahead and do whatever you like. Tiamut 06:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Aidani123: How ya doing, friend? What do you think of our discussion about the relatively minor change you requested? Just for the record, this is a relatively mild discussion. I've seen some that would make this look like two editors just stopping by the talk page to say "hi" to each other. Welcome to Misplaced Pages! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Meh, you should see us when we get into serious stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't you threaten me with a good time... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"The absence of a colon introduces an ambiguity." That's just poetic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm getting it tattood across my shoulder blades next week. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm in the Sudan, which has a large number of IP addressed rangeblocked from Misplaced Pages editing. I've been watching this conversation play out for two days in much the way that it did for the four days before that. It is now one week since Aidani123 made a fairly simple request. This subsequent debate has extended to over 10,000 words & has been dominated by Apaugasma, Nishidani, Tiamut, & myself. I am skeptical that this group of four editors can achieve a resolution. I'm actually not entirely sure what we're arguing about, anymore.

I made a proposal above for how to reset the conversation & make it accessible to other editors. Nishidani opposed this. I haven't seen any other proposal for how to move forward. I would like to make two independent proposals:

First: That the four of us back off. If you're too attached to one representation to allow resolution on a simple issue, then you're probably too committed to a particular point of view to be editing a related Misplaced Pages article. There are thousands of editors. I think it's time for us to tap out. We've all given quite enough support to our perspectives: Others can read these & evaluate.

Second: My understanding is that there are two basic questions:

1. How to characterise the etymology of Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs in the lead sentence;
2. What account to give for the origin of the name in the body of the article.

Lead ¶s should generally follow the content of the article. I propose that editors addressing this issue set question one aside for the moment (even tho that's where Aidani123's request lies), & focus on question two. Obviously, if the four of us step aside, other editors will handle this as they see best, but one way to work on this might be progressively from: 1) the older scholarly consensus (Iēsoûs = Yēšûaʿ = Yəhôšûaʿ; Yēšûaʿ & Yəhôšûaʿ = Yāh + y-š-ʿ); to, 2) more recent published work (Iēsoûs = Yēšûaʿ = Yəhôšûaʿ; Yēšûaʿ & Yəhôšûaʿ = Yāh + šôaʿ); to, 3) any published material on etymological links beyond these names & any published material that is skeptical of these etymologies.

That's all I got. I very strongly encourage other editors to recognise how long it has taken us to make no progress in doing something relatively small (if potentially significant), & direct their efforts for the moment away from arguing for a particular position on the results & instead toward how we might achieve a resolution. If you disagree with this course of action, please don't argue with me. Instead: Pitch another way to move forward. Pathawi (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Section break: edit proposal

I'm very sorry, but the editors above have been making this unnecessarily and weirdly complex. In truth, there is not much left to argue nor to discuss. The relevant sources are quoted above, and I've already adequately paraphrased them in an earlier edit proposal. No valid reason has been given, neither source- nor policy based, not to just implement that proposal. I'm pretty sure most editors broadly agree with it, and it's really only the bludgeoning which obscures that. I'm going to copy it once more below, updated with a few elements from Pathawi's proposal. Editors who support it, please just make a short statement that you do. Editors who would oppose it, please only comment if you have a good source to back up your objections. Advice on cosmetic modifications is of course always welcome.

Lead: Jesus (Template:Lang-grc, likely from Template:Lang-he), c. 4 BC – AD 30 / 33, also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ,

Main body: The English name Jesus is derived from the Latin Iesus, itself a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs). The Greek form is probably a rendering of the Hebrew and Aramaic name Template:Rtl-lang (Yēšûaʿ), a shorter variant of the earlier Hebrew name Template:Rtl-lang (Yəhôšûaʿ, English: "Joshua"), meaning "Yah saves". This was also the name of Moses' successor and of a Jewish high priest in the Hebrew Bible, both of whom are represented in the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) as Iēsoûs.

References

1. Maas, Anthony J. (1913). "Origin of the Name of Jesus Christ" . In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
2. Robinson 2005; Stegemann 2006. For Yēšûaʿ as an Aramaic name, see Ehrman 2012, p. 29; "3443. Yeshua, Strong's Concordance: Hebrew". Bible Hub.
3. Robinson 2005; "2424. Iéosus, Strong's Concordance: Greek". Bible Hub.
4. "Joshua 1:1". Archived from the original on February 2, 2019. Retrieved February 1, 2019.
5. "Ezra 3:2". Archived from the original on February 2, 2019. Retrieved February 1, 2019.
6. Robinson 2005; Stegemann 2006.

Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 05:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Was Jesus literate?

I remain curious about whether Jesus was himself literate. But Spencer McDaniel is likely correct in writing that "Ultimately, of course, I don’t think it is possible for us to know for certain whether the historical Jesus was literate or not." Oh well. Acwilson9 (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

John 7:53-8:11 describes Jesus writing on the ground (some sources say sand) with a stick, and from the quote it reads as if he was quite busy and writing more than a simple mark or drawing. A sign of biblical description literacy. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

And Luke 4:17-21 has Jesus unrolling a copy of Isaiah and reading from it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

If I recall, McDaniel's article has commentary on those, but either or both of you might disagree with him. As a lifetime non-evangelical/non-proseletyzing atheist myself, I'm agnostic about what McDaniel wrote. (But Jesus the loving compassionate person was definitely wonderful, IMO.) I will NOT add the "literacy question" to this WP article, as it isn't important, but has the potential to instigate an "edit war". Acwilson9 (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hyperlink for the Gospel of John

In the section "Life and teachings in the New Testament" under the subsection "Canonical gospels" the Gospel of John should probably be hyperlinked in the parenthesis as all the other gospels are. Aspets (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Aspets

You know what I like about you, Aspets? That was an easy & uncontroversial thing to fix without any extended debate. Done. Pathawi (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

A breath of fresh air :) Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (royalty) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (royalty) articles
• Royalty work group articles
• FA-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• FA-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• FA-Class Christian theology articles
• Top-importance Christian theology articles
• Christian theology work group articles
• FA-Class Catholicism articles
• Top-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• FA-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• Top-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• FA-Class Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• Top-importance Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• FA-Class Jewish Christianity articles
• Top-importance Jewish Christianity articles
• WikiProject Jewish Christianity articles
• FA-Class Anglicanism articles
• Top-importance Anglicanism articles
• WikiProject Anglicanism articles
• FA-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Top-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• FA-Class Islam-related articles
• Mid-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• FA-Class Judaism articles
• Mid-importance Judaism articles
• FA-Class Bahá'í Faith articles
• High-importance Bahá'í Faith articles
• WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles
• FA-Class Ancient Near East articles
• Mid-importance Ancient Near East articles
• Ancient Near East articles by assessment
• FA-Class Bible articles
• Top-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• FA-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
• High-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
• All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
• FA-Class Greek articles
• High-importance Greek articles
• Byzantine world task force articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press