Talk:Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old discussion

In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, I have opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but I think the current state is too conflicted to decide even that.) Mpolo 10:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunate Links

As of right now, the only links to the article are some that obsess over the "J" sound in the modern English version of the name, despite the fact that ALL ancient words beginning in "Y" have come to begin with "J", by an ordinary and normal process of linguistic development, if they went through Old French, or had their pronunciation affected by the French pronunciation of Latin words. This applies to many dozens of Biblical names, as well as to numerous ordinary words such as "Judge" (pronounced Yoodeks in ancient Latin).

I guess I'll add a link to my site http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm for balance, but the article really needs more work. AnonMoos 22:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The name of Jesus

“Jesus is derived from the Latin Iesus, which in turn comes from the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs).” Jesus was first written in early Latin as "IESVS" before adaption of letter U/u in the Middle Ages. Perhaps early Romans confused Greek letters ν (lower case Nu) and υ (lower case Upsilon). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_alphabet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet (Evolution) “V stood for both u and v.” “The Roman alphabet is an adaptation of the Greek alphabet to represent the phonemes of the Latin language” My native language Finnish is ideal and exact in investigating evolution of languages cause without few exception Finnish is written same way as pronounced (one letter = one phoneme). Finnish does not have any “vowel pair sounds” like French or English does, e.g. Y[ou] in English , V[ou]s in French. Finnish also the most ideal language for computerized Speech_recognition -- Unsigned by User 213.216.199.18 or JPV

Sorry, but V-like forms of Greek Nu didn't exist until centuries after the beginning of Christianity, and a name IESNS doesn't make any sense from any linguistic or etymological point of view. AnonMoos

I do not understand what this has to do with anything. "Iesus" is a very straightforward transliteration of the Greek. In any case, I think the letter form is irrelevant to this article. --CTSWyneken 16:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

when and why jeezus?

In the 1611 KJV, did they use Iesus or Jesus? in 1611, did they pronounce the Name as yesu or jeezus? when did they start to say jeezus instead of Yesu? when the Name was printed as Jesus did they pronouce it as Yesu or jeezus? what other language pronounces jeezus? why did people start to say jeezus? if the Name was originally spelt Iesus, and when changed to Jesus they still pronouced Yesu, why did they go to jeezus? "J was originally a capital of I." if they spelt "Jesus" when people were saying Yesu, why aren't they saying Yesu instead of jeezus? -- Unsigned by 138.89.68.186

Dude, the purely visual distinction between the alphabetic letters "I" and "J" did not begin to be consistently made until the 17th century (just little bit after the time of the KJV) but the "j" or "dzh" sound had existed in English many centuries before (ever since the palatalizations of velar consonants in words such as "bridge" or "brycg" in Old English) -- and had existed in the name "Jesus" ever since word-initial sound "y" became the sound "j" by an ordinary process of linguistic development (phonological change) in the French language in the early middle ages. As I said above, this historical change also affected quite a number of ordinary words, such as Latin Yoodex (original Latin spelling IVDEX) becoming modern English "Judge" through French. Jesus, pronounced in Classical Latin more or less as Yaysoos (original Latin spelling IESVS) is quite parallel to the word "judge" in this respect. The change of [s] to [z] in intervocalic position is also an ordinary historical phonological change. For some further info, look at site http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm AnonMoos 18:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Why the fuss over Matt. 1:21?

Dear Friends: I'm not sure what the fuss is over here. Both versions of the text seem to say the same thing to me and I can read Greek and, with some lexical aid, Hebrew. Could we stop the edit war and do as Jayg suggested, talk out what we're going to say? --CTSWyneken 19:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. My problems are not with Matthew 1:21 (I was the one who contributed it in the first place back in 2005-12-27 14:42:38), but with the insertion of numerous, repetitive references to the Gospel of John to talk about divinity rather than titles, while removing statements that bring up mention of how these phrases attributed to Jesus had other uses in a historical context. --Steve Caruso 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That indeed was the problem. The edits removed references to scholarly consensus, and inserted multiple discussion of divinity, rather than titles. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That makes good sense. I think what we should try for is a discussion of the meaning of the name "Jesus." Are there some scholars that purport the reported words of the Angel implies Deity? I suppose that's possible, but I haven't run into any. Everything I've seen focuses on the naming formula, "You will call his name .... for ...." or "you are ... for..." Now, I have seen some discussion that the titles "Son of God," to some extent "Son of Man," etc. carry that kind of freight -- at least to Christian ears. --CTSWyneken 21:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholars generally do not believe the discussion of deity is scholarly, but rather theological in nature. The sole purpose for why I posted the analysis of Jesus' name in Matthew 1:21 was to show, at least at the time of the authoring of the pericope, that the Aramaic form of the name was what he (Jesus) was most likely known by and referred to as (given the analysis of his name in the narrative). The issues concerning proported divinity mainly focused upon what came after the discussion of Matthew. --Steve Caruso 03:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: I see what you meant in terms of words of the Angel, referring to the addition about Luke. I suggest that this article be re-worked to add in a section concerning theological interpretations seperate from documented, scholarly sources concerning Jesus' many appelations and their origins. --Steve Caruso 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is often an artificial distinction, since in many cases the titles of Jesus directly imply divinity. These were generally applied in post-Biblical times by people who believed in his divinity, but that doesn't make the distinction any less artificial. It should be a simple matter to summarize the scholarly consensus for the more ambiguous ones, and it would hardly violate NPOV to inform the reader afterward, "Christians believe this implies thusandso. Others disagree and adhere to the scholarly consensus. Others disagree on the following grounds..." and so forth.

In any case, is this really so serious a problem that it merits {{totallydisputed}}? TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the distinction made above between "scholarly" and "theological." Theology has one of the longest pedigrees of study, has granted and continues to grant Ph. D.s, has a very large library of materials filled with careful study. It is every bit as scholarly as all other disciplines. For the purposes of the wiki, therefore, it is to be taken as seriously as any other academic discipline, whether you buy the conclusions made by one religion, tradition or another.

I would therefore contest that most scholars do not think the discussion of the deity of Jesus scholarly. One does not have to believe this to be the case to try and determine whether the author of Matthew believed the name Jesus in itself as evidence thereof. I would doubt that to be the case, but it may well have been so argued in scholarly material.

When it comes to the dating, authorship, content, etc. of texts in the gospel, there is, of course, considerable differences of opinion, much of it on all sides very subjectively argued. There is even an argument over which language these gospels were written in, which languages the people chronicled spoke, etc. All parties today that I know of do agree that at some point before 100 AD/CE the Gospel of Matthew existed in the form we know it today. While it would not be NPOV to argue whether or not an Angel appeared to Joseph of Nazareth in a dream, we can say that the author of this form Matthew reported that an Angel said these words. The question then becomes, "what did he think these words mean?" Since this is about the name of Jesus, I think the naming passage from Luke should also get some mention.

For our purposes, then, I'd argue we want to report what all schools of thought say about the name of Jesus as it is reported in Matthew and Luke. This would also include thoughtful reflection of what form the name would have taken in Nazareth ca. 4 BC/BCE. In that venue, I think it reasonable to discuss Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek forms, since it is quite plausable that all three languages were spoken in some fashion by the people spoken of in the Gospels. I think here we can be confident that Aramaic would have been used at home, Aramaic or Hebrew in synagogue (if anyone here knows 3rd temple Judaism well, I'd defer to what they think about whether Hebrew nameforms would be used in synagogue, as opposed to home), and Greek when in Sephoris and other places among the Gentiles. There are, of course, schools of thought that think otherwise.

In any case, I think we describe here what the name originally meant to hearers of all three languages --CTSWyneken 09:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In this context, I think we can take "historical-critical" for "scholarly". TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few scholars would disagree. I can cite a number of them if you'd like. Some swear by Historical criticism, some swear at it. 8-) The universe of scholarly literature is much larger than one school, no matter how popular it is. --CTSWyneken 10:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I have a bad habit of allowing the other party in a discussion to frame its terms, so I simply picked up on the "scholarly/theological" distinction that was made without objecting to how it was phrased. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. When it comes to the discussion of what the name of Jesus originally meant, however, I don't think it makes much of a difference. As far as I know, there is little disagreement there. --CTSWyneken 10:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

the history and purpose of this page

In the beginning, there was an article called Jesus. In the attempt to represent all views, the page became too long. Contributers decided to use the Jesus article to highlight Christian views, with brief summaries of other views linked to other articles. This is one of them. With a topic so vast as "Jesus," where there is such divergent views between athiests, Christians and critical scholars, NPOV can be achieved only by having several linked articles covering different bodies of research and thought. This article focuses on how historians interpret the names of Jesus in their historical context. There are already other articles that do the same thing from the Christian POV. Now, we can go to those articles and add in all the research done by critical historians, and once again have a page that is too long. Or we can have a constellation of linked pages which draw on differrent bodies of research. It was the latter that contributors decided on a couple of years ago for practical, not ideological, reasons. Those practical reasons apply today. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

152.163.100.68 and others want to insert selective quotes from the NT in order to make interpretive claims. This violates our NOR policy. How Christians interpret these names and titles, and why, is a legitimate topic for an article. But it should be another article, and indeed, this material is already covered in other articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as we interlink the variety of articles related to Jesus, I agree this is a sensible strategy.

To be sure I'm on the same wavelength: what we're doing in this article is to catalog the names and titles used for Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament and scholarly views of what these meant to the authors of the books in the form we have them today? --CTSWyneken 14:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what you just said is what this article was originally and in my opinion should continue to be about. I would only add, "What readers (or listeners) would have understood these titles, as best as scholars can reconstruct." In short, it takes a specific point of view, which is that how certain words were understood in first century Palestine was different from how Christians even by the second century would have understood. My primary source when I worked on this was Geza Vermes whose work is pretty well-respected but of course if you know work by other scholars attempting to do the same thing - understand these words in their historical rather than theological context - I hope you will add to it.

And of course, do make sure that the other linked articles adequately express the Christian point (or points) of view, by all means!

I am glad we agree on principle. I provide two links other articles that deal with Christian understandings of Jesus, prominently. And those articles, needless to say, report entirely on the Christian view of Jesus. I have no objection to this, as long as views of critical historians are included. before I made my edits, this page looked more like a debate between what critical historians argue (all sourced, of course) and what Christians say. I don't think that makes for a useful argument. At most I would say divide the article into two halves, one on Critical scholars views, and one on Christian views - except any content in the second section is already found in other articles! I just want to be clear that I am not trying to censor a particular point of view, I am just trying to maintain the principles that led to a long series of articles concerning Jesus, which has evolved over the years, a series which cannot be combined into one article for technical reasons, and which taken together do I believe comply with our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Very good. That works for me. If we stick to this model, we should have a good result in the end. Unless you have an objection, I will at least reference, if not quote, where in the NT a title is used. There shouldn't be much difference between reader response viewpoints and the view of the final form of the works, IMHO. I'd like to avoid here going into the complexities of critical theory and the reasons why those of my school of thought often reject it. If we concentrate on a final form rubric, we will not likely have to do much of it.

We will, of course, though, want to reflect all significant views of what these titles mean.--CTSWyneken 16:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Name Jesus edits

I've done some clean up of the look and read of this section. I don't type Hebrew too well, so if someone will add the Hebrew for the word "Yehoshuah" next to the transliteration, I'd appreciate it.

I'm also not attached to the particular wording I've inserted. Feel free to improve the prose.

Also, a couple of questions for our Hebrew scholars:

1 -- Is the name better translated "YHWH saves" or "YHWH is salvation?" 2 -- Does anyone find it offensive for the Name to be spelled out or transliterated in the Wiki? --CTSWyneken 16:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid I cannot answer the questions you pose here. However, I do want to register my agreement with your recent edits. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This leaves out the content that I posted concerning how the Aramaic use was reflected in the Greek text of Matthew. "He will save" is what ישוע (the third person singular imperfect of "to save") translates to. My point was as follows: "For you will name him Jesus ('ישוע' : lit in Aram., he will save) for he will save them from their sins." This points towards an Aramaic useage, not a Hebrew one. Additionally, the shortening of yehoshua to yeshua` only occurs in the exhillic and post-exhillic books of the Old Testament. The lingua franca of the Babylonian Empire was Aramaic. Overall, it would have been highly unlikely that Jesus was referred to by the Hebrew name on a daily basis. --Steve Caruso 19:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a scholarly citation for the connection between the σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ of Matthew and Aramaic? Now, don't get me wrong, I think it likely Jesus spoke in Aramaic at home. But the greek is a very straight forward construction that reflects traditional Hebrew naming formulas. It these the tenses and persons do not always match. So nothing is proved by these being present. Second, in church people always call me "Robert" but at home Bob, Dad, etc. To me, it's equally plausable that Matthew would use a formal name, Hebrew in form, as the familiar one. In Christian tradition, Angels are not very informal creatures! 8-)

As to what he was called on a daily basis, I'm betting on the Koine Greek form in the cities and Aramaic in the country. But all of this is speculation, no matter how founded. Which is rather the point here. All we really know from the Gospels, written in Greek, is he was called Ἰησοῦς. Since the Greek of the NT is very much colored by the LXX, we can make that connection and reflect the scholarly consensus that he was spoken to by his family in Aramaic. --CTSWyneken 21:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Steve Caruso's point is interesting - as are CTSWyneken's. I think the basic issue goes back to the vastness of Jesus as a topic, and the need for multiple articles to cover all views. Steve Caruso, is this your own reading of the text? If so, it violates NOR. However, if this is something you have read in Christion/homiletical literature, I think you can insert your point into either the Christology article or the Jesus in the New Testament article. If you know of a critical scholar who has made this point, by all means put it in this article and if you can, cite the source. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point about NOR. I'll refrain from posting material on the Aramaic layers of Matthew's narrative in reference to Jesus' name until the article I'm authoring is actually published (which should be in a month or so). Although I've touched upon this material in other articles (and material similar to it, such as the Aramaic layer in the True Children of Abraham Debate in John), I've never spelled it out in detail. Wikipedia's rules, altough they are for the best, don't take into account people actually in the field contributing project material. :-) --Steve Caruso 03:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Thadman: It's good to have another scholar around! There's no need for you to wait for your article to be published, as long as you can find a reference from another scholar to make the same point. I don't know of any scholar that actually opposes such a position, so one cite will do. In that case, I think I'd put the conclusion (Jesus was called "y'shua" in his native aramaic) and note it. --CTSWyneken 11:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There are hundreds of scholars that hold to the fact that Jesus' name in Aramaic was ישוע so that part is not a problem; however, I have yet to see another reputable work that brushes upon the parallel between the literal meaning of ישוע, and motivations behind "αυτος γαρ σωσει τον λαον αυτου απο των αμαρτιων αυτων" in Matthew. --Steve Caruso 16:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Since I have to have my nose in this literature due to a food fight over the historicity of Jesus on the main page, I'll watch for it. What I'd like us to take into account, though, is this will be mostly a lay audience (in terms of not scholars) and so we will want to avoid any unneeded linguistic discussion here. Enough to say, IMHO, Jesus was called ישוע in Aramaic, his native tongue. --CTSWyneken 22:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon: "in any case it came to be associated with ישע, cf. Mat I.21;" ישע=salvation

Please sign. --CTSWyneken 11:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Scripture verses

A ton of scripture references were added to the article, making it hard to look at. I've moved them to the notes. Will do further clean up later. Also, given the controversy on the main page (Jesus), could we cite sources for this material? --CTSWyneken 11:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Cite sources for what material?

Please sign in. I'm thinking especially of the etomology. In other words, who says this or that about the Hebrew or Aramaic form of the name of Jesus? --CTSWyneken 19:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Aren't these facts of evidence? Links have been provided to the actual Hebrew verses, the Greek (Rahlfs) can be found here: http://septuagint.org/LXX/ and other places. The Greek name for the Book of Joshua is IESOUS/Jesus, sometimes called Jesus Nave (Jesus son of Nun) to distinquish from Jesus the Nazarene.

If you want one specific reference: Walter Bauer et al. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: "Ἰησοῦς (יֵשׁוּעַ Jeshua, later form for יְהוֹשׁוּעַ Joshua; [references cited])"

Please sign your posts. Also, this reference is a good start. Would you provide full info for this citation? We're missing the other editors, the translator(s), the name of the article you're citing, the edition and the page number of the entry. --CTSWyneken 22:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The reference is very well known among students of the Greek bible. As it is a Lexicon, the quote is from the entry under Ἰησοῦς. Here is the reference at Amazon: link Most good libraries have a copy in their reference section.

*sigh* Please sign your posts. This is important.

I am well aware of the item and have no problem looking it up myself. I work in a seminary library. That is not the point. It is your responsibility to properly cite. Not to do so is at best poor scholarship and at worst plagiarism. Please cite items fully and from sources you can fully document. I have far too many things to look up that have been half-cited by other editors.

Why do I make such a big deal of it? (OK, I'm a librarian, but besides that...) Only fully and properly cited work is immune from challenge by editors who do not like what scholars say. This very issue is hotly debated at talk:Jesus. Do you want it to come here? --CTSWyneken 02:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem? I have the second edition of Bauer, 1979, ISBN:0226039323. It says exactly what is quoted above. I don't know if you fully realize it, but a citation in Bauer for Koine Greek is the equivalent of a citation in the OED for modern English, i.e. it doesn't get any better. Bauer is the standard reference for Koine Greek. There is a new 3rd edition, year 2000 I believe, I really doubt it says anything different, what is being said here is hardly anywhere near controversial.

Two problems, one very easily fixed. Please register as a user and sign your posts! We have no idea who you are. Multiple people could come from the same IP address. It is impossible to build an extended editing relationship with someone who only edits anonymously.

Second, is that you have given a partial reference. What I can contruct from above is:

Walter Bauer. "Ἰησοῦς." Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature2nd ed. 1979.

Since there are multiple editions, editors, translators, etc. You need to list at least three (I think) of the editors. Second, you have not listed the place of publication, the publisher or the page number. Initially, you did not even give us this much.

I would have made no fuss with you at all if you would do these two simple things. --CTSWyneken 11:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There's just three English editions: 1957, 1979, 2000. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/13055.ctl http://www.google.com/search?q=Bauer's%20Greek%20English%20Lexicon

Does the NT call Jesus God?

Raymond E. Brown, in Theological Studies[1] #26 (1965) p.545-73 wrote an article entitled "Does the NT call Jesus God?" which can be summarized as follows: Mk10:18, Lk18:19, Mt19:17, Mk15:34, Mt27:46, Jn20:17, Eph1:17, 2Cor1:3, 1Pt1:3, Jn17:3, 1Cor8:6, Eph4:4-6, 1Cor12:4-6, 2Cor13:14, 1Tm2:5, Jn14:28, Mk13:32, Ph2:5-10, 1Cor15:24-28 are "texts that seem to imply that the title God was not used for Jesus" and are "negative evidence which is often somewhat neglected in Catholic treatments of the subject." Also: "Jesus is never called God in the Synoptic Gospels, and a passage like Mk 10:18 would seem to preclude the possibility that Jesus used the title of himself. Even the fourth Gospel never portrays Jesus as saying specifically that he is God. The sermons which Acts attributes to the beginning of the Christian mission do not speak of Jesus as God. Thus, there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of New Testament tradition. This negative conclusion is substantiated by the fact that Paul does not use the title in any epistle written before 58." And "The slow development of the usage of the title God for Jesus requires explanation. Not only is there the factor that Jesus is not called God in the earlier strata of New Testament material, but also there are passages, cited in the first series of texts above, that by implication reserve the title God for the Father. Moreover, even in the New Testament works that speak of Jesus as God, there are also passages that seem to militate against such a usage - a study of these texts will show that this is true of the Pastorals and the Johannine literature. The most plausible explanation is that in the earliest stage of Christianity the Old Testament heritage dominated the use of the title God; hence, God was a title too narrow to be applied to Jesus. It referred strictly to the Father of Jesus, to the God whom he prayed. Gradually, (in the 50's and 60's?) in the development of Christian thought God was understood to be a broader term. It was seen that God had revealed so much of Himself in Jesus that God had to be able to include both Father and Son."

Please register as a user and sign your posts. It is hard to defend anonymous users. I'm with you on the title, but cannot afford the time for a major edit war when I'm trying to finish documentation on Jesus So please! Sign! --CTSWyneken 22:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

John 1:1

Look, I'm not interested in edit wars. So if John 1:1 is going to be taken out of the article, because it is not a direct reference to Jesus, please present a scholar who says that Logos refers to something other than Jesus in John 1:1. Morris, echoing every scholar, of ever persuasion, that I've ever read, says: "Of particular interest and importance is the use of the term Logos or Word, which is applied to Christ in these verses..." (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, NICNT, p. 63). If the scholarly consensus is that Logos refers to Jesus here, then the reference to John 1:1 needs to say in the article. --MonkeeSage 00:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There is far from a "scholarly consensus" on the issue. Between Christology, memra phenomena in the Targums, and other issues of 1st-2nd century theology, there could be any number of explainations as to what the author of the Logos Hymn in the Fourth Gospel could have meant or intended. However, I personally don't see the harm in including at least a mention to it, provided that it is balanced and goes over all possibilities. --Steve Caruso 01:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say there was consensus on all the connotations of the term, I said there was consensus on the referent of the term (i.e., Jesus), which, as far as I know, is true. Every NT scholar and commentator that I'm familiar with says that John is referring to Jesus by the title Logos (e.g., Morris, p. 110, after an 11-page discussion of the history of the word and the various uses in contemporary literature, concludes: "[John] speaks of Jesus as the Logos"). That makes the title God applied to the Logos, applied to Jesus, by a necessary modus ponens inference: IF the Logos is called God, and Jesus is the Logos, THEN Jesus is called God. --MonkeeSage 02:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, a large number of scholars of the New Testament maintain that this passage is a point blank statement of the divinity of Jesus and that He is God. Whether this or the opposing viewpoint represents a majority on the subject is hard to say without research. We may have to resort to "some...others" language. A part from scholarship, however, the traditions that represent orthodox Christianity east and west see it that way. So it belongs in. If you wish, I'll collect references. --CTSWyneken 02:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there even is an opposing viewpoint on the issue at hand. No matter what one thinks of Jesus, or the Logos, I've never seen any scholar claim that the referent of Logos in John 1:1 is anyone but Jesus (now when it comes to the connotations, there is all kinds of difference of opinion -- but not regarding the referent). --MonkeeSage 02:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The opposing view -- that we should translate καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος as "and the Word was divine" argues that John didn't mean to equate Jesus and God, just that Jesus was from God. As some scholars have pointed out, this ends up with a sophisticated version of the New World Translation's (Watchtower) "a god" translation. The problem is, of course, John wrote in a monotheistic context. "a god," as Athanasius argued, amounts to a second god. This would be blasphemy in Jewish eyes, I believe. Nevertheless, a number of critical scholars argue that way. --CTSWyneken 03:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many instances where other beings, even humans, are referred to as "gods" or "godlike" even by Jesus himself (PS 8:5; John 10:34, 35). See also 2 Co 4:4 where Paul called even the wicked one the "god of this world". All denoting power and majesty. The usage of "divine", "godlike", "a god", etc does not mean polytheism, clearly. Only one true God. --Oscillate 03:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Provided we'd expand upon this in the article, I feel that we would also need to discuss memra theology of the Targums which would also be an important counterpoint (the gradual shift from God speaking to "the word (memra) of God" acting in his stead in Aramaic translation of the Tanakh). Furthermore, there are many scholars who read the θεὸς without definite article as an adjective to ὁ λόγος: "and godly was the logos," much like "and the Word was divine." --Steve Caruso 03:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would personally argue against claiming "God" as a title for Jesus through John 1:1, as the string of logic I feel is reminicent other arguments such as "Jesus is referred to as 'Savior' and the Bible claims in Leviticus that 'Only the Lord is Savior' therefore Jesus is referred to as God" (I'm only half sarcastic :-) ). If we're going to deal with references to Jesus as God within the context of the New Testament, there are no solid equative cases. However, John 1:1 is listed in the footnotes, as of the current revision, under the God subsection. I feel that what we have here is much better and discreet than I see in articles such as Divinity of Jesus. --Steve Caruso 03:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

My point was not regarding the translation of the last clause of v. 1, it was regarding the indentification of Jesus as the Logos. Granted that the reading of all the major Bible translations is accurate (viz., "the Word was God"), the following argument holds absolutely:

Let A represent: "The Logos is called God"
Let B represent: "Jesus is the Logos"
Let C represent: "Jesus is called God"

(A ∧ B) → C

(A ∧ B)

⊢ C

The only question, then, is whether the Logos is identified with Jesus (B), which I believe is the scholarly consensus.

Now regarding the issue of the translation of v. 1c, there is a consensus there as well, I think (consensus = 75% or greater), seeing as all major committee produced translations, as well as several standard grammars (e.g., Dana-Mantey), have the reading "the Word was God". --MonkeeSage 03:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet, it's still by no means a closed case at all. It's a big question whether the correct reading really is "was God", and still open. You may say normal consensus, but there are other scholars who disagree for good reasons. --Oscillate 03:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The translation is a "closed case" in terms of consensus. That some disagree should not be used to overthrow the consensus position and keep it out of the article. That would be undue weight. If I'm not mistaken the scholarly consensus is that the Logos is called God in John 1:1 and that Jesus is identified with the Logos. If I'm correct, then John 1:1 should be included in the footnote under the title "God". One may interpret the title however they like -- I noted that there is dispute in that area in the article -- but the consensus is that Jesus is identified as the Logos and the Logos is called God. If I'm wrong about that, then please show me, otherwise I maintain that the current form of the article holds. --MonkeeSage 04:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to sign your post. We got only the time stamp, however. Try ~~~~, four tildes. That will do the trick. --CTSWyneken 12:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed a tilde! I've added my user name manually for posterity. --MonkeeSage 09:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a page which reviews almost all the relevant discussion from the grammarians on the translation of John 1:1c, with lots of primary source quotes: link. See also the NET Bible footnote (by Wallace), which likewise makes the identification of Jesus=Logos in passing while discussing the grammatical issues in john 1:1c: link. --MonkeeSage 06:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to use the word "consensus", but it's certainly not unanimous. The majority of translations do render it as God, sure. That doesn't mean it's correct, but that's not article worthy. Same for John 1:18, where many translations say Son instead of God, Phil 2:6, where the difference between "form" and "nature" makes a huge difference, and so on. There is mention made in the article about the references being up for discussion as to their meaning. --Oscillate 06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant "consensus" as in 75% or greater ("majority" as 50% or greater). Unless I'm mistaken there is 75% or greater on both matters (viz., the identification of Jesus with the Logos and the translation). I didn't mean to imply complete unanimity. John 1:18 is an issue of manuscripts, not translation, and I would not object to a note that some MSS. read "Son" there, but since the linked page already notes that in the NIV footnotes, that is probably superfluous. --MonkeeSage 07:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ps. I'm not sure if your recent edit is valid: "most translations" creates a dichotomy between the original authors and the translators in these instances, a claim which is only supported by a minority. It almost seems like giving undue weight (I'm not accusing you of trying to do that, just stating what the end-result looks like to me). Is there a better way of getting your point across without insinuating that original/translation chasm? --MonkeeSage 07:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to learn, read Raymond Brown's Commentary on the Gospel of John. The pre-existant word ("Let there be light") is only loosely connected with Jesus. Also, the Greek of this passage is particularly thorny, it probably can't be accurately translated into English. Brown notes that "and the word was divine" is one of several valid translations of the Greek. Ditto for "and the word was toward God". Brown warns against reading this verse in a post-Nicene context, there is much more to it than that.

Then who else is it connected with? Who is the object of the "he", which takes its primary reference in the Logos of v. 1, in vss. 2-18 -- "loosly" Jesus and partly someone else?! Who does Brown say is referred to by the Logos in the Prologue of John, if not Jesus? And, if you "really, really" want to learn, read the Greek grammarians, who hold that either a definite ("the Word was God", NASB, ESV, &c) or qualitative ("what God was the Word was", NEB; "he was the same as God", TEV, "the Word was fully God", NET) translation is the most accurate (see links above), both of which fit with citing John 1:1 under the title "God". --MonkeeSage 09:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The concept of Logos is HUGE in Greek philosophy, not to mention the "word of God" in Judaism, and similar concepts in other cultures: Persian, Indian, Chinese, etc. I took a quick look at your online reference and wasn't very impressed, it is primarily apologetic, you'll find the serious references in Brown's book which is considered the current standard reference on the Gospel of John. If you want to get really scholarly, Brown's "Does the NT call Jesus God?" article is probably the best you can get.

And once again I point out the distinction between the connotation of the word Logos (on which there is much dispute) and the referent (on which there is little-to-no dispute). No scholar that I know of, not even "liberal scholars" [by the reckoning of their own ilk] like Brown, claim that Logos has any other referent in John's Prologue than Jesus. And if you think that Colwell, Dana-Mantey, Blass-Debrunner, Harner, Wallace, et al. are simply "apologetic" then, no offense, you have no idea about grammatical studies -- those are the main movers and shakers regarding the translation of anarthrous predicate-nominatives with a stative verb, as in John 1:1c. --MonkeeSage 09:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to simplify this for you: Many scholars think that the Logos in John 1 refers to the Logos. Of course, that's probably why John chose to use that word instead of Jesus. If he wanted to say Jesus is God, there was nothing preventing him from saying so. There are a number of such direct, unambiguous statements in the NT, such as about Herod being god, and Paul being god, but none about Jesus.

They shouted, "This is the voice of a god, not of a man." Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.

"The gods have come down to us in human form!"

The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

That may be simple, but it is not correct. John 20:28 has Thomas calling Jesus God. 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13 have Peter and Paul calling Jesus God. Colossians 1:19, 2:9 speak of "completely all" of God dwelling in Jesus. Regarding John 1:1, I have yet to see any scholar claim that the Logos refers to anyone other than Jesus. Once again, the Prologue of John, with pronouns and names that refer to the Logos bolded:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) He was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (4) In him was life, and the life was the light of men. (5) The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (6) There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. (7) He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. (8) He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. (9) The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. (10) He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him'. (11) He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. (12) But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (13) who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (14) And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (15) (John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") (16) And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. (17) For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (18) No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV).

There is a good reason why all scholars believe that the Logos refers to Jesus -- because the text explicitly says so! --MonkeeSage 09:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That sums John up right there -> "No one has ever seen God". Jesus, of course, was seen by many.

I made a point of noting in the article the dispute over what the title "God" means as applied to Jesus. But my point here is that the title is applied to Jesus, esp. John 1:1, whatever one may make of such a title in such a context. --MonkeeSage 10:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." KJV

And? What does that have to do with the fact that the Logos is called "God" in John 1:1, and the Logos refers to Jesus? --MonkeeSage 11:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The word of God ("Let there be light") is divine and became incarnate in Jesus.

Please sign in! Another reason: if Monkee hadn't indented, we could easily have confused your words and his. PLEASE SIGN IN!--CTSWyneken 11:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree (though I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion). --MonkeeSage 11:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! Please at least sign you edits using four tildes (4 x ~). --MonkeeSage 12:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

All this is not relevant

Folks, it does not matter what we think the translation of this passage is. The fact is that a substantial number of scholars think that it is a point blank statement of Jesus as God and a substantial number that it is not. We can solve the problem by crafting text that represents both views. --CTSWyneken 11:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how substantial the number is that disagree. From what I can tell, all scholars agree that 1.) John 1:1c refers to deity (however they understand it, and however they reach that conclusion -- either by understanding theos as definite or as qualitative), and 2.) that Jesus is directly identified with the Logos. --MonkeeSage 12:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If we have John 1:1 listed as a footnote in the current section, why should we need additional mention of it at all? It is not enough to let readers draw their own conclusion by reading through the footnotes? If not, then I'm siding with CTSWyneken and I strongly suggest that we draft a copy of it here in the Talk page before posting it. --Steve Caruso 14:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is a reference made to Jesus referred to as "Theos", should there not be a note that it is missing the definite article (i.e. John 1:1), and this is why the meaning of the word is debated (not to mention the rest of the scriptures). --Oscillate 14:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wipe and re-write Divinity of Jesus to deal with this issue in more detail, then link from this article to the new one? Under that article we could actually take the time to go over each passage in the NT tradition as well as different theological points from various denominations and other religions and keep things tidy. --Steve Caruso 16:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that we need anything more than the footnote. I was arguing above that we should include the footnote, that's all. Since the scholarly consensus (or at least majority) recognize that theos is a title referring to deity in some sense (whether definite "God," qualitative "what God is," or indefinite "a god"), and that Jesus is identified with the Logos, there is really no need to note anything about the grammar and syntax of the passage and so on. I think just indicating that there is dispute over the meaning of the title as applied to Jesus is sufficient. --MonkeeSage 06:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason for leaving out the ὁ here is not because we're discussing Jn 1:1 in the body of the text, but because we are summarizing what a half dozen or so passages say. Some, like John 1:1, do not use the ὁ; some, like John 1:18, do. By leaving it out, we generalize. --CTSWyneken 11:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

meaning of names

The current article states: "(יְהוֹשׁוּעַ). Yehoshua means "the Lord is salvation" (literally "Jehovah is salvation")." Actually, it literally means: Yahoo, help us!

Another reference if you're looking for references: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=544&letter=J&search=Joshua In Hebrew יהושוע (Deut. iii. 21; Judges ii. 7) and commonly יהושע (Judges ii. 7a; Ex. xvii. 9; Josh. i. 1) correspond to אלישוע = "helped by Yhwh," the shorter form being הושע = "help" or "one who helped" (Num. xiii. 8; Deut. xxxii. 44; here probably an error for יהושוע ). The Septuagint has Ἰησους; the Vulgate, usually "Josue," but "Jesus" in Ecclus. (Sirach) xlvi. 1; I Macc. ii. 55; II Macc. xii. 15, identical with ישוע, the post-exilic form of the name.

I had to do the Hebrew by hand, hopefully I got it correct.

From what I understand, shua came to have the extended meaning of "salvation", but I tried to incorporate the meaning of "help/deliverance" into the article for completeness. --MonkeeSage 10:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's close, but I think it's a mistake. שוע/shua is to cry out for help, ישע/isha is salvation. Cite from above: Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon: "in any case it came to be associated with ישע, cf. Mat I.21;" ישע=salvation. I think the current revision of Jesus#Name says the same thing, with references cited.

Please register as a user and sign your posts. --CTSWyneken 11:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On the issue itself, both meaning are a part of the word. There are several Hebrew words that have the sense of help (like the ezer in ebenezer). Here we are influenced by the Greek of the report of the gospels of the instructions to Joseph:

τέξεται δὲ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν· αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.

σώσει kind of locks in the "salvation" denotation. --CTSWyneken 11:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In Greek, according to Matthew. In the interests of npov, you shouldn't assume that is necessarily correct.

Well it is definitely correct that ישע means "salvation," (cf. LXX Psa. 117:25 [118:25 MT], σῶσον), but I thought that שוע could have the same meaning by extension. I'm not versed in Hebrew at all, so I'll leave this to those who know more than me. --MonkeeSage 12:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the "extension" is Matthew 1:21, which may or may not be correct. In any case, there are references to this discussion at Jesus#Name.

By "extension" I mean semantic extension, where a word is used to refer to a cognate word, or word with a shared connatation, usually as an application or expansion on the connotation or denotation of the original word. But as I said, I don't know Hebrew, so I can't say for certain. I can say that BDB gives "Jehovah is salvation," for what it's worth. BTW, PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS! --MonkeeSage 13:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the accepted Aramaic version of the name (which is also used for other Joshuas in Post-Exilic portions of the Tanakh; the timeperiod when Aramaic was starting to supercede Hebrew as the vernacular language) literally means "he will save." 3rd person singular imperfect of the verb "to save" (שוע) to be exact. This also works very well with Matthew 1:21 along the same "Old Testament formula" that Matthew's author tries to mimic (for example, how Isaac was named, Moses, etc., ). --Steve Caruso 14:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's contested whether שוע means he saves. The primary meaning is H7768, "he cries out for help."

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1143868368-74.html

From Jesus#Name: "The name Yēshûa‘ (יֵשׁוּעַ from ש-ו-ע) does not equate with the word “salvation”, yĕshû‘āh (יְשׁוּעָה from י-ש-ע), and the similarities in spelling are a coincidence."

If you don't at least SIGN your posts, I'm going to ignore you also, and revert any changes you make to the article on the assumption that you are a troll who is just trying to cause problems. --MonkeeSage 05:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.

There is no personal attack implied here. How could it, if there is no person to attack. It is simply a statement of fact. If you do not sign, others have no obligation to work with you. I will not and Monkee will not it appears. And we're among the more tolerant on the wiki. --CTSWyneken 22:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it also a policy somewhere on Wikipedia that one should sign their talk posts? --Steve Caruso 02:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not a policy. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines --Vlad the Impaler

It isn't an official policy, it is a convention, and a sign of mutual respect. Similarly, there is no law in Japan about bowing when you are bowed to -- just don't expect others to respect or take you seriously if you refuse to bow to them when they bow to you! --MonkeeSage 10:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sign your posts --MonkeeSage 10:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete References

Dear folks:

The reference to non-Biblical works are incomplete. Please expand them. We need full publication information or we are guilty of not fully recognizing the works of others. --CTSWyneken 11:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Walter Bauer, et.al., 2nd ed., University of Chicago, 1979, ISBN:0226039323

The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, Hendrickson, 1979, ISBN:0913573205

Please register and sign your posts! --CTSWyneken 12:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The above is a start, but is still incomplete. we are missing the page numbers and the translators, editors of the English edition for the BAGD, the page number, city of the publisher, the authors and editors of BDB. Curiously enough, we do not need the ISBN. --CTSWyneken 12:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately my BDAG is in storage, so I can't lookup the page numer and I don't have a hardcopy BDB, so same thing there. but I think that with lexicons, the convention is to assume the entry name as the reference without page numbers. But it wouldn't hurt to have them! --MonkeeSage 12:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Monkee. I believe formal references require some kind of number; a page, a column, an entry number (like Strong's), a classical reference (like chapter-verse for the Bible, or, for Eusebius's Church History, Book-Chapter-paragraph). The point is, if someone wants to look it up, they should be able to turn straight to it. With Greek and Hebrew, this is especially important, since I've known people who do not read the languages try to look up terms.

By the way, I'm tired of our anonymous user not signing his or her posts. From now on, I'm ignoring him or her and will treat all edits by him or her as random. --CTSWyneken 12:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of references, we have no info on Strong's either. --CTSWyneken 12:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't blame you. You've requested signing for at least two or three days now, and they still refuse for some reason. I think our "Strong's" references are actually a mix of Strong+Thayer for Greek and Strong+BDB for Hebrew, but I can't find any bibliographic info on the site, so it's hard to say. :| --MonkeeSage 12:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong's should be public domain.

This is not a copyright question. It's scholarly practice. We should cite the source fully. --CTSWyneken 14:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong's Concordance

STOP TROLLING! --MonkeeSage 22:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Anachronism alert!

The current article states: "Yehoshua originally meant "Jehovah is [my] help" or "Jehovah helps", but by as early as the second century BCE, had come to mean "Jehovah is salvation"."

Jehovah was "unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galantinus" Ref: New BDB, 1979. Further more, it is an error. See Tetragrammaton#Jehovah for details.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) when making your posts on talk pages.

All the English words in the definition are "anachronisms" too, since English didn't exist yet! "Jehovah" is an established English transliteration of the Hebrew יהוה. Also, Sirach, a second century BCE apocryphal work, makes the meaning at the time very clear: Ἰησοῦς Ναυη. . .ἐγένετο κατὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ μέγας ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ, "Joshua [son of] Nun. . .became, according to his name, a great savior of [His=God's] chosen ones" (46:1). --MonkeeSage 08:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Sirach 46:1 says Joshua son of Nun means "savior of his elect", Philo's On the Change of Names XXI says Moses gave that same Joshua his name which means "the salvation of the Lord" --- and from that you conclude that Jesus means "Jehovah is salvation"? Who do you think you fool?

κύριος is the Greek translation of יהוה ("Jehovah") in many places in the LXX, and "salvation" in Greek (σωτηρίᾳ) is distinct from "help" (βοηθέω). I guess I invented the LXX, and Sirach, and Philo, and redacted all of them to match my ideas by my amazing mental powers. Yes, indeed-y... You give me too much credit.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) when making your posts on talk pages.

--MonkeeSage 19:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah is the invention, and it has been discredited. See also Iaoue and Iabe.

Monkee, don't reply to the annonymous editor. If he won't play nice, he should go home. --CTSWyneken 21:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah is the common english transliteration, widely used and recognized. All transliterations are inventions. From Iaoue: "This would favor Clement's ιαουε being transliterated to Yahove (or even Jahove)", and "The name Jhvh enters into the composition of many names of persons in the Old Testament, either as the initial element, in the form Jeho- or Jo- (as in Jehoram, Joram), or as the final element in the form -jahu or -jah (as in Adonijahu, Adonijah)" from the Iabe article. Also "hellelujah" and so on. It's common, just as "Jesus" is the common transliteration and pronunciation in english. No one has such issues with "Jesus" being used commonly, but somehow with Jehovah, people get in a furor: "it has been discredited". It's just the most common transliteration, no one knows exactly how it was pronounced. Yahweh is just as acceptable, which is what the article uses right now. (Sorry CTS, I had to reply this once). --Oscillate 21:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You are forgiven. ;-) As I understand it, Jehovah is a translitteration of the Masoritic text. The Rabbis had pointed the divine name with the vowels of adonai, knowing no jew would even accidently pronounce the non-sensical word. Just to be irritating, I try to avoid the word. Around Jewish friends, I look for less offensive ways to refer to deity. --CTSWyneken 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Religious Jews consider יהוה to be unpronounceable. The pronounciation Jehovah is not offensive, actually it is somewhat comical as it shows a serious lack of understanding of the Masoretic Text. Wilhelm Gesenius proposed יַהְוֶה which would be Yahweh. You can read more about it here: Yahweh#Wilhelm_Gesenius_Punctuated_YHWH_as_.22.D7.99.D6.B7.D7.94.D6.B0.D7.95.D6.B6.D7.94.22_.28i.e._Yahweh.29

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) when making your posts on talk pages.

It's hard to see how God could tell Moses to go say an unpronounceable name (Exo. 3:15). And regardless of how or why it came into the English langauge, it did, and it is perfectly acceptable for use by English speakers (all standard English dictionaries have an entry for it), even if it is not the most accurate transliteration. The French "Guillaume" (gwee-yam) sounds much different from the English "William" or the Swedish "Vilhelm", but people don't sit around obsessing about it. Anyhow, Str1977 changed it to Yahweh in the article now. --MonkeeSage 07:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=206&letter=J

"The reading "Jehovah" is a comparatively recent invention. The earlier Christian commentators report that the Tetragrammaton was written but not pronounced by the Jews (see Theodoret, "Question. xv. in Ex." [Field, "Hexapla," i. 90, to Ex. vi. 3]; Jerome, "Præfatio Regnorum," and his letter to Marcellus, "Epistola," 136, where he notices that "PIPI" [= ΠIΠI = יהוה] is presented in Greek manuscripts; Origen, see "Hexapla" to Ps. lxxi. 18 and Isa. i. 2; comp. concordance to LXX. by Hatch and Redpath, under ΠIΠI, which occasionally takes the place of the usual κύριος, in Philo's Bible quotations; κύριος = "Adonay" is the regular translation; see also Aquila)."

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) when making your posts on talk pages.

That the Jews didn't say it, doesn't mean that it was impossible to say. Religious Jews that speak English nowdays don't even say "God" (they say "G-d"), but "God" is certainly pronounceable. Kurios translates YHVH as often as ADN (e.g., Exo. 3:15). But whatever, I'm done with this discussion, you may continue to obsess over the issue it you'd like, it has nothing to do with the article at this point. --MonkeeSage 09:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

References Better, but still not complete

I see an improvement, but we still need to fill these out. Because editions vary, editors and translators vary, in some cases, authors vary, we need for the first reference to each work:

Author of the entry. "title of the entry." edition. editors (up to at least two, better three, then et Al.), tramslators if different from the editors. Place: Publisher, date. Page of entry. If online, the URL.

After these, the author, and page number are sufficient. --CTSWyneken 21:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

adding more content

I have just added content that was in the original version of the article but that had been removed. I suspect it was removed in order to make this a shorter article, with details in linked articles. I think this is neither necessary nor effective. It is not necessary because the article is not too long for anyone's server, not by a long shot. It is not wise because many of the linked articles (not all) are not specifically about Jesus or Christianity. They thus say nothing about the "names and titles of Jesus." I have restored content that is specific to Geza Vermes' arguments about the names and titles of Jesus. This is only one point of view, although it is a very well-regarded point of view. If the problem is that other points of views need to be represented, the solution is to add, not to delete. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It was probably me who removed some (or most) of it. You're right, I was trying to consolidate (though I also tried to keep the main points of the longer version), and I also linked most of the titles to their main articles. But I see your point about the other articles not always being in context, and I have no problem with your latest edits. I've also added (a little) more content to compliment or balance out the discussion. --MonkeeSage 07:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you find my edit acceptable - I did try to be judicious in wha I restored. Let's keep an eye on length, but I think for now it is fine. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Son of man

I had restored some material drawing on Geza Vermes and explained why here on the talk page. Someone deleted some of that material. I have restored it. To my explanation above I add this: the Son of man article may or may not have the Vermes material in it. Regardless, the Son of man article is on the phrase itself. This article is about Jesus. The Vermes material has to do with interpreting "the Son of man" as a title of Jesus. As such, while it may or may not be appropriate for a general article on the term, it is absolutely relevant and appropriate for this article, which is sp;ecifically about the meaning of these terms in reference to Jesus. The Vermes stuff is entirely on point in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Vermes' material is superfluous as he has an entire section in the main article dedicated to his views. The paragraph that we have there is more than sufficient to discuss the general scholarly consensus on the phrase, and if we mention Vermes, we should also mention Chilton, Casey, Crossian, Gibson, Smith, Cureton, Funk, and every other individual scholar's 2 shekels as well. :-) --Steve Caruso 03:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. While his view is impotant, very few points merit mentioning the names of the scholars that advocate them in open text. We can include his views, certainly, but combine them with others and cite him in a note. --CTSWyneken 10:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thadman claims that the section here is only a summary paragraph of the larger Son of Man article - but also seems to think this article is the main article, and Son of man is a sub-page. This is incorrect. This is a sub-page of the Jesus article. Moreover, the Son of man article is not a sub-page of this article. It is a linked page. Moreover, the Son of man is about a larger topic than this article. This article is about Jesus's names and titles. The son of man article is about an idiomatic phrase in Aramaic, one that was used by many people who did not even know who Jesus was. To suggest that the Son of man article is about Jesus is to misrepresent what the phrase son of man means, and violates NPOV. The son of man article is about an Aramaic phrase. This article is about a title of Jesus. The Vermes paragraph is about Jesus's title. It belongs in the article on Jesus' title. The Son of man article is not about Jesus. This article is. Vermes views of Jesus belong in this article.

Also, I disagree with CTSWyneken. A good encyclopedia article attributes different views to those who hold them, and provides sources. I agree that others should be mentioned. I already said this. The fact that the article does not provide the views of other scholars is not a valid reason for deleting one scholar's views - not in this article or any other article. Keep relevant and accurate content. If it is incomplete, don't delete but add. If Thadman wants to add material on Crossan, Funk, etc.s views of Jesus being son of man, by all means add them. That is what writing an encyclopedia is all about. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I can't think of an encyclopedia that does this. It is common in scholarly essays to tag each view with the scholar's name. Can you direct me to one? Typically, this is put in a bibliography. Wiki is unique in using footnotes at all. Since we're generalizing, I think we should avoid saying "this scholar says that." What I'm saying is, naming Vermes slants the article towards him. But to name the others: According to Carson, countered by Vermes, supported by Crossan... will baloon the article. Is Vermes alone in this view? If not, we should not include him in the text. Footnotes are enough. --CTSWyneken 17:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I seriously but respectfully disagree. First, Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias in many ways - not being a paper encyclopedia means articles can be more detailed, and the lack of an editorial board means we need to be more specific about the sources (as an indication of quality). What I meant was, other Wikipedia articles do this and we should aspire to do more of it. Second, you say "since we are generalizing" and I guess this is what I object to. We should generalize when there is a concensus, but otherwise generalizing is not required of Wikipedia articles and indeed often disallowed by our NPOV policy, which requires we provide different points of view. (Other encyclopedias often do generalize, but the generalizations often reflect the views of the scholars writing the article - something that does not at all apply to us). Finally, and I see this as a fundamental point, Wikpedia articles are always works in progress. You raise two objections (a) that including Vermes slants the article towards Vermes. But CTSWyneken, can't you see this is only a temporary phenomena? I read Vermes, so I was able to add his views in compliance with our core policies (NPOV, NOR, Cite sources). You should never delete accurate content that complies with these policies, ever. If I included only Vermes view, it is because I do not know the other views. But Wikipedia is also a collaborative project. If I do not know the views of other scholars, someone else who does should add them in. Once other editors join the collaboration, the article will not be slated towards Vermes view, it will represent other views. But this is the only direction to go: add other views - don't delete one view. (b) that adding other views will balloon the article. This is a valid concern. But we cannot act on it preemptively. Let us add to the article - and when it gets too big then we can decide what to do next. In the meantime, your comment does suggest one way that we can be more economical, and that is to see what views can be consolidated. In other words, if four or five different scholars have the same view, we can say many scholars and have a footnote or in-line citation (in order to comply with Cite sources). If other scholars agree with Vermes, instead of providing each scholar's individual view, say, "x, y, and z ..." But you are wrong that if Vermes is the only one holding this view, he should be deleted. He is an important scholar of Jesus and even if other scholars disagree with him, they still respect his scholarship.

I repeat: if you know that other scholars hold other views add them. Frankly, this is a no-brainer. We are writing an encyclopedia. We are not a paper encyclopedia. We should strive to add valuable content. That you and Thadman want to delete Vermes even now makes me wonder whether you are trying to push your own POV on the article. That would be wrong. And I am not trying to push my own POV. I added Vermes because that is what we editors should do, add content that complies with our policies. I have no objection to your adding other views. Why do you object to me doing that? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

SL, please note that I have not deleted the Vermes paragraph at all as of yet. I brought it here out of respect for whoever put it in. Since it was you, I am very glad I did.

Second, I am not suggesting deleting the viewpoint at all. Vermes' opinion is identical with a number of scholars. In fact, the viewpoint is mentioned earlier in the section. What I'm suggesting is merging the paragraph with that viewpoint and putting Vermes in the footnote. As you can see, this preserves his opinion and documents it as such.

Third, the point about encyclopedias I made was in answer to your claim that leaving the names in the open text makes it more encyclopedic. My point is, that, in itself, saying "so-and-so asserts..." is not in itself encyclopedic. This does not get at whether we should do it, of course. I'd love to have examples of wiki articles that adopt this style, so I can see how they read.

So, should we put names in the open text of the article? I'm arguing against is putting his name in the text itself. If we leave his in to the exclusion of others, as I said, we imply his view is the most important. If we follow up with the views of others, we will end up with very hard to read prose. This is what I'm saying.

Even though I feel this way, I'm content to leave the name in and add others, if our fellow editors want it that way. --CTSWyneken 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

My problem is not with Geza Vermes. My problem is that every other subsection in this article has "Son of Man... Geza Vermes says X" "Son of God... Geza Vermes believes Y" "Jesus' favorite food... Geza Vermes claims Z" This is not a "Geza Vermes says" article and I repeat when I say that even when one goes to linked pages they may get that same impression. --Steve Caruso 03:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You should not be taken aback that there are so many references to Vermes as he is one of the most well-known and well-regarded scholar to write a book specifically on the titles of Jesus. This does not mean that he is the only one. Thus, if you know of other reputable scholars, by all means add their views. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sl. We need to represent all relevant, verifiable POVs, even if the same person has alot them. There is no burden on an individual editor to include all relevant, verifiable POVs if they include some. » MonkeeSage « 20:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Lord

I've begun to copyedit this paragraph to make it easier to read, to state claims that are not necessarily the views of all scholars to allow for alternate views and to request citations where they are needed. It still needs much work. If no one objects, I'll remove the Vermes paragraph and move the cite up to the earlier statement of his views. --CTSWyneken 10:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

On the "kurios is pagan" thing, I found this page, citing the Haprer's Bible Dictionary, which says: "Scholars used to hold that this pagan usage was the source for the application of the title kyrios to Jesus, but that theory has been ruled out by the Aramaic evidence for the use of 'Lord.'" I found this statement as well: "Kyrios was used as a title for one who was more than human, someone divine with power over the forces of nature. It was often used for and eventually reserved for use in addressing God. Among the pagan peoples of the early 1st. Century Kyrios, Lord was used for the more important Deities of the Pantheon. But among the Jews of the time, the name of God could not be spoken, it was often written only as 3 dots ... So they adopted Kyrios to signify the Supreme Being." But neither say anything about Gentile converts introducing the term.

As for the Septuagint use of the term to translate adon, I added that bit, and I may have been a bit too bold in saying the other view is "disputed," as that implies someone doing the disputing. I meant that it is verifiable that the Septuagint translates adon with kurios (e.g., Gen. 18:30, אל־אדני → τὸν κύριον), which would refute the theory that Gentile converts introduced the title into the Hebrew context. In case we do need sources showing that it is the Septuagint translation of adon:

[T]he divine name was increasingly regarded as too sacred to be uttered; it was thus replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai (My Lord), which was translated as Kyrios (Lord) in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica [15th edition], vol. 10, p. 786).

The translation of YHWH by the word Lord in the King James's and in other versions is due to the traditional reading of the Tetragrammaton as Adonai, and this can be traced to the oldest translation of the Bible, the Septuagint. [. . .T]he Greek translators of the Bible. . .took great care to render the name Π I Π I regularly Κυριός, Lord, as if they knew of no other reading but Adonai. Translations dependent upon the Septuagint have the same reading of the Name. (Jewish Encyclopedia, 1901, vol. 1, pp. 201, 203).

--MonkeeSage 16:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Monkee: Good cites! Go ahead and add as refs. I'll clean up if needed. I'm not sure who is typing above you (it would help if you would register as a user and sign your posts), but he should go to the book itself for the citation and put it in the text. I'm not inclined to delete this info without the references, just indicating we really should have one there. --CTSWyneken 17:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to removing any accurate content relevant to this article e.g. Vermes view of Lord as a title of Jesus. I do not object to adding other views. I do not object to rearranging the section so that it reads better. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not proposing removing the viewpoint; it is earlier in this section. I don't think that we should be repeating the same info. Also, Vermes is, if I remember correctly, not the only person with this view. What I suggest is we combine the two statements, not name Vermes in the text of the article itself but put a full citation in the footnote. --CTSWyneken 17:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate the clarification. I do not object to what you suggest. I would propose however that in addition to the footnote, we mention the names in the article (e.g. Vermes, y, z). Adding a few names does not create length problems and it does make important information prominent. With all due respect, I suspect you are applying the same principles you applied to the Jesus article, to this article. I thought those principles were perfectly constructive and appropriate for the lead article that is linked to many sub-pages. But this is one of the sub-pages! Details that do not belong in the Jesus article, or that should be exclusively in notes and not in the text, should be in the sub-pages, and prominently so. When people read the highly summarized Jesus article and follow a link for more details on a particular theme, they should arrive at a detailed article, not another summary page.

IF this article were already humongous, I would not be saying these things, I would join you in looking for ways to economize. This was the problem with the Jesus article that led this page to be spun off in the first place. However, this article is nowhere close to a length that requires some economizing solution. Working on this smaller sub-page requires a different approach than that of editing the very large lead article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate the point. Yes, we do have much more room to work here. It isn't so much a detail thing as it is a style thing. And certainly, a few names are not a problem. I just don't want to see it balloon. That is less for space reasons as it is for readability. I won't make a really big deal about it, as long as others will go along. --CTSWyneken 18:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that readability is important. Being informative is important too. I wouldn't be pushing for inclusion of the Vermes material unless I believed that there is a way to include it without sacrificing readability. If I thought that there was a huge debate involving many scholars with subtley different interpretations and arguments, I would certainly be concerned that the article could get bogged down in overwraught detail. I have assumed - perhaps falsely or naively, but so far I think correctly and realistically - that there are only a few well-known and well-regarded scholars who have written on this topic and that their views easily divide into two, three, or perhaps four different approaches. I think each section of this article should provide a clear account of each different view, and provide one or two names associated with each view, not only because to do so would be accurate and fair to the scholars who have put forward these views, but because learning who these scholars are is I think useful knowledge for readers. That said, if you see ways to tighten the prose, or to better organize the section or article, without cutting accurate and informative content, I am 100% behind you, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In Biblical scholarship, especially among Christians, scholars strive to write commentaries on whole books. They feel compelled to address every issue in every verse in these commentaries and engage every major scholar. On this issue, while I haven't looked, I would not be suprised to hear over a dozen scholars have weighed in. This is likely a conservative guess. In short, I don't want a general audience encyclopedia to read like that. Yet to pick up more than one voice to stay NPOV may quickly end up with three or four people's names being associated with their views in the open text of the article. So, I'm suggesting, we outline the views and put the scholars in the notes. That way, like the 2nd paragraph in Jesus we can include dozens per point without slowing down the casual reader at all.

By the way, I'd be making the same point, were you trying to put my favorite scholars in the open text. In fact, I advise my college students to do the same on their papers. --CTSWyneken 01:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Added Reference for Philo

I added in the personal name section one of the places where Philo uses Ἰησοῦς for Joshua, Moses' successor. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae shows four other possible occurances. --CTSWyneken 13:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Error in article

"This shortening also allowed for some confusion, as the 3rd person imperfect form of שוא [shua`] (to save) is ישוע, allowing the Aramaic name to take on the meaning "He will save.""

This statement is incorrect. ישוע would be the 3rd person imperfect form of שוע (H7768), meaning "he will cry out to God". See Sayings of Jesus on the cross, Aramaic of Jesus.

Strongs 03442 and 03443 in the edition I'm currently looking at agree with what I compiled. --Steve Caruso 03:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

From Jesus#Name: "The Hebrew name Yĕhôshūa‘, is a compound of the words יָהוּ שׁוּעַ, Yāhû Shûa‘.[18] It literally means, "Yahweh (is) a saving-cry", or in other words, when someone needs help they shout, “Yahweh”, and He responds. The second element, Shûa‘, is a form of the Hebrew root ש-ו-ע, “to cry for help”. It is not a form of the root י-ש-ע, “to save”, even though the root ש-ו-ע probably derives from it.[19] The name Yēshûa‘ (יֵשׁוּעַ from ש-ו-ע) does not equate with the word “salvation”, yĕshû‘āh (יְשׁוּעָה from י-ש-ע), and the similarities in spelling may be coincidental.[20] Older linguistic research, such at Strong's Concordance, translate Shûa‘ as "salvation"."

18: Talshir, p. 374 19: "שׁוע", Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company 1987) 20: "יְשׁוּעָה" Klein

First, I would appreciate the signing of comments so I know who to address :-) Second, I suggest as a compromise (as we have debated meaning) that we put a bullet list with them all in similar fashion to that found under the Hebrew name discussion. Does that work for you? --Steve Caruso 14:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Archives

I've archived all conversations over a month old. They can now be found under the Archives template on the right. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 01:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Potential edit war

205.188.116.201 from Ames, Iowa, please sign in and state your reasons for consistently wiping edits made to this page. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 13:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Current state of this article, edits flying

Ok, everyone, I think we need to sit down and actually go over what's happening here. One does -not- need to discuss every edit that people go over and make. WP:BOLD outlines this. If there is a problem with the edits that some one has made, the onus is on the person who is complaining to bring their issues to the Talk page and not start an edit war. :-) So, what are the problems with the edits that I have made? What are the problems with Clinkophonist's edits? Let us discuss this, and not squabble back and forth over restoring edits, as of this moment I believe that all of the recent edits that I have made have been reverted, and from other people I'm not sure which edits survived. Let's talk. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 21:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know what the problems are with my edits. Its now half a month since Thadman asked for someone to explain what the problems are. If no problems are raised here I shall assume that all reasonable editors consider my edits justified, that they should remain in the article, and that all the editors removing them are committing acts that the wider wikipedia community regard as vandalism; i.e. acts that should be reverted on sight. Clinkophonist 11:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What do we know for sure?

The present article states quite emphatically: "What we do know for sure is that it originates from the Hebrew יהושוע‎ [yehoshua`]". Apart from the fact that no source is cited for this claim, it is rather stronger than warranted; at best this might be a generally accepted theory. But I further see a contradiction with our article Joshua, which renders the name in Hebrew as יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎, where the difference in spelling cannot be a simple mistake, as the text proceeds to discuss the "missing" vav. One can also check here that the name for Moses' companion in Exodus 17:9 (not 17:8 as the present article has) is spelled without vav. In contrast, Yeshua is spelled with a vav (see, e,g, Ezra 5:2). --Lambiam^Talk 18:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Half the article was dominated by this POV material on the Old Testament. By the way, this is Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses) material and does not meet Wikipedia's standards either in quality of writing or in matching scholarly consensus. Specifically, it violates Wikipedia's prohibition against giving WP:NPOV#Undue_weight] to tiny minority viewpoints. But this article was dominated by it.  - Cestus ^Cd 05:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference #1

I assume that there's supposed to be a yod in the Title of the article given as reference #1... is that right? --rmagill 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Son of God

Reading the bit on "Son of God", I read the following:
The phrase itself is thus taken by many to be synonymous with divinity
Why is this marked with a citation tag? I'm removing it; if you want a source (I don't know how to do the little source tag that redirects to the bottom of the page) check the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 8 section 2 — it's a document to which many millions have and do adhere. Nyttend 13:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal name

YHWH šuā actually stands for Indoeuropean Dīāvā sūnah 'the son of the god', cf. Skr dyāvah 'god', Lith. sūnus 'son'. Roberts7 18:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hah, that's a nice one! — Gareth Hughes 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Complete B.S.. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 03:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

God Section

The following section was formerly in the main article, however, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. At the very least it is complete WP:OR and does not conform to WP:NPOV. אמר Steve Caruso 18:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The usage of the title "God" is given to the Lord Jesus only one time, at that occurs at the Prologue of the Gospel of John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (the) God, and the Word was (a) God."

The only other place in the Bible where Jesus is called "God" in the book of Isaiah.

"And his name will be Wondeful Counsellor, Everlasting Father, Mighty God, Prince of Peace."

Many verses in John, the epistles, and Revelation imply support for the doctrine that Jesus Christ is God and the closely related concept of the Trinity. The Gospel of John in particular supports Jesus' divinity. This is a partial list of supporting Bible verses:

* John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." together with John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." and John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."[16]The Bible says "God the One and Only" in NIV. * John 5:21 "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it." * John 8:23–24: "But he continued,'You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins.'" * John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"[17] * John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." * John 10:38: "But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." * John 12:41: "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him."—As the context shows, this implied the Tetragrammaton in Isaiah 6:10 refers to Jesus. * John 20:28: "Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!'" * Philippians 2:5–8: "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!" * Colossians 2:9: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" * Titus 2:13: "while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ." * 1 Timothy 3:16: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." * Hebrews 1:8: "But about the Son he [God] says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom." * 1 John 5:20: "We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." * Revelation 1:17–18: "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades." This is seen as significant when viewed with Isaiah 44:6: "This is what the LORD says—Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

The Bible also refers to Jesus as a man, which is in line with the Trinitarian concept that Jesus was fully human as well as fully divine which is expressed through the theological concept of kenosis.

Light of the World

Light of the World (Jesus) redirects here, but this article doesn't have anything about this topic. --62.214.229.215 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal name

A friend of mine once said that in Jesus' day he would have been known (full name) as Yeshua bin Joseph ha Dovidl (spelling is, I think, as how he had it), literally, "Jesus (/Joshua), son of Joseph, of the house of David". Would that form of name construct have been used in Jesus' day, or would just the simple name of "Yeshua" (one name only) be more plausible? (I'm thinking having another name as a distinguishing mark isn't all that uncommon, for some of Jesus' contemporaries were "James, the son of Zebedee" (which leads me to believe that the "son of Zebedee" (bin Zebedee?) was used to distinguish from the other Jameses around at the time) and "Judas Iscariot" - seeing as how "Judas" was/is a common name of Jews at the time, a further identification makes sense, but, as far as I know, Jesus/Joshua was common too, which makes sense that the prophet from Nazareth would have a "more full" name (if you want, a "last name") than just "Jesus". Is Yeshua bin Joseph ha Dovidl likely? --Canuckguy (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeshua | Yahshua, PLIM

I removed this section:

The original Aramaic (or late Hebrew) name for Jesus is Yeshua—a contraction of yehÖshÙa (Joshua), help of Jehovah + yÀh, Jehovah + hÖshïa, to help." ( http://www.plim.org/JesusOrigin.htm ) In Hebrew, YESHUA is from the Hebrew YESHA—Yud Shin Ayin—meaning Help, Salvation, Deliverance. (Alcalay, R. The Complete Hebrew English Dictionary. Jerusalem: Massada. 972); also http://www.hebrewbabynames.com/item.cfm?itemid=292 ) The more accurate name for Jesus, derived from YHWH, may be spelled: Yahshua, which means "Yahweh is salvation," or "God is salvation."

Its sources are articles written by religious groups that make pretty weak linguistic claims and present no proof. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeshua

I came to this page after noticing that Template:Jesus has ישוע in its header image. ישוע is the unvocalized Hebrew spelling of Yeshua. As far as i know, it is not certain that Yeshua was indeed Jesus' Hebrew name. It may also have been Yeshu (ישו), Yehoshua (יהושוע or יהושע) or maybe something else entirely.

The "Personal name" section here does nothing to establish with any certainty that Yeshua was indeed his name. It simply describes the names Yehoshua and Yeshua and the possible linguistic relation between them. This information is reasonable and well-referenced, but it does not necessarily relate to the Jesus of New Testament.

The section should say clearly that the true name is not known - correct me if i'm wrong.

And Hebrew spelling ישוע should be removed from Template:Jesus. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It is also the standard spelling of "Jesus" in all Aramaic dialects within two centuries (with the only exception of Christian Palestinian Aramaic, where the convention is to transliterate the Greek "Iesous"). The scholarly consensus is based upon ossuary inscriptions, written documents, and what is known about the language from that time period, itself. The only individuals who dispute this vehemently are some individuals in the Sacred Name Movement, a fringe group. אמר Steve Caruso 18:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but i don't see this consensus expressed in the article here. Am i missing something?

I only know Biblical Aramaic well, and you seem to know more Aramaic than i do, so could you edit the article so it will clearly express this consensus?

And what about Yeshu? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The name ישוע (Yeshua`, or as it was probably pronounced in Jesus' lifetime Yeshu`) was the post-exilic Hebrew version of the name "Joshua" and occurs in the Hebrew Bible at Ezra 2:2, 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 8:33; Nehemiah 3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7, 8:17, 9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1, 12:7, 12:8, 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles 24:11; and 2 Chronicles 31:15, and also in Aramaic at Ezra 5:2. In Nehemiah 8:17 this name refers to Joshua son of Nun. All these occurrences were commonly translated into Western languages identically to the name "Jesus", until the Renaissance, when some Bible translators (especially Protestants) went back to the original Hebrew, and so chose to render the same name as "Jeshua" in an Old Testament context, but left it as "Jesus" in the New Testament, so creating a somewhat artificial distinction... AnonMoos (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Informative or Evangelism?

I've been noticing that several edits to this page have been made lately, the vast majority of them being by an unregistered user with the IP address 66.93.140.42 and all of them (as far as I can see) being made as additions under the "Other titles in the New Testament" heading. Currently there are 89 subheadings. At what point do we draw the line? It almost seems as if we keep going, we're going to end up quoting the entire New Testament. Additionally, the user making additions seems to have a kind of evangelical agenda as seen by the following specific edits.[2][3][4][5] So what do others think? Is this informative or just evangelism? Euphgeek (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Writing as one who completely agrees with the agenda of the four edits you link, I have to agree with you: these are evangelism not reporting; they're not without controversy even within Christianity; and they're about Jesus' nature, not name (it's in the wrong place, even if admissible by other measures). Jackrepenning (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I've removed what seem to me to be a few instances of evangelism - some from the IP 66.93.140.42 mentioned just above. They seem to be stating some Christian beliefs as fact, rather than from an NPOV. I might have misunderstood though, and they might not have been meant like that, so I'll hold off for a while and see what others think. Oscroft (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, some of it seems quite blatant - removed a bit more today. Oscroft (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Aye I've just pulled down a few things, too, but I find myself a bit pinched for time to continue. This article needs a thorough culling of 100% POV material an re-writing of that which is POV but could be better put. Much of this could be expressed in a constructive and NPOV way without preaching. אמר Steve Caruso 14:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed a LOT of preaching, but there's more. I'm a little confused about The_Thadman's note in recent edit summary: "True God: I also hate to say it, but declarations of divinity as fact doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV." The article reads, "The Bible says that Jesus is the true God" and gives the citations. The Bible may be wrong, but the very title of the article is Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. I don't see how we can go all the way through the article and be more neutral (assuming the preaching/teaching comments are gone). Since I work on the article, please give me your suggestion. Thanks, Afaprof01 (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - saying "The Bible says that Jesus is the true God" and providing a reference that supports the assertion seems entirely factual and NPOV to me. Oscroft (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Point of Views being erased

Almost ALL the root definitions of words (greek/latin/hebrew word origins) have been removed. These were neutral. Also, many links which were neutral have been removed, but the ones that breed skepticism against Christian beliefs have remained. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

NPoV and sources?

I and not sure this article represents a neutral point of view. It seems like the entire article is spent trying to provide evidence against the possibility that Jesus considered himself divine. Certainly this is one possibility, but it seems like the article takes too strong of a position. I find it a little humorous that one subsection explains why in the phrase "my lord and my God," "lord" does not necessarily mean "God," but does not attempt to explain why "God" does not necessarily mean "God." Also, this article seems very highly dependent on the scholar Geza Vermez. Is there any way the sources could be diversified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.254.20 (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment to above

I, too, notice a concerted effort to minimize the divinity of Jesus. Geza Vermez is an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Revised 06:04, 2 April 2010

The names and titles of Jesus are to come from the Bible, specifically from the New Testament. All the names and titles listed are authenticated by Bible references. When men such as Geza Vermez contradicts the Bible, they are either ignorant of scriptures, or deceived. See Free Masonry for purposeful deception (Do a search for "blasphemy titles Jesus free masonry" --> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=blasphemy+titles+jesus+free+masonry&aq=o&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.50.144 (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Word of God

The page excludes the important title "Word of God." --Ephilei (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Word of God" has been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Christology of the Old Testament

The article should maybe point out that the Old Testament has been a source of christology just as well. There is a notable work on the subject by Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg. ADM (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Let's create a new page for the names and titles of Jesus in the Old Testament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Christology as study?

The introduction to this page says that christology is the study of the names. This seems to be false on its face, since all the theology I've studied purporting to be christological has dealt with the nature of Christ rather than names. If the study of the names is a branch of christology, though--which is absolutely plausible--shouldn't the linked christology page have some material on that? In any event, clarification is probably in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.162.115 (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Christology: "the names, titles, and nature of Jesus"

Proposal: If Christology is the study of the nature of Christ, I propose that we also add the "nature of Jesus" to describe the page--e.g., "the names, titles, and nature of Jesus". For example, "Suffering Servant" is a widely accepted title for Jesus--it describes Jesus; but the Bible does not specifically put the two words together. Another example is "Christ Crucified", a title which was erased; yet, the words "Christ crucified" appears together in the New Testament. [ see http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-23.htm ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.40.171 (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Disputed

Some names and titles are hotly contested; these should be grouped into a Disputed section to avoid cluttering the article with contention. I can do that soon. Incidentally, a response regarding an existing thread is usually best kept within that thread and section rather than as a new section with a new title. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't do a disputed section, otherwise 3/4 of the article will end up in it. Much of this isn't "hotly contested" in Catholic/Protestant/Evangelical Christian circles and can be easily sourced. Maybe in the opening paragraph it could be worded in such a way that there isn't uniformity for everything presented. After all, a lot of this is moving into exegesis. Basileias (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Disputed?

The names and titles are taken directly from the New Testament. If the Bible is the authority we have all agreed to use for Jesus, why are these names and titles being disputed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Most disputes wouldn't be whether or not a particular name or title is found in some translation of the NT, but whether or not the term actually applies to Jesus. I believe perhaps less than a quarter of these titles belong in a proper "Disputed" section.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps changing the web links have brought about this confusion. The ORIGINAL WEB LINKS explained what the verse meant. The change to biblegateway.com DO NOT HAVE THIS INFORMATION conveniently on one page. --66.81.215.122 (talk.

A dispute section is not a smart move. You may feel "less than a quarter" but experience tells me much more will happen. It's like a controversy section, it invites controversy and it will be on going. There's no such thing as a proper controversy or dispute section. Also, I'm not sure what the purpose this article serves. It's not very encyclopedic and I'm even wondering if it should be considered for deletion. Basileias (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood what you meant by a "dispute section." My apologies. There's a lot of information in the article that doesn't make sense, is off topic and some is confusing. I think a lot could be removed. Please go ahead and feel free to work. Basileias (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please research Jesus' name/title before you make changes. There now exists confusion because the original web links have been changed. Also, non-believers may have difficulty understanding the names of Jesus, and this can cause further errors or relevant data being deleted. --66.81.215.122 (talk.

Third opinion

I can actually see sense in either keeping the article to titles of Jesus in the NT, or extending it to be those titles, with discussion of titles which are contentious between religious traditions that are based on the NT.

One way to solve the issue is to do both things: we have a WP:List of titles sourced on the many books that do list Jesus' titles from the NT; AND we have an article, like the current one, which discusses differences of opinion regarding how the titles are to be interpreted, or whether the NT actually offers them.

• List of New Testament titles for Jesus
• Disputed New Testament titles for Jesus

Alternatively, it might be good to admit that the List article would be very long, and might not be a good idea. Instead, we should just have an article simply called

• Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament (like the current one, or slightly modified).

One problem with this article, as it currently stands, is that it tries to be a list. I'd suggest one way forward would be to create the list article, with information already in this article. Then remove list items here that have no debate. This article can then develop by using reliable sources which discuss the names and titles of Jesus. And those reliable sources should include all points of view, not just the mainstream Christian point of view. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. "Reliable sources" may not be "reliable". And "all points of views" will also not be reliable. The people who are the true experts on Jesus are those who have developed a personal relationship with Him, and know from experience the reality of the titles. Otherwise, the page might become a circus of debating and skepticism. I propose we rely on the Bible, on proven reputable commentaries, and on true Christians who have a living relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.215.122 (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be disrespectful to your beliefs, but "a living relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit" really isn't a valid source for an encyclopedia. I agree with using the bible as a source, because from that we can objectively get information about names that Christians use for Jesus, regardless of whether any of the claims are actually true. And that's the crux of this article - it has to be a valid article whether or not Jesus actually existed. A Wikipedia article must remain neutral and cannot be written from the point of view that a specific religion is true. -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

By "a living relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit", I tried to address the issue of "not understanding" a name or title, which seems to be a problem for some people. "Not understanding" a name is not a valid reason for removal of data. For example, Jesus as "Husband" OR "Bridegroom" means a great deal to Christians who experience Jesus in a real way. But someone who is a nonbeliever would not understand this experience. --66.81.215.122 (talk.

OK, I understand what you're saying, and I agree that a lack of understanding is not a good reason for removing material. But it's still problematic, because there still needs to be a notable explanation in a reliable source for everything that's added, and we can't really accept "I'm a Christian with personal experience and I say this is what it means..." as such a source. If there was a reliable source out there that clearly explained what the terms mean to Christians, I think that would be ideal. -- Boing! said Zebedee

Many of the references to explain the terms were DELETED; hence, now the confusion. Also, "man's authority" often is not reliable. The 300-year Inquisition was caused by the most "reliable sources"--the pope and the religious "authorities" of that time. They deliberately disobeyed the Bible and the teachings of Jesus (Jesus' teachings of love, not murder). "Man's authority" (the Pope) demanded the killing of innocent Christians who were following God's laws (Biblical laws). This resulted in the murder of millions of innocent Bible-practicing Christians. For example, soldiers (by the union of state-church) were ordered to murder anyone who did NOT worship on SUNDAY (a pagan day of worship of the sun god, the 1st day). These martyrs worshiped on the SABBATH (Saturday, the 7th day) as God, in the Ten Commandments, commanded them to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.50.144 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Alas, Wikipedia's rules do require verifiable sources. This is a Wikipedia article. If the editor knows of useful deleted references, he should be encouraged to restore them. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Christian writers use the Bible as the definitive authority on Jesus. In expounding on Jesus, authentic verifiable sources use the Bible as authority to support their statements...not the other way around. 69.170.44.194 (talk. By using man's authority over the Bible's authority leads to apostasy. For example, the Catholic Church exalts man's authority over the Bible's authority. They decided to rewrite their Bible to conform to their own (man's) doctrines/teachings. This led to errors in their Bible. They deleted verses and changed words (for example--> replaced "Sabbath" with "Lord's Day" --> allowing idols in church)--> this has led people to disobey God's true law (10 commandments). --66.81.212.134 (talk).

An editor claiming to "understand this experience" would likely be able to write and perhaps publish his own book elsewhere, using his own original research. However, Wikipedia cannot directly use such original research. Honest summaries of verifiable references are needed here at Wikipedia.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Then, let's change the Bible Links back to the ORIGINAL BIBLE LINKS www.bible.cc . The bottom of each page lists several summaries of verifiable references for each verse. 69.170.44.194 (talk.

This article needs re-organization and some of the material presented, the more a look at it, the more some entry's don't make sense. I guess maybe a question to ask is, is the article even worth keeping and reworking? Basileias (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The names and titles makes sense to mature Christians who know the Bible and who know Jesus. The ORIGINAL BIBLE LINKS would have helped you to understand what the verses mean. I propose we reinstate the Bible Links to help people understand the verses.

Consensus Not Followed

Someone REMOVED the title "TRUE GOD", along with it's newly cited encyclopedia/biblical references. The reference requirement was met. Please reinstate the title "TRUE GOD".

Proposal: I propose that the title "TRUE GOD" be reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to revert to original web links

The references/sources that wikipedia requires were at the ORIGINAL web links. But these links were changed to inferior links. Before these changes, ALL links contained verifiable references. Now, most of the names/titles are tagged because these references/sources are lacking. Changing the web links back will not only solve the problem of verifiable sources, it will also answer questions that people now complain about "not understanding", or "not making sense", etc. Changing back to the original web links may also hold answers to the "disputed titles" debate below. Most of the current problems have arisen because changes were made to the content (erasing relevant information) and/or changing the external links. With these changes, it is now fairly easy to erase the names/titles of Jesus because the resourced links--with references/resources/explanations all on one page--are gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The same strategies for (1) deleting reliable information AND (2) changing web links to inferior information are used being used at other wikipedia websites. For example: "Factual information with references, citations, and literature links are labeled as "biased" and "unreliable". "Provable, referenced facts, with dates and places, all suddenly became "claims." "All my links, references and citations were removed. They were replaced by links to the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute, which offer only criticism of the Gerson Therapy. (See http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n18.shtml [6])

Article quality

This article is so bad!

I found this seller statement,

The title Christ occurs in the Hebrew Bible...

The word "Christ" is English and it would never be found in a Hebrew language Bible! Now if they're referring to the Christian reference Old Testament and meaning Messiah or something else...maybe...arge! Basileias (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems no reason to be overly critical of that.
As is well-known, "Messiah"="Christ"="Anointed" and "Hebrew Scriptures"="Old Testament".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Relax adelphe mou!

Christos anesti ek nekrwn.

It is very common at Wikipedia for articles related to Jesus to be rather messy.

It takes patience to clean them up.

Two things are needed:

1. reliable sources;
2. neutrality.

The traditional Christian point of view is always significant regarding Jesus, and is protected by Wikipedia's most holy policy WP:NPOV. However, that view must be presented from reliable sources, and it must permit reliable sources that have been offered against it.

I can speak for the excellent quality of User:AuthorityTam as an editor. I suspect Basileias and Tam will disagree on things here, because I suspect they come from different traditions, both of which consider themselves to be Christian, yet which disagree about some very important things. It is very important to realise that at Wikipedia, both points of view are permitted, in fact, it is demanded that both points of view be documented.

Alastair Haines (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Must enforce refs

Agree that enforcing WP's rules about verifiable refs will improve quality. Rather than deleting material or stubbing, however, I'd suggest:

• Being immediately strict about unreferenced ADDITIONS
• Being temporarily lenient about existing unreferenced sections (for perhaps a month)
• Tagging existing unreferenced sections in the next few days
• After a month, merely hide unreferenced sections; likely someone will eventually get a chance to fix

Consensus? --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Basileias (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been about two weeks since I proposed the above. So, in about two weeks more, many of the sections will be hidden until each so-called name or title can be verified by a notable source. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds fine. This article is on my list of things to work on. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I disagree. I propose we FIRST re-instate the original web links and original references. They will provide many notable sources of verifiable references. [For each Bible verse, http://bible.cc lists several commentaries at the bottom of each page.] Because these references/weblinks were deleted, anyone can now discredit the names/titles because of inadequate referencing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.213.146 (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree? With what? Wikipedia articles must be supported by verifiable sources. An editor should feel free to instate or reinstate a verifiable source (including an external link) wherever it is useful and permitted by policies (including WP:EL). If an editor feels a particular web site is particular useful because it quotes from "several commentaries", the editor should feel compelled to reference the commentaries directly rather than merely indirectly (quoting someone who quotes someone); a direct citation is more unlikely to be deleted. Web sites are often problematic because their content is fluid, so published print works are often perceived as preferable and more authoritative.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, I disagree with the statement: "After a month, merely hide unreferenced sections; likely someone will eventually get a chance to fix." --"Someone" CANNOT "fix" a title/name that they do not know exists--it will be HIDDEN. Also, when a reference is deleted, reinstating the deleted reference is a problem if one is a newbie at wiki--How does one access the original deleted link information?

Disadvantages of Linking to Several Commentaries:

[versus linking to ONE COMPREHENSIVE web page]

(1) Requires that a paraphrase or synopsis of each of several Commentaries be written, which is somewhat like "quoting someone who quotes someone". Re-writing what's already written in several Commentaries considerably lengthens the title/name section (page length is already an issue for wiki).

(2) Requires that the reader be inconvenienced to reference SEVERAL Commentaries, (Inferior Reference) rather than go to ONE summarized web page (Superior Reference) which has: several Bible Commentaries, over 15 Bible translations, relevant cross references, etc. (at Bible.cc)

(3) Requires that the web viewer read much information not relevant to the title/name, rather than read only the pertinent information for the title/name/verse. (Some Commentaries have long chapter summaries, and only a single sentence may pertain to the title/name/verse.) The average web viewer is impatient; and also may not be learned enough to identify the relevant information for the title/name/verse.

Response to "fluid" websites. The Bible Commentaries at www.bible.cc are direct quotations of Commentaries chosen specifically to explain a verse. These Bible verses and Commentaries do not change (somewhat similar to a printed Bible). Thus, the content is constant, not "fluid". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.37.6 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

References

some 50 or more tags have been placed to every title entry stating there's no reference nor source to such title when a portion of biblical scripture is quoted and the reference for that portion of scripture is provided... then there are the references, and the article's title reads: Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament then New testament is source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.119.128 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

True. Most names/titles cite Bible references, and some cite other references as well. The authority for this page is purported to be The New Testament, but the consensus to this date has excluded the Bible as a "verifiable reference". (But man's errors in thinking--though contrary to Bible teachings--have been accepted as "verifiable references".) In practice, the authority for the wiki's Names and Titles of Jesus is man, not the Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.37.6 (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Important Information Being Deleted

A Table summarized the names of Jesus (Messiah, Jehovah, Yeshua, etc.) by languages: Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English. It presented a clear overview of how Jesus' name changed with time, and how its original meaning is lost in Greek, Latin, and English. It was a great help in understanding how the many "different names" of Jesus have one origin, and are but one name. Why was this table--with its reliable references--deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Names of Jesus

Please add - 1. Wonderful, 2. Counselor, 3. The Mighty God, 4. The everlasting Father and 5. The Prince of Peace.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

trichagcJune 23, 2009

The present page deals with the Names of Jesus in the New Testament.

Proposal. I suggest we create another page for the Names of Jesus in the OLD TESTAMENT--e.g., Messianic Names. -69.170.44.194 (talk.

Propose Reinstating Title

The author of one website has a Doctors Degree in Theology (D.D.). The other website uses authentic Hebrew dictionaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

D.D. is not a Doctor of Theology, which is a D.Th.. D.D. is Doctor of Divinity and, in UK tradition, is the highest of all doctorates. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

By contrast, in the U.S., D.D. (Doctor of Divinity) is an honorary degree today. I find some evidence from some 1800s writings that it may have followed the UK tradition back then, but in the 1900s and later it is strictly honorary. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Reinstated Title

The title "Yeshua" is reinstated per the above discussion: (1) since both references are reliable and reputable, and (2) since the claims are not "pretty weak linguistic claims" as first thought, and (3) since no other objections to these impeccable credentials are given. It is important to retain the title Yeshua because newer Bible translations are beginning to use this name "Yeshua" (or other Aramaic-Hebrew spellings of this name) in place of the name "Jesus". The meaning of Messiah and God (YHWH) is clear with the original Aramaic-Hebrew name "Yeshua"; whereas, the meaning of Messiah is lost with the English name "Jesus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Title Deleted Again

Why is this title and all my edits (added references) ERASED AGAIN? We have discussed that the two references are reliable, and not "weak linguistic claims". Let me reiterate--some English Bibles only use Yeshua (or spelling variations of this name) (The name Jesus is not used.) Thus, "Yeshua | Yashua" deserves its own title heading. It is the name Jesus' mom gave Him.

Propose to Re-instate Title Again

Below is the title to reinstate.

Yeshua | Yahshua

Some Bibles Translations use Jesus' original name "Yeshua". The table below shows how Jesus' name "Yeshua" (from root "YHWH + yasha") have changed in its spelling.

	Aramaic	Hebrew	Greek, Latin	English
Name	Y'shua, Yeshua	YHWH + yasha (root) `Yehoshua, Yahushua and their shortened forms: Y'shua, Yeshua,, Yahshua (=Jeshua=Joshua), Yashua.	Iesous(Greek) Iēsus, Iesu (Latin)	Jesus
Meaning	"YAH saves", "YAH is salvation". (Same meaning as in Hebrew. Aramaic (Syriac) is thought to be Jesus' spoken language.)	"God is salvation". Joshua = "Yahweh is salvation". ["Jehovah is salvation" is the same as "YHWH is salvation". The word "Jehovah" is "YHWH", with vowels added.]	"Iesous" and "Iesus" were translated by sound. The original meaning is lost and corrupted in both Greek and Latin.	"Jesus" was re-translated from Latin. The prophetic and sanctified meaning of "YHWH" (God) is lost in English.

Yeshua is the original Aramaic (or late Hebrew) name for Jesus-—a contraction of yehÖshÙa (Joshua), "help of Jehovah" + yÀh, "Jehovah" + hÖshïa, "to help." [7] In Hebrew, YESHUA is from the Hebrew YESHA—Yud Shin Ayin—meaning "Help," "Salvation," "Deliverance." "Yeshua (Jesus) is YHVH in the flesh." Another name for Jesus, derived from YHWH, may be spelled: Yahshua, which means "Yahweh is salvation," or "God is salvation". --"Jesus is salvation" for all true followers because he took the punishment for man's sins on the cross, enabling the forgiveness of sins, the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to overcome evil, and the gift of eternal life in heaven ("saved" from hell").

"The book of the genealogy of Yeshua, the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

"And she shall give birth to a Son, and you shall call His Name Y'shua for He shall save His people from their sins. (ISR Mattithyahu 1:21) (from original Hebrew and Aramaic)

Misquote 1 John 5:7

Please remove or correct this personal opinion. The trinity doctrine is not related to this article and is a matter of doctrinal argument.

Trinity is not found anywhere in the scriptures.

There is no God the Father, God the Word and God the Holy Spirit. It is the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit. It is a misquote.

The fact is that this verse says that they are one and not three, not three in one.

Word

1 John 5:7 says there are three persons (not one person) in the Godhead—also called “Trinity”—(1) God, the Father; (2) God, the Word (Jesus); and (3) God, the Holy Spirit. John writes: ‘‘“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”‘‘

trichagcJune 23, 2009

NOT a misquote 1 John 5:7

Revised 06:04, 2 April 2010 by Special:Contributions/69.170.44.194

Revised 06:08, 2 April 2010 by Special:Contributions/69.170.44.194

The following link explains the concept: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The website shows a picture of ONE God and THREE distinct persons (in the Godhead). (Study at the picture.)

http://debate.org.uk/topics/trtracts/t06.htm#4

The ORIGINAL LINKS uphold the verse given in 1 John 5:7

http://bible.cc/1_john/5-7.htm

But someone changed all the original links from BIBLE.CC to BIBLEGATEWAY.COM. The BIBLE.CC website gives about 17 BIBLE TRANSLATIONS for a single verse. It is one of the most helpful websites for study of a single verse, such as for the Names and Titles of Jesus. You can see at a glance which Bible translations have changed from the original Greek.

Someone changed the links to BIBLEGATEWAY.COM, which shows THE MOST APOSTATE BIBLE TRANSLATIONS -- the New American Bible and the New International Version. (Do a search on the Internet for DELIBERATE changes made to these Bible translations.) Why were the weblinks changed without consulting the author, AND without concern for inacuracies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

See:

(1) Corrupted Modern Bible Versions, by David L. Brown, Ph.D. The New Testament has been tampered with.

(2) The Great (?) Uncials, by David L. Brown, Ph.D. The three "Great Uncials" are unreliable. The ""oldest and best" manuscripts...do not agree with each other! "There are 3036 differences between the readings in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the Gospels alone" (Codex B and Its Allies by Herman Hoskier; volume 2, p.1)."

(3) Where did the King James Bible come from? From Erasmus, defender of the Faith, who compiled, edited, and printed the Greek "Textus Receptus" (received text, reliable).

Proposal--Change Links back to Original Websites

I propose we change the web links back to the original websites to prevent more errors and confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Users are encouraged to be BOLD. I'd support linking to Bible.cc, but editors should be aware that there is an ongoing dispute about whether external links to Scriptures should be allowed. They typically are allowed, but that seems to be more community looking-the-other-way than an explicit rule.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that external links are healthy; otherwise, there exists the danger of controlled information (propaganda) within wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.215.122 (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I will start to change the Bible links back to the original Bible Links with the ~17 different Bible Translations. This will eliminate such current problems as having NO Bible verse showing up on the linked page, which still happens on occasion when clicking on links to BibleGateway.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Partial list of disputed titles

There are at least three types of disputes.

• Disputes may concern obvious practicalities: The sections

"Creator" and "Holy One" don't cite a single translation with the terms "Creator" or "Holy One"; the section "Christ Crucified" insufficiently demonstrates that 1 Cor 1:23 contains more than a simple noun (Christ) and verb (crucified) rather than a formal title.

CREATOR. A few names/titles for Jesus have been inferred from Bible context. Creator is one of these names. Two references are cited under Creator: John 1:3 and Ephesians 3:9 "3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made." ["by him"=Jesus=Word] "9...God, who created all things by Jesus Christ" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

1 Cor 1:23 -- CHRIST CRUCIFIED. There are many books titled: "Christ Crucified". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.37.6 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Disputes may concern translations: The section "Lord God" cites a controversial translation of Jude 1:4 which should be discussed (namely, others believe that the verse should be translated to refer to both God and Christ, or to Jesus as "Master" rather than as "God").

Jude 1:4. This verse is "controversial" because the "oldest and most reliable" manuscripts (referencing 3rd Century writings) are, in truth, the most inaccurate and the most deceptive. (Hence, the commentaries at the bottom of Jude 1:4 bible.cc page are in error.) While most of the 1st Century Early Church Fathers' writings are accurate, by the 3rd Century apostasy had entered, and vast Biblical passages were changed by men with pagan beliefs. See below:

Assault on the Bible, by Richard Power. "In compiling their Greek text, Westcott and Hort followed obscure, corrupted manuscripts [Alexandrian Text] which can be traced to a 3rd century apostate named Origen [185-254 AD.] Origen deliberately changed the scriptures to suit his own twisted pagan doctrines [blend of Gnosticism, Platonism & Mysticism.] Origen's work resulted in the Codex Sinaiticus [a manuscript aptly discovered in 1844 in the waste bin of a Mt. Sinai monastery,] and Codex Vaticanus texts later adopted by Westcott & Hort, which delete and substitute key words from the Majority Text in thousands of doctrinally critical places. Footnotes in the modern 'versions' deceptively refer to these as the "oldest and most reliable" manuscripts. The result of this assault is a group of modern perversions of the Word of God [NIV, NAS, NKJ, Living Bible, New World Translation [Watchtower/JW] Good News for Modern Man, etc,] which all make the same heretical deletions and substitutions. "

Also, scroll down to see "Part Three--Attacks on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and Denial of His Deity. Denial that Jesus is God.

KJB - "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

NIV – Change 'Lord God' to 'Sovereign and Lord.'

NAS, NLT, RSV – Change 'Lord God' to 'Master and Lord.'

1 Peter 3:15

KJV: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts."

NAS, NIV, NLT, RSV – change 'Lord God' to 'Christ as Lord.'

1 Timothy 3:16

KJV - "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, and seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

NIV, NAS, RSV – Change 'God' to 'He'

Lord God: A careful study of the verses--when studied in context--will show the names refer to Jesus. For example, the book of Revelation is the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" given to John in a vision, and it is Jesus who is speaking, not God the Father. (Read the Introduction to Revelation) Note that both Jesus and God the Father share several names/titles.

• Disputes may concern interpretations: For example, "true God" at 1 John 5:20, "Almighty" at Rev 1:8, "Alpha and Omega" at Rev 22:13, "God our Savior" at Titus 3:4, "Lord God Omnipotent" at Rev 19:6, and "Lord of all" at Rom 10:12 all arguably refer to God the Father rather than to Christ the Son. The reference-supported discussion of those contested titles shouldn't clutter the uncontested titles.
  

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Other views, like for example on 1 John 5:20, etc. can be included with the verse. Basileias (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Interpretations?

TRUE GOD. "true God" at 1 John 5:20. Sixteen (16) Bible translations say Jesus is the True God. One Bible Translation (for kids) say Jesus is the Real God. The verifiable commentaries at the bottom of the page agree that Jesus is the True God. What is the dispute?

ALMIGHTY. "Almighty" at Rev 1:8. Fifteen (15) Bible translations say Jesus is the "Almighty"; Two (2) say He is the "Ruler of All". The word "Almighty" refers to God. The greek pantokratōr has both meanings. What is the dispute?

ALPHA AND OMEGA. "Alpha and Omega" at Rev 22:13. Fifteen (15) Bible translations say Jesus is Alpha and Omega; One (1) Bible translation say Jesus is the First and the Last (Basic English); and One (1) say Jesus is the A and the Z. The last two are simplified for children. What is the dispute?

I could go on, but you get the point.

Also, if someone had not changed the original links, you could read the commentaries, which say that the titles above do refer to Jesus. Or explanations which would have clarified this issue were deleted. I suggest that people first research the verse, and/or name, before changing links or deleting information. 69.170.44.194 (talk.

Subject of Disputed Items

If you note below, the subject of Disputed Items often pertains to the deity of Jesus--Jesus is God. Also, the most controversy and debate under the "Names and Titles of Jesus" also pertain to the deity of Jesus, or as Lord/God/Saviour of man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.50.144 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Lord God - Jude 1:4

I looked a few of these up and Jude 1:4 doesn't make any sense quoting it in a reference to deity for Jesus. I also wasn't able to quickly find any quality sources that claim that. I'm fine with it and I think we can remove Jude 1:4 from the article. Basileias (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Jude 1:4 references the titles "Lord" and "Sovereign" or "Master" depending on the translation. I'm placing this here for further inclusion and removing the "Lord God" reference for Jude 1:4. I can't find a citation that makes the claim Jude 1:4 is for Jesus titled "Lord God". Basileias (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Jude 1:4 references the title "Lord God" in Greek: "the only [μόνος monos] Lord [δεσπότης despotēs] God, [θεός theos] and [καί kai] our [ἡμῶν hēmōn] Lord [κύριος kyrios] Jesus [Ἰησοῦς Iēsous] Christ [Χριστός Christos]"

Young's Literal Translation says: "our only Master, God, and Lord -- Jesus Christ -- ". Webster's Bible Translation says: "the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." King James Version says: "the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

The Wiersbe Bible Commentary says "Jude was not writing about two different persons when he wrote "the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" for the Greek construction demands that these..." [--The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: The Complete New Testament, By Warren W. Wiersbe, page 1023.] Note: see Greek construction above to see that "Lord God" and "our Lord" both refer to Jesus Christ.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.214.3 (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Many titles of Jesus are in Church songs. Example: The Dublin review, Volume 63, p. 483, By Nicholas Patrick Wiseman, lists titles of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Some of the words for Jesus are: "...O God the Son--only begotten--Jesus Christ; O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father...who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy, have mercy, have mercy on us...for thou only art holy, thou only art the Lord--only art the highest, Jesus Christ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.215.105 (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Christ Crucified - 1 Cor 1:23

"Christ Crucified" isn't any kind of title that I can tell. That can probably be removed also. Basileias (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone other than me already removed it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please reinstate it. "Christ Crucified" is a common title for Jesus and is used as book titles, especially when Christianity is strong, such as in the 1880's in America. A current book is: Christ Crucified. By Klass Schilder, Cyril J. Barber - Religion - 2001 - 560 pages.

The title "Christ Crucified" is the "meat", or "substance" of the whole Bible--God's love for mankind and His plan of salvation--prophesied in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.213.122 (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Lord of all" at Rom 10:12

Looking at the context, "Lord is Lord of all" doesn't appear to be a title. Basileias (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Section removed. Please do not reinstate without verifiable reference and discussion here. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) The website below lists Lord of All as one of the most prominent titles of Jesus (lists 30 of over 200 titles).

Lord of All: (Acts 10:36) – Jesus is the sovereign ruler over the whole world and all things in it, of all the nations of the world, and particularly of the people of God's choosing, Gentiles as well as Jews.

(2) A Bible Commentary says: 'Jesus is "Lord of all," and not just Lord of Israel...God made it clear that the blessing would be from Israel to the whole world' (Genesis 12:1-3) [--The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: The Complete New Testament, By Warren W. Wiersbe, page 357.]

(3) Christians accept the title "Lord of All", made popular by a song that says of Jesus: "Crown Him Lord of All". All hail the Power of Jesus' Name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.214.3 (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(4) The title "Lord of All" is listed as a name for Jesus in the classic book by Hurlburt and Horton: "The Wonderful Names of Our Wonderful Lord". It's a common title, and I propose we reinstate "Lord of All" as a title for Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Reinstate title "Lord of All".

Per the discussion above and the references given to support Jesus as Lord of All, I will reinstate the title of Jesus--Lord of All. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Lord God Omnipotent" at Rev 19:6

This one differs depending on the translation used. There is a title but this could use some outside sources. I'm not sure if it refers to "God the Father" because I didn't see that wording in the translations I looked in. Basileias (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The title Lord God Omnipotent refers to Jesus' final victory over the satanic Babylon (the false church who pretends to be "christian", but who kills the true Christians).

Book: The Apocalypse Today‎. By Thomas F Torrance, Thomas F Torrance - Religion - 1961 - 192 pages. [Chapter Fourteen THE LORD GOD OMNIPOTENT REIGNETH REVELATION 19 1. ... It describes the final victory of Jesus over Babylon and its totalitarian mastery of the world. "The proud, blood-drunken Babylon [with its anti-Christian activity] was brought down to utter ruin before the wrath of the Lamb." (p. 152) [Lamb=Jesus] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.213.122 (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

True God - 1 John 5:20

See Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament#True God and User talk:Alastair Haines#True God and 1 John 5:20.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

TRUE GOD title removed: The title TRUE GOD was removed. It cited the required references. Please reinstate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.36.78 (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are other references for Jesus as the TRUE GOD.

Names/Titles for God http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-are-names-titles-bible-uses-for-god.html

Fast Facts--Jesus Christ: True God

Names, Titles, and Characteristics of Jesus

True God and Eternal Life --This original link was deleted; Commentaries at bottom state Jesus is the True God.

The Encyclopedia Americana: a library of universal knowledge, Volume 6, 1918, pp.626-627.

"John gives certain witness to the very Godhead of Jesus: "We know that the Son of God is come. And he hath given us understanding that we may know the true God, and may be in his Son. This is the true God and life eternal" (1 John v.20). The Patristic interpretation down the centuries refers this to the Christ: "Jesus is the true God, and life eternal." (p. 626)

The early Church defended the divinity of Jesus to combat heresies of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Sergius, Cyrus, and Athanasius, etc. "The counsel of Nidaea, A.D. 325, defined the divinity of the single Person, Jesus Christ, and his two fold nature, human and divine...The Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, defined the oneness and divinity of the single Person, the Christ; and the physical unity in this divine Person, of the double nature, human and divine, of the Word made Flesh...The Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, defined still more clearly that, in Jesus, there were two distinct natures, the divine and the human, physically united in one divine Person, and yet not merged into one nature...The Council of Constantinople, A.D. 680, defined the perfection of the human nature of the Christ, his perfect human will distinct from the divine, his perfect human activity distinct from the divine." (p. 627) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.50.120 (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

TRUE GOD title Reinstated

The title "TRUE GOD" is reinstated, with references. Please do not remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have added the title "conquerer of the world" to Lord Jesus Christ. Please hold it. I am a good christian and will read bible that is with me and update it better. If you have any question please email I will answer you immediatly.

Last edited at 19:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)