Talk:Yeshu/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Yechiel of Paris

The Tosafos HaRosh mentioned above is not writing in response to an accusation of the Church, but is part of the Talmudic analysis he wrote. Therefore the lede is somewhat misleading. The Ramban, however, took part in these disputions, if I recall correctly. So we need to find a more accurate construction for the lede in this regard. -- Avi (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What would you propose? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Avi

It would be Nahmanides not Maimonides wouldn't it? But why should this be in the lede? Why should the views and sensitivities of th 13thC take precedence over the 21st Century. I stumbled upon this just now looking for a counterweight to the WP:Overweight focus on the 13thC in this article:

"The Christian college student association of all Israel colleges (which I guess is quite large) has presented a petition to all the college administrations to quit using the name Yeshu for Jesus on all their literature and documents ..." My Heavenly Year in Jerusalem Cheryl Zehr - 2008

not exactly a notable source, just the opinion of some believer, just as I wouldn't particularly want a source from any other kind of believer in the lede. But this sort of supporting quote than can feature down in the bottom of the article about partisan views of particular religions, which is where the Nosson Dovid Rabinovich source would probably belongs too, if it could be located. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu, The Ramban is Nachmanidies. The Rambam is Maimonedies. Please note the last letter; one is Rav Moshe ben Nachman and the other is Rav Moshe ben Maimon. -- Avi (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Avi, ah okay, I can't remember these orthodox names and you can't spell the scholarly names: Nachmanides Maimonides. I guess that illustrates our very different starting points.

Jayjg, you know "individual or individuals" is the WP:fringe content I am objecting to so please don't use my name in the edit summary on the article to justify it being there, thanks.In ictu oculi (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice way to be defensive, Ictu! Look, we all know you do not know anything about this topic. It is not surprising you do "can't remember" Ramban. I once asked you if you considered the view of Orthodox Jews to be fringe. You were evasive at the time, but I am glad you are now at least being more honest about your own prejudice and of course ignorance. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

we (how you love that collective 'us' here, meaning two other editors and yourself) know nothing of the sort. I will not take sides here on the specific merits of the proposals you all disagre on, since I haven't the time to edit directly or follow the arguments in detail, but you should cut out the sneering and the swipes which better editors like Avi and Jayjg refrain from here. I reaffirm that, in my experience, 'in ictu oculi' knows more than all of us (myself included) on the scholarship of Middle Eastern religions in the first half of the Ist millenium, certainly, just as I am sure Avi is more at home in the Babylonian textual tradition than any of us (I am less sure of his grasp of the secondary scholarship). To assert the contrary about 'in ictu oculi' is to ignore the record, and to speak triumphantly of a quorum of consensus, when only 4 people edit this page, is rather silly. Topics like this are either too difficult or unfamiliar to most editors in this area, and, remember, almost all wiki articles on antiquity, Greek, Latin, Jewish et al., are not worth the virtual space they are inscribed on, because we lack editors with both the knowledge and patience to actually edit the whole page. No one in here seems to have read the page top to bottom. Had they, they would have corrected the spelling and grammatical mistakes which abound. It should be obligatory on editors to go through any page they are editing and fix obvious mistakes, or mark problems, rather than to sit back and play the overseer, editing only when they see someone else visit a page they have bookmarked. Finally, the lead should be written after the body of the text has been revised. It is certainly not neutral, since both Schaefer and Van Voorst explicitly define Maier's view as extreme, and yet it is given pride of place, and he alone is named. There can be no better proof than this that claims of the lede as WP:NPOV compliant are farcical.Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Rambam and Ramban are both after the first half of the first millenium, so in this case his ignorance is consistant with and leaves unchallenged your praise. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Try not to be petty, or engage in silly point scoring. It is a distraction from serious issues, just as it would be were I to highlight your atrocious spelling and brand it as proof of 'ignorance'. So let's drop the indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus, etc. Okay?Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

When I point out an area in which In ictu is ignorant, i am not point-scoring, but simply pointing out a fact that is relevant to this discussion. When you complimented him, I did not accuse you of point-scoring, so when I pointed out an area to which your praise does not extend, I did not think you would accuse me of point-scoring. When I wrote that this leaves your praise unchallenged, I was not being sarcastic, I meant to acknowledge with sincerity your compliment. Perhaps you thought I was being sarcastic and read my comments through that bias. But i assure you, I was being genuine. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Avi, Jayjg. What about getting a third opinion from SlimV, who has everyone's confidence? In reading through this thread, I was reminded of SlimV's attempts to edit a few articles on the Jesus theme. She found it quite difficult, because most editors were clearly Christocentric, and dedicated to an academic POV which was, in her view (and mine) Christocentric. It's been insinuated that 'in ictu oculi' has a Christian ('go to mass', etc., a remark which, had ictu said the likes to to Slr, mutatis mutandis i.e., 'go to the synagogue and not waste our time' would have been reported and sanctioned imediately with universal support) POV, which is news to me (though it wouldn't worry me were it true, anymore than the other POV worries me). I think a request Slim's way to give a third opinion would be a gesture in the right direction? I'd accept her judgement here as neutral, even if I might disagree with it, Best Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, do you really consider the academic POV to be Christocentric? Could you amplify a bit? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not the place to argue this. I said an academic POV, not the academic POV. The books being used on the page dealing with an historical Jesus were selectively weighted to works written by Christians with all of the necessary academic credentials. That congeries of sources, though perfectly representing a majority POV, should not have, Slim argued, crush a fair airing of views from people with a lifetime's study who happened to be atheist, but lacked an academic chair. I disagreed with her a bit on this, since I have a strict, rather anal reading of WP:RS: but her point was valid, in that a lot of editors were selectively using a lot of RS which just happened to reflect a believer's POV. The editors were at fault, using the rules and their numbers to make a hearing for the sceptical position difficult. We all know that every scholar has a POV. The best are sufficiently self-aware to constantly review its possible presence in what they write, and drop any certainty the moment the evidence against it is too strong to ignore. Ariel Toaff says that a huge amount of impressive scholarship is available to Israelis in Hebrew on the most delicate issues (like Yeshu here, I might add) but there is a great flutter in the dovecotes when the open universe of Jewish scholarship there on these issues filters out into English, where the usual antisemitic nutters are not rare, and likely to seize on it to promote their hate agendas. I just think great traditions, the Jewish one of scholarship is in the forefront, rest their repute on their mental toughness, and shouldn't be squeamish. I just get a feeling there's a touch of worry for consquences in here that is undeserved, or would be if you could all relax a bit and write a really good page on this subject. It needs serious editing precisely because unless it is fearlessly mastered, and thoroughly presented in a readable style, the surfing mugs out there will still keep on snipping crap from the net and misrepresenting it. You're losing a great opportunity with a scrupulous editor like in ictu oculis, whose seriousness I have no reason to doubt, in making a page like this a 'light unto the nations', as well as a finger in the eye of the purblind idiots who thrive on tidbits about this because there is no definitive, easily accessible survey which wraps up all the problems, on a widely visited encyclopedia like this.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I did indeed misread you and I appreciate your clarifying that. As you said there is no need to rehash it here but nevertheless i appreciate the clarification. thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, I am happy to have more editors cast their eyes on this article; as long as each and every one of us edits in good faith, refrains from personal attacks, and hews to policies and guidelines, then while the process of reaching a consensus may be glacial, it will occur and the article is certainly better off for it. If you think that the additional eyes of people like SlimV would be helpful, by all means. On a personal note, my own beliefs notwithstanding, I am not interested in having this article solely reflect the traditional Jewish view; I am interested in ensuring that that view receives the weight it deserves and is not marginalized through claims of religiosity, antiquity, or the like. I agree with Nishidani, that in this case the lede may be better written after the body is completed so that we have a better idea of what to encapsulate. I'm not sure either Celsus or Nahmanides (or howsoever the Latin translation of the Hebrew "בן נחמן" is spelled ) belongs in the lede. Rather, some generalization of the dispute as to whether Yeshu is the Christian Jesus may be better. -- Avi (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Why should it be marginalized. I think there has been some misunderstanding there. If we take the view that there is a 'traditional Jewish view' on this, then that should be there. The tiff, correct me if I am wrong, was procedural. Does one ascertain this TJV by citing directly the original Jewish texts, or by citing what modern scholarship says of the TJV. My impression is that there was far more variety in Jewish debate than, say, in Roman Catholic views of what their scholars said. For unlike the former, there was an institutional body regulating what was the proper viewpoint. I don't think it is a matter of disrespect (but I may not have read the thread far back enough) as much as a different perspective on how we handle texts from the past. My sympathy with Ictu's position is that, however familiar I might personally be with classical scholarship, I never never cite a classical text except when it is cited within the context of a modern piece of scholarship. Classicists have this drummed in to them as the only safe way to go. I think this is what in ictu oculis was driving at. I like reading the Confessions of St. Augustine, for example, and I occasionally dip into the Summa Theologica. But I'd never cite either on some page unless through Gary Wills, or Kenny, or any number of modern secondary sources. And I have always read RS in this sense. The bias is not against Jewish religious scholarship: it is a bias in the rules for optimal sourcing, surely? In other words I really do believe that there's a misprision here, that has degenerated into mutual suspicions and we are all experienced enough to find some creative way to break the impasse.Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That is very possible. I can only speak for the traditional (Orthodox) Jewish traditions of yeshivos, batei medrah, and kollelim, which have been around in some form or another since the Second Temple era, and in its current form since around the time of R' Chaim Volozhin. In the pedagogic style practiced in these institutions, there is not necessarily a reliance on Acharonim to understand Rishonim. This is different from the analysis of the Talmud itself, which is almost never done (outside of pure translation) without reference to one or a half-dozen Rishonim. This may be due to the fact that the tradition is to consider that the period of the Acharonim is still current, and thus that a 21st century explanation of a given Rishon is no less valid as a 17th century one solely due to the passage of time. Obviously, poor analysis remains poor analysis. Thus, unlike the Talmud, where we would say this is Nahmanides's opinion and this is the Ritva's opinion as to how to explain this Talmudic passage (outside of obvious translation), we do not necessarily rely on the Beis Halevi or the Maharsha to explain a Meiri. Of course, you bring up the critical point that there is no one authoritative view on this, as after the dissolution of the Sanhedrin (or actually their exile from Jerusalem) there is no one institutional body with absolute authority, so multiple opinions are almost certain. In summation, I think that in these cases, the quoting of anyone subsequent to the Rishonim to explain a Talmudic passage serves as a verifiable secondary source (separated by centuries and providing analysis-not firsthand reports-by experts), in my opinion, notwithstanding the age of the text. So in the case of this article, quoting, for example, the Tosafot HaRosh, Sotah 47a is just as valid to explain one aspect traditional Jewish view than Natan David Rabinowitz, if not actually more so, due to the respect and authority that the Rishonim have. -- Avi (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In many NOR conflicts, one important issue is that a source can be primary in cone context and secondary in another context. In relationship to the Talmud, Ramban is a secondary source. As an example of Medieval Jewish thought, he is a primary source. If we are trying to provide an account of the different significant views of the Talmud, Ramban is as important and as valid a source as Boyarin, even if they represent different views. If we are trying to provide an account of medieval Jewish views, Ramban is a primary source and we should be relying on secondary sources. This I think is where Nishidani's concerns are appropriate. I do not think this calls for the either-or edit war some editors seem to think is inevitable. I think that the question is, what kind of narrative framework could accommodate epresenting Ramban as both a primary and secondary source? I favor a historical narrative, i.e. have a section on medieval disputations in which Ramban is provided as a secondary source on the Talmud.

As we know, the most reliable index of whether or not a source is a "primary" source is if there exists a body of secondary sources about that source. Put another way, I think Nishidani is asking a question: is there now sufficient research by modern historians to help us understand Ramban's writings in their historical context, i.e. not just as Ramban's interpretations of the Talmud, but also as documents that must be interpreted within their own historical context? I think this is a fair question, but I do not assume I know the answer. If we do not know of any secondary literature analyzing Ramban's work in its historical context, it is hard to argue that Ramban is a primary source and we cannot include him in the article. But if there does exist secondary sources on Ramban, interpreting Ramban's views as products of a particular cultural and historical moment, then we have no choice but to treat Ramban also as a primary text.

I think treating some sources as both primary and secondary can actually improve the article. The only elegant way to do this is to use a historical framework - in other words, have a section on medieval debates, have a section on early modern debates, and then a section on contemporary debates (between the 1830s and 1960s there was one revolution in the study of the Bible and the Talmud; since the 1980s there has been another revolution). I think we should have a section on medieval debates in which Ramban is a significant source on the Talmud. But I think we should have a source reviewing whatever scholarship has re-assessed those disputations. I happen not to know of much research i.e. from what I do know, there actually has not been a lot of historical research reassessing the views of Ramban and Pablo Christiani, or of Profiat Duran, Rabbi Yosef Albo, Joshua Lorqui and Vincent Ferrer ‐ Nishidani seems to assume that there is. I do not write "seems to" to be argumentative. I think it is legitimate for Nishidani to ask if there has been any historical revisionary interpretations of the disputes, and if the answer is ys I absolutely agree that the article should provide an account of them. I just have not seen anyone present any reliable sources establishing significant views of contemporary historians who have analyzed and inte3rpreted these events and the views presented in them.

I also think that we have wasted a lot of time arguing over whether or not on view is actually a fact or whether it is one view of many. I have held to my position that all of these are views not just because I think NPOV is the most useful framework for resolving debates, but because I think it leads to richer arguments. We know that Ramban thinks that Yeshu is not Jesus. But why? (Yes, I acknowledge that this question can have two answers in two frames; one answer is the answer he gave at Barcelona, the other answer is the one a modern historian gives based on his analysis of Jewish-Christian relations in Spain, I think both answers, if in fact there are two, belong in this article). We know Dr, maier thinks Yeshu is Jesus, but that Sanh 43b is not about Jesus. But why? We know that Rubenstein believes Sanh 43b is not about the historical Jesus, but is about Christian-Jewish relations, but why? I wish that the people who had these sources would use more of their time to explain why x y and z were led to different conclusions, what their reasoning is. I would never revert that, as long as all views were presented as views and not as facts.

Some editors seem to want to turn this into a pissing contest about whose sources are right. Why can't we just say they are all right, and focus instead on explaining why each source interpreted the rabbinic material as they did? I think this would make this article so much more educational, because it would be teaching readers about the different methods ifferent people have for interpreting ancient texts. Some people here are dismissive of the scholarship of medieval rabbis. This is in my view wholly counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. No one is claiming that Ramban was "right," only that his interpretation is significatn. But if instead of just saying what his view was, we actually took a paragraph to provide his reasons - and did the same for Maier, and Boyarin, and Rubenstein - readers could draw their own conclusions, and even if they did not agree with Ramban's interpretation they would learn a little bit more about that particular approach to the Talmud. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

>Nice way to be defensive, Ictu! Look, we all know you do not know anything about this topic. It is not surprising you do "can't remember" Ramban. I once asked you if you considered the view of Orthodox Jews to be fringe. You were evasive at the time, but I am glad you are now at least being more honest about your own prejudice and of course ignorance. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)<

As regards the above,

(i) I was not evasive - anyone can scroll up and look. I said I considered Slrubenstein's claim that "many Orthodox Jews" believe X to be non WP:RS. I still consider Slrubenstein's claim that "many Orthodox Jews" believe X to be non WP:RS. The only source we have for Slrubenstein's "many Orthodox Jews" claim was ultimately provided not by Slrubenstein but Jayjg with the Levine comment (to which Levine adds a "!").

(ii) As for being more familiar with academic terms like b.Sanh. and Nahmanides than those used in believing communities, that's probably the case for my knowledge of Christianity, Buddhism and Islam as well, so I don't feel I have to apologise for using academic terminology.

(iii) When Slrubenstein, are you ever going to provide a source for anything rather than just deleting the sources other editors add?

More generally, the constant stream of personal insult and bad behaviour from this individual falls below the level of discourse expected of a standard Wikipedia contributor, so surely it falls below the level expected of an admin. Is there a system that allows an admin to be nominated for review of his/her admin status? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Why worry? I used to have to pass through a hail of religiously inspired insults and often stones to get to school, aged 6-7. I was told by my mother: never cry, don't complain, with the adage:'Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.' To write offensively is always a sign of weakness in the other, and, however frustrating, should not form a personal grievance. Srl has just shown that he is not too familiar with Hebrew, so you can hardly expect him to fully understand what is being discussed here. Leave it at that. Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sensible. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation style

The article is currently primarily sourced using footnote styles, but there are some instances where in-line author-date style has been used. Is there a preference among the more active editors? In my opinion, the primary benefit of in-line citation is that we can have year/page more easily in the article, and the primary benefit of footnote style is that more people are used to it. I'd also like to point out {{R}} and {{sfn}} for footnote and in-line styles respectively can be used to add page numbers for specific instances to pre-existing general source citations. -- Avi (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Avi, I personally favor inline citations always. There was once a time when both forms of citation were equally welcome at WP and I used Harvard Style for all the articles I created, and slowly the tite turned - and I had to reformat my citations.

Might I suggest the following: that with regard to major sources for major views we provide in-text attribution. This is not a citation but rather a writing style: "In The Historical Figure of Jesus, historian E. P. Sanders wrote ..." and "As critical Talmud scholar Daniel Boyarin argued in Dying for God, ..." I actually would advocate this style for many encyclopedia articles - in this one for example there really are not many major sources on the subject (of critical Talmud scholars its Boyarin, Rubenstein, Kramer, maybe a few others?) so attributing the names of the books and authors in the article would be easy and benefit the reader (as sociologists and historians of science have pointed out, in the early years of a field there are few sources and the names of the theorists are well-known; as years pass and positions become accepted as facts, people forget the original publications ... with this topic, while people have been debating it since the middle ages modern study is still pretty new and shallow and arguably readers ought to know a bit about the major scholars participating in the debate, as their views are all important and none are considered "fact"). I think this article would be better-written if it did a better job of situating the debate historically, providing a little bit more of an explanation of what the Talmud is and the contexts in which the Yeshu stories occur, then providing a little more historical context for the medieval disputations, then providing a little more context for the different trends in current scholarship, whether a source wrote his doctoral dissertation on a seventh century Aramaic text, or a first century Greek text, whether a source's principal work is on reappraising Rabbinic literature or reappraising the sources for any history of Jesus - all of this contextual information would help readers understand the diverse views, but more, understand the different scholarly fields out of which these views emerge.

But I do not think we should use inline citation much as I personally love it. We should have one consistent style for citing works, and WP has opted for notes. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

We can combine both. See this edit] and this version] of Hereford. -- Avi (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A slightly more important issue might be that 3 Wikipedia admins are working together to delete suppress and distort modern academic sources which disagree with the Ramban....?

However for those references which you allow, please maintain the format of inline ref, tight to content, and "actual text" (in or out of context) in the footnote. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Etymology section

The way the etymology section is written now, it presupposes that Yeshu is the Christian Jesus. That is inappropriate for the article, as that particular premise remains a matter of long-standing historical debate. I am thinking about how to re-write it showing that the acronym derivation is one that belongs to the camp of those who accept the premise that Yeshu = Christian Jesus without making it seem as if that is the wikipedia assumption. -- Avi (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the section somewhat to make more NPOV, at least in my opinion. May I have feedback on the changes, please? -- Avi (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not use some of the modern academic sources that were deleted earlier? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that was before I was involved; can you please remind me or send me to a version which has the sources to which you are referring? -- Avi (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Since virtually every academic source I've tried to add, even Adin Steinsaltz, was deleted, I don't know where in the history each deleted source is. But Voorst, Schafer, Horbury, Berger come to mind. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Avi, In ictu is being disingenuous. Voorst just says that the Greek word for Jesus is the Hebrew word for Joshuah. I actually added Steinsaltz to the article - and I asked In ictu if he could provide some basic information about Voorst and these other people he keeps naming in this section. In fact, i asked four times for more information, and I asked politely - In ictu refused to provide it and in fact never provided any details or context about these sources. The fact is, he doesn't have them, he is fabricating this. Just look at my questions in the linked talk section - they are all reasonable questions. once we have the answers, we can better judge if, and then where and how, to add these to the articles. But first lets find someone who actualy has these sources and can actually tell us what they actually say. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,

Firstly you did not ask politely, you have behaved apallingly throughout this "discussion."

Secondly anyone who can use scroll can see me above asking you 26 times for a single source to justify your POV that the name Yeshu has ever in any Aramaic or Hebrew text ever been used to refer to anyone other than the one Joshua which every modern source, deleted or otherwise, says it is referring to. You never supplied a source, you couldn't/didn't even provide a source for Nachmanides or "most Orthodox Jews" believing this. So I am not going to resubmit for your approval information which was in source refs you already deleted. If you want to know, please look at the history of the refs you deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A source that some do not think Yeshu = Jesus? even you have named scholars who think that. My only argument is that the article should include al significant views, against your view that your view = truth.

Anyway, this article represents all properly sources views. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

If the definition of "represent properly" is deleted, then yes.

>A source that some do not think Yeshu = Jesus? even you have named scholars who think that.<

I recognise that Jayjg found Jeremias in 1935 confirming Gustaf Dalman's opinion.

Now I ask you the 27th time, please provide one modern scholar to support this fantasy lede sentence that Yeshu in any Aramaic/Hebrew text can apply to other individuals than Jesus of Nazareth. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you man by "modern?" My claim has only ever been that orthodox Jews continue to hold this view. You have made it plain that you do not think Orthodox Jews' views belong in Wikipedia. But if you mean "critical" my source is Powell. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

>You have made it plain that you do not think Orthodox Jews' views belong in Wikipedia< This is a distortion, since Wikipedia WP:source WP:RS indicates that the views of religious communities can be expressed on Wikipedia provided they are labelled as such;

Therefore If you have a source supporting your assertion the "many Orthodox Jews believe" then add it. Though I think actually Jayjg already supplied that by Amy-Jill Levine, The Historical Jesus in Context, Princeton University Press, 2008, p. 20. "Similarly controversial is the Babylonian Talmud's account of Jesus' death (to the extant that some Rabbinic experts do not think the reference is to the Jesus of the New Testament!)". Which shows that "some Rabbinic experts..!" hold the view of Yechiel. The question is, why is this "some Rabbinic experts..!" up in the first line of the lede as if it was "all modern scholars" and not "some Rabbinic experts..!" Why isn't it down the article under "Views of Rabbinic experts"?

By "modern" in this case I mean anything more recent than Gustaf Dalman as cited by Jeremias in 1935, such as the 20 or so modern academic sources which have been deleted/distorted or otherwise censored by yourself. As for Powell (a) this isn't your source because you don't add sources, Jayjg did. (b) it's been censored/distorted to prevent Wikipedia users see the full text. I ask for the 28th time please provide a modern source that the name Yeshu can refer to any other Yeshu than Yeshu ha Notzri. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Original research tag

Ho, In ictu. I agree that there is OR scattred throught this article. Could I trouble you to list the specific OR issues you believe we have, so they can be addressed. Actually, everyone who is involved with this should list (succinctly ) the OR issues this article has so we can fix them. Thanks -- Avi (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Avi,

Thanks for asking nicely, and thanks for telling me to be succint with a smiley. But there are so many OR issues it's hard to know where to start - primary medieval sources probably. And fringe ones, when you see sources like G. R. S. Mead in article one should know better than touch it. If I was approaching this article as a secular reader, what I would want to know would be (1) what is this name Yeshu, what do dictionaries say, (2) why are all the other Joshuas in Aramaic and Hebrew Yeshuas and why is it just this one Joshua a Yeshu? To me that would be the most important difference. Why Yeshu (name) when all other Joshuas are Yeshua (name)? And the only sources I've seen addressing that question I added and were deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That sort of ties in with what is above; the medieval sources are not OR when it comes to explaining the Talmud. I believe Slrubinstein said it well above. Just like we can use Schafer to analyze the Talmud, we can use the Rosh to analyze the Talmud. That is neither a primary source issue (and, fwiw, primary sources are not forbidden--they are useful in certain circumstances) nor OR, since we are using them to explain a text at least 600 years older than they. But this is the topic of the RfC and I really shouldn't get off-track; sorry. To address your particular points:

1. I don't see what dictionaries have to do with this artile per se. This is not a phrase, but a name. We do not look in the disctionary for an article on "Bartholomew" or "Mortimer", why here?
2. The question presupposes an answer that is not completely accurate. For example, we have Meier quoting Josephus that there were around 10 Yeshus contemperaneous with Jesus, so (2) is subject to the fallacy of petitio principii.

-- Avi (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Careful, Avi! 10 Yeshus or 10 Yeshuas? Josephus as we have him is in Greek and we have made an awful lot of fuss about the equation Ἰησοῦς = ישו haven't we?,the second term being distinctive to the Talmud and not equivalent to Yeshua. I can't imagine it linguistically possible for Josephus to be construed as writing Yeshu.Nishidani (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an historical reason for not using medieval rabbinical explanations. Many were written under conditions of Christian hostility. Modern scholarship couldn't give a flying fuck for censorship, from whatever quarter, and can therefore analyse the primary texts free of any possible fear some traitor might reveal the meanings of what is written, or some ecclesiastical beetle haul people with a copy of a Talmud before an inquisitorial court and launch a pogrom. This is commonsense, Avi. Medieval Jews wrote in a totalitarian environment.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand we have 1) critical editions of some of them today 2) many scholars lived under non-Christian rule and 3) they are still representative of a position held today by most Talmudic scholars of Jewish origin, who do not need to rewrite what was written 700 years ago. I'm still struggling to understand why in ictu thinks that these sources are wrong, and should not be accepted as for what they state. No one is trying to say that Jehiel of Paris represents the only point of view, but why is it any less valid than that of Father Hereford? -- Avi (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

On the third hand, Sasanid Jews writing the Bavli exercised a freedom their which the Palestrinian redactors of the Yerushalmi did not have since they were writing where Christians held menacing power, that is why passages that are construed as being aimed at Christians occur in the Bavli not in the other. The Christians were persecuted under the Sasanids for a long while much as the Jews were under the Christians, as the two empires faced off. There are a lot of Talmudic scholars who hold chairs today, and they write abundantly on this. Peter Schäfer's preparing the Princeton recension of the Toledat Yeshu, using an unheralded 150 manuscripts of that work, and the collation of variants is already done. It'll probably change whatever page you guys produce here quite substantially, when published (if of course we manage to accept it as RS!)

I share ictu's view on on method thoroughly. I don't know him from a bar of soap, except that, to judge from pages we've edited, he's comfortable in Latin which suggests to me a classics background. If so, then I can see why I agree on the approach he advises. It is the standard academic method you are required to use in classics, and, it also happens to be the standard method now used by all Talmudic scholars writing for academic peers. Any medieval source can be used, in this view, as long as it is titrated through modern academic works by Talmudic specialists or period historians with a strong background in Talmudic studies.

Put it the other way around. Is there any rabbinical source from the medieval period on this issue which you think has been neglected by Teppler, Schäfer, Van Voorst, Levene, Schlichting, Maier, Howard, Stanton, Paget, Klausner, Lockshin, Yuval, Visotzky, Boyarin, Meerson, Deutsch, Alexander, Newman, Limor, Stroumsa, to name but a few? I'll save you the tedium of an answer. People should be allowed to edit the page according to what they know of academic sources over the past 30 years, and when done, anything they've missed from the rabbinical tradition can be added. (ps sorry about my 'ff.' idiom. I was in haste, the kettle was on the boil, and my wife just came home, and panics when she hears that whistle, thinking, quite correctly, that I'll burn another teapot on the firerange:)- Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Avi

As Nishidani just repeated, though it was in one of the academic sources deleted, Greek Iesous is only Yeshu when it is the Nazareth Yeshu. Every other Josephus Iesous is Yeshua. This again is, AFAICS, the one salient fact about Yeshu (name) and the first thing a mainstream reader would want to know.

Re. why is a 12th Century rabbi being tortured by Christians a less reliable/objective academic source than a 1910s PhD. librarian (R. Travers Herford was not a "Father")? Do we really need to ask this question :O. The real question is why since 1935 every source offered to Wikipedia has followed R. Travers Herford rather than Gustaf Dalman on whether "Yeshu" (written without the ayin) can refer to "individuals."

Nishidani

What's a meatpuppet? Yes I studied Greek and Latin, Petrarch, Lucien, etc.

Seems you know more about textual criticism of the Talmud than anyone else on this Talk page. Is there a standard work on the subject? Other than Neusner's intros.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Avi is Mark Spitz in the yam ha-Talmud, and I'm just a toddler who'd drown if he fell into a puddle formed from a splash there. But I think I know a fair bit about textual criticism, its methods and history, in several languages.Nishidani (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

To be more explicit for Avi's sake. The tradition he feels some of us might be cocking a snook at from a eurocentric, or WASPish angle, is not alone in this. In any number of civilizations with long and intense traditions of textual scholarship, Chinese, Tibetan, Japanese, Greek, Latin, Islamic etc., also, the situation is similar. Academies of scholars passed down the texts, and commentaries by authoritative, often deeply revered figures, through the ages, and the erudition was breathless. The rise of modern textual criticism, and especially the mechanization of textual analysis via photography, so that all manuscripts in a tradition can be compared to establish proper readings, determine which text is older, who said what first, internal layers of composition differentiated by age according to linguistic analysis, changed the way we do things. With scanners and digitalization, the comprehensiveness of comparative analysis has taken this one step further. Wagenseil could only make his recension of the Toledot Yeshu on the basis of a few manuscripts. Schãfer and his group have turned up and digitalized over 150 manuscripts in the time that, in earlier generations, it took to master one. In the Greek New Testament there are several thousand textual variants, and some six hundred different issues of punctuation, found in 7al hundred manuscripts. These were duly collated, to permit editors to establish with greater likelihood the readings of the original manuscripts that lie behind the transmitted, endlessly copied, manuscripts we have. You know this from the 'ikka' de-'amrei' glosses of course.

When one says, it is best to source our discussions of primary texts to secondary scholarship under academic imprint, one is only saying that now, with Talmudic academies as in Jewish studies generally, issues about who said what, which manuscript reading is more probable, are best handled by authoritative modern editors who are obliged to unite the best learning within the rabbinic tradition with (a) the technical resources of modern media and (c) the comparative approach of textual criticism. Concretely that means that when we are looking at key passages in the Yerushalmi vs the Bavli, we recognize Greek loan words more frequently in the former, and Persian loanwords more often in the latter, and to grasp what is going on, we need all the expertise modern scholarship on the history of Greek usage or the Iranian language can bring to bear in order to determine the probable history behind the choice of words.

There was a long tradition of scholarship in Greek that denied any essential cultural interchange with the Middle East, and everything was explained internally. The rise of comparative studies elucidated many mysteries however. We could see that the river of Hell, Acheron, was not 'flowing with woe' as Greek scholars thought on the basis of internal etymologizing, but probably 'western' (cf. Heb.’aḥărôn) or the mysterious founder of Thebes, Cadmus, was none other than 'the easterner' (cf.Heb.qédem, as in bnê-qédem), as indeed the traditions of his origins suggested. Only comparative analysis can now wrest many of the secrets in old texts which generated endless analysis and anecdote within the tradition, but which remained mysteries because there was no large contextual perspective, linguistic, historical, sociological etc., to throw unexpected light on the cruces. The tradition you fear might be elbowed aside by what Ictu and myself were suggesting runs no such risk, since in Israel and abroad, Talmudic studies have been thoroughly integrated into the world of modern textual criticism. The yeshiva has been digitalized, and the rabbi, as often as not, is perfectly at home in comparative philology. Sorry for the longueur, but I wish to make it absolutely clear that what some of your appear to read as a POV is in fact a method, and one which is well-established in modern Talmudic studies. Unless I am mistaken, by 'secular' Ictu meant this 'method', though his choice of word was unfortunate. We had this clash with Ret.Prof., who loved using any book predating the 20th. century. Best Nishidani (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I a, not sure that Nishidani knows the Hebrew words for Western and Eastern. be that as it may, no one here has objected to providing modern Critica, Talmud scholars' views in the article. Only In Icto has argued that his sources are "facts" and that the views he disagrees with are false and should be excluded from the article. The only conflict here involves in icto's POV-pushing. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ohgawd. Of course I do. Don't be so silly, please. Read closely. I put 'cf.' in front of the comparison. Any one with a tertiary degree knows that cf. means 'compare' or 'note for comparison', and does not mean, as you evidently thought in making that thoughtless comment, =. If you were unsure of this elementary scholarly convention, you should have googled it.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, adding mainstream modern academic references is not "POV-pushing," deleting them is. ::::::And again I ask you the 27th time, please provide one modern scholar to support this fantasy lede sentence that Yeshu in any Aramaic/Hebrew text can apply to other individuals than Jesus of Nazareth. You three gentlemen are presenting your religious conviction as a fact, without sources. But no one since 1935 has supported such a view, and the fantasy lede sentence says the opposite of what all academic sources since 1960 say. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(a) Ictu. I don't think it proper to bundle up three editors into one and attribute to them a shared viewpoint, even when you may have that impression. All three have distinct styles, and one should, as a courtesy, and in deference to proper respect, treat every one as responsible only for what he or she writes (b) I would again advise you that it is not necessary to infer a common 'religious conviction'. My own impression is that perhaps there is, as unfortunately occurs frequently, a perception here that a culture is under assault in contexts like these, and that that culture is to be defended. I don't think that perception correct, but it seems evident that some editors get that impression by the words you have used, like 'secular' and 'religious conviction'. I almost completely agree with you on the points you are making, but I regard the inability not to perceive it by our interlocutors as a consequence of that bedevilled habit we all tend to assume subliminally as we acculturate ourselves to this weird encyclopedia, i.e., we learn to be so sensitive to the possible presence of tacit POVs that we start to miss the wood for the trees. When this happens, all drift into barking at the wrong tree. Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani

No you're right, I shouldn't give that impression. It's quite evident that Avi is interested in providing sources and I should again acknowledge that. By a common 'religious conviction' I didn't necessarily mean a specific religion (though here it happens to be Orthodox Judaism, we could conceivably equally have 3 editors turn up who insist on the views of Nicholas Donin, Pablo Christiani in the medieval disputations be the starting point of the article lede rather than Yechiel of Paris or Nachmanides - that would also be common 'religious conviction') what I am trying to say again is that the lede shouldn't represent the views of Nicholas Donin, Pablo Christiani nor of Yechiel of Paris or Nachmanides, but modern scholars.

We still have the ridiculous situation that a view which has not been advanced by a scholar since 1935, and is rejected by all modern scholars, is set in the first sentence of the lede as a fact. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well I agree on that. I haven't made an absolute judgement on these things yet because it's not quite an area I can speak on with any degree of confidence. I'm still looking round and making notes. I still don't think the technical issue I tried to explain above is clear to some of our interlocutors, and I know from the past that when Avi sees one of my TLDR screeds he silently throws up his hands in despair, looks at the clock, thinks of mortality and the exacerbations of all the time taken away from other interests by these tedious pages, and feels resigned (put a smiley in here!cf. Avi's note above.(succinctly ). Perhaps I should rework it this afternoon, esp. since there may be an opportunity to put this to Ovadyah, with whom we had similar disagreements over what was done on the Ebionism page, and re Ret.prof's work, and see if the point is clear. With structural problems in mutual comprehension like this, one must not get sucked in to the idea a solution's around the corner if one just plugs away, however frustrating that can be.Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a section for Orthodox views, which is pretty lame right now. We have a section on critical scholars' views, which looks lame - but if you scroll down to discussions of specific texts, you will see that two critical views, those of Rubenstein and Boyarin, are developed at some length. So I think that part of the problem is a structural one: I think that all of the uncontroversial presentation of the texts belongs in one section on "the sources" and then, provide all the different interpretations. This would immediately show that critical views gets more attention than Orthodox views.

That said, the article already provides sections for different views, including critical views, and all we need to do is add them as editors do more research on these views. I would much rather see some real research o9n what critical scholars say about Yeshu that the weeks we have had of pointless POV-pushing lectures on the talk page.

By the way I am not suggestion that all critical views go in one section. In study on the Talmud, lower critics emend and correct passages corrupted over times; higher critics try to identify when different sections were composed and identify sections composed by the same author or set of authors. If there is a serious debate on these issues, I propose they deserve their own section. So far we only have one quotation from Maier suggesting that he is really only concerned with when the word Yeshu was added to the text. "Late" also is rather vague. But if we had several critics arguing over the dating of different passages, we could have a section on dating. Conversely, is this all Maier says? It is all In ictu has shown any interest in these past many days. But Rubenstein and Boyarin have proposed actual interpretations suggesting why these texts were included in the Talmud. Why not add to them?

There has been an RfC and we will not change the lead, and In ictu is just wasting her time if she wants to continue her crusade on the first paragraph. Why not actually improve the article by adding interesting content to the body? Anyone who looks past the first paragraph would see that this article i8s in fact quie friendly to critical scholarship. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Saying 'that we will not change the lead', when you have a patent WP:NPOV violation is not on. I.e. the lead now (a) showcases Maier's minimalist view while downplaying, comparatively, the anti-Maier view, as espoused by Schäfer,* and (b) names three people, Maier, Nahmanides, Asher ben Jehiel for the extreme negative view while not citing anyone for the obverse. That means the lead intrinsically pushes the minimalist view. There is not a shadow of doubt here that this is technically unbalanced therefore.

Again,when you have three in 9 lines, any wiki editor will see that there is something wrong with the lead, and that the text is 'primitive'. A 'citation needed' tag flags the fact that sentences have been introduced which lack any justification in RS. Since they have no justification, they shouldn't be in a lead, and that stands out, surely, like the proverbial dog's balls.

The lead technically sums up the body of the text. The article is hopelessly bad, aesthetically and discursively. So we have no way of knowing what, were it to be written, the lead that would then summarize it, would look like.

I had a word with 'ictu' about using language that only invites, by its looseness, altercations. You do the same, arguably, more often, and you do so here talking of ictu's editing as a 'crusade'. Earlier you invited Ictu to attend mass rather than edit wiki, a sanctionable statement you refused to withdraw. So, I repeat Avi's sane advise to all and sundry: drop the attitude.

Very few editors here have looked past the first paragraph, otherwise we wouldn't have 'it's' being written for 'its' ('The Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and it's Links to the Gospel Jesus'), and 'extant' being written for 'extent' (to the extant that some Rabbinic experts).

My experience on wiki is that the lead is the area which is battled over because many editors think no one reads much beyond that to get to the nitty-gritty given the semi-analphabetism of rising generations. Strategies are premised on this idea of the lazy reader. It follows that if you fix the lead the way you want it, you tend to not care less what the rest of the long article says, i.e., allow all of the things you might take exception to, or prefer readers not to know, to be ferreted away down the bottom (this happened on the Shakespeare Authorship Question, with a POV warrior doing everything to fix the lead, while being happy to ignore the devastating detail of scholarship squirreled down below relatively untouched). It don't look good to play articles this way. Rather cynical, in fact.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Far from being 'quite friendly' to critical scholarship. The article wholly distorts it in key points. Schäfer's position is not only unrecognizable in the following passage, it is downright wrong.

'Klausner distinguishes between core material in the accounts which he argues are not about Jesus and the references to "Yeshu" which he sees as additions spuriously associating the accounts with Jesus. Recent scholars in the same vein include Peter Schäfer Professor of Judaic Studies at Princeton University.'

Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to agree with me that the we'd go further working on the body of the article which needs more work; if so, I am glad. I will ignore your other now expected insults. As to the quote you provide, I did not add it and am in no position to disagree - if you want to improve it I won't object, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

An insult is a violation of WP:NPA. If you believe I insulted you, take it to the appropriate place for a sanction. Otherwise do not make unsubstantiated or unsubstantiatable charges, since they only function to disturb or derail clear-sighted discussion.Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC tag

I propose that (a) deleted modern academic references (e.g. Voorst p124 etc) be restored, and that (b) the lede sentence remove the POV that "Yeshu" refers to "individual or individuals" since in modern secular dictionaries, 98% of texts, it does not, and in the remaining 2% of texts no modern scholar since 1935 has argued that the name Yeshu stands in any verse for any other "Joshua" than the one the deleted modern academic references say. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Do not archive until one month after 00:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

--- since it has been relisted I've taken the opportunity, as I have been requested by Jayjg, to express the issue more succinctly. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That makes all teh statements below incorrect; perhaps we should close this RfC early before 30 days) and list a new one? -- Avi (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the opposition of the following statements would remain, a couple of passing traffic observers on RfC may have opposed based on Slrubenstein's comments, I don't know. But one way or the other, it's apparently been relisted, a relist just showed up on my Watchlist, and it doesn't express well what I was trying to get -- which is this medieval-to-1935 "individual or individuals" view from being presenting as a fact in the first line. But I don't honestly believe there is any chance that the modern academic view will be allowed to get precedence over medieval tradition in this article. So someone relisting the RfC is moot anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've said it pretty clearly above. You still believe that someone in 1979 knows how to interpret a text from 700 better than someone in 1300. You are entitled to you opinion, but that is not necessarily in accord with WP:NPOV, as many below have stated as well. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Our core policy: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." In ictu oculi wishes to use this article to promote one point of view as a fact (see her 11:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC) comment).
• As prominent scholars (e.g. Daniel Boyarin and Jeffrey Rubenstein) point out, "Yeshu" is a figure in a genre of stories in Rabbinic literature. These stories were written at different times by different people. According to Boyarin and Rubenstein, their identifying this word as the Christian "Jesus" has to do with their interpretation of the Yeshu stories — and they are clear that these are their own views.
• Maier takes a different view, arguing that the meaning of the name is unrelated to the story, which is actually about someone else. Confused? Yes, it is complicated! What these stories mean is a matter of scholarly debate.
• What the word "Yeshu" means is also a matter of scholarly debate (Most scholars believe that "Jesus" is derived from the Biblical name for "Joshua." In Hebrew, Yehoshuah, in Aramaic, Yeshua (these are the spellings used in the Talmud) .... "Yeshu" is neither a name nor a word in either language. Is it a corruption of Yeshua, or a rare form of this name? Is it an anacronym? this too is a matter of debate).
• Verifiable sources confirm that many do not believe it is a form of Jesus' name.",
• Many Orthodox rabbis argue that the stories have nothing to do with Jesus. Some say it does.
• Most editors know that many topics regarding Jesus are controversial. According to Jesus scholars Gerd Theissen and Annette mertz, Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, but "there is a lively discussion as to whether we should supposed that Jesus spoke Greek." Several Pharisees who lived around the same time as Jesus even had Greek names. When it comes to Jesus we should expect many different views.

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

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

Dear Slrubenstein

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

Comment 1

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

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

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

Comment 2

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

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

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

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

Comment 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avi,

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

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

Avi,

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

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

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

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

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

Dweller.

So where's the modern reliable published source?

Ovadyah.

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

Avi,

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

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

Slrubenstein

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

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

Avi

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

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

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

Hi Avi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose the proposed lead sentence. The use of the name Yeshu may well be a reference to Jesus of Nazareth in some or even all cases in Aramaic and Hebrew texts, but this is obviously disputed. It's a perfectly valid POV, and may even be right, but our NPOV is specifically designed to prevent just this sort of preferencial statement. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as evidence seems to be insufficient for us to say that the identification is mandatory. I think maybe something along the lines of "Yeshu is a name used in (sources). Many of these sources seem to be dealing with the same person, and there is an ongoing discussion in the academic world as to whether or not they describe Jesus." Verbose as hell, I know, but I think it might be among the more neutral ways to introduce the subject. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't know a lot about the subject, but I think the current lead's first sentence is informative, and certainly more neutral than the proposed new one. The reference to Jesus of Nazareth seems to be explained in the 3rd and 4th sentences, as well as the 2nd paragraph. -- Adjwilley (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Additions to the "Individual or individuals" citation

This edit expands the list of sources supporting the "individuals" POV in the first line of lede, by (1) making clear that Beckwith is only repeating Jeremias 1935, (2) by allowing the full text of Powell's short paragraph, (3) by allowing Setzer, Horbury and Voorst's explanation of Johannes Maier to stand aside the John P. Meier one which is capable of being misread to support the lede sentence POV. So far you have deleted every academic source in the lede which disagrees with Yechiel's view. I ask you to let these stand, Yechiel's view is still given priority over the academic view in the actual text. This just allows readers to check the sources in completeness. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The very lengthy Powell quote was a confusing WP:COPYVIO, and it duplicated the actual reference information. I've shortened it to the parts that are relevant, and linked to the original page on Google books so people can read for themselves if they wish. Also, all those additional citations have nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you want to argue about what Maier really means, this footnote is not the place for it. Meier considers him to mean one thing, even if other authors may disagree. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

This delete is pure distortion and supression of academic sources

As for WP:COPYVIO nonsense, do you know anything about copyright law? I actually have worked on projects involving copyright law, have you? WP:COPYVIO does not say that a whole paragraph cannot be quoted. I can only assume that given your previous removal of Powell saying "he is not mentioned by name" you deleted that because you don't want Wikipedia readers seeing the whole context including the fatal sentence "he is not mentioned by name."

And your edit summary: Jayjg (talk | contribs) (shorten WP:COPYVIO and WP:POINTY quotation - link to Google books instead, and fix mangled ref, Also, remove unrelated material. this footnote is not about Maier, but about scholars who doubt that all stories about "Yeshu" refer to Jesus)"

You're damn right it's "WP:POINTY," the point is that by adding more academic sources I wanted Wikipedia readers to be able to see the full context of the scrape-the-barrel sources you have found to force your own WP:Fringe POV as a fact in the article lede. You know this is controversial, you know that academic sources disagree with you (or you wouldn't be deleting them) so how can you present your POV as a proven fact in the lede of a Wikipedia article?

This is absolutely unbelievable, I have never seen on any other religious history related article such a determined effort to suppress/delete/distort modern academic sources as on this article. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi,

1. "academic sources" is not some magic wand that one can wave around to insert whatever citations one wants in whatever location one wants. Rather, the citations must be relevant to the material being supported. Your additions were about various views of Maier, who isn't even cited directly in that footnote, rather than about whether reference to Yeshu were to Jesus.
2. Regarding copyright, please review Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a 300–400 word quote taken from a 500 page book was a copyright infringement. In this case in particular there is hardly any justification for your 212 word quotation, since the quotation itself and source is not even being commented on, but rather merely being used to support a citation. Linking to the original source, which I did, gives the context, and thus disproves any claim that anything is being "suppressed".
3. It has already been conclusively shown that the phrase "he is not mentioned by name" is not "fatal", but rather a clear misinterpretation on your part of the source - again, please stop fixating on specific wordings which are often either irrelevant or mean different things from what you intend or think they do.
4. If any of your future comments many any pejorative claims about me, including statements such as "you don't want Wikipedia readers seeing the whole context", "you know that academic sources disagree with you (or you wouldn't be deleting them)", "determined effort to suppress/delete/distort modern academic sources", then they will simply be ignored, with a link given to this comment.

Now, please respond directly to the points I have made about your insertion in my previous comment and in this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

(1) The 4 additional citations regarding Maier which were added - and then deleted - where to show that your selective quote of John P. Meier regarding Maier was misleading. That rather than support your lede statement "individual or individuals" Meier cites Maier as not supporting it - which the other 4 show. So why must we have the 1 of 5 which can be misread? Or why not even have Maier in German himself?

(2) As someone who has worked in copyright I am of the view that in this context a 212 word quote is not copyright infringement. Any more than your 50 word quote. But the key issue is not the 212 or 50 words but the 6 words: "he is not mentioned by name" which I wish to insert, you wish to delete. It's those 6 words not the whole 212.

(3) It has not "already been conclusively shown" that "he is not mentioned by name" does not mean "he is not mentioned by name" - to whom? Where did this discussion take place? And who agreed with you? And if it's so evident that "he is not mentioned by name" does not mean "he is not mentioned by name" then why can't you allow it to be included in the full context? Surely if it's so clear it supports your view and doesn't need to be deleted?

(4) I repeat the observation that you are making a "determined effort to suppress/delete/distort modern academic sources", this is not pejorative, it is what you are doing. I realise you don't realise you're doing it, and I assume you aren't doing it with any bad faith, but when someone (i.) deletes sources from 1999, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2010 in favour of (ii.) inserting something from 1922 requoted in 1935 as the only source, and then in the lede sentence states the view in that 1922, 1935 source is a fact - that it is the only view in the lede sentence, then that, sorry, is suppressing modern sources. It is what it is.

The above constitute direct answers I hope? Now, I ask you:

(1) Does everyone on this Talk agree that your reading of John P. Meier's is the correct reading and only reading? Because if not, is it still a sound source, or is it a disputed source?

(2) Does anyone on this Talk page consider that Setzer, Voorst, Theissen, Horbury, Schafer or Maier himself support that Maier thinks the name Yeshu refers to another Yeshu? - Because if not, why is Meier's comment on Maier listed as a ref for the lede sentence?

(3) Does everyone on this Talk agree that your reading of Powell "he is not mentioned by name" is the correct reading and only reading? Because if not, is it still a sound source, or is it a disputed source?

(4) Does anyone on this Talk page consider that Powell himself thinks the name Yeshu refers to another Yeshu? - Because if not, why is Powell listed as a ref for the lede sentence?

(5) And again, for the 28th time, is there any modern scholar - since Jeremias in 1935 - who supports the lede sentence that Yeshu refers to "individual or individuals"? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu, we all agree that the Talmud is a heterogeneous document that did not take final form until the sixth-seventh centuries. We also all agree that the Yshu passages are not historically reliable. These are not controversial claims, and we do not need to provide every source you have that repeats the same information, usually be referring to people we already use as sources. For weeks you have been whining about deleting quotes you cherry pick out of context and use inappropriate.

If these are important scholars, let's use them properly. What are their respective interpretations of the Yeshu stories? What do they refer to? When were they composed? You keep wanting to put in a long quote from Powell that just says that he doesn't know and you complain when someone removes the quote? Look, let's add views, not the absence of views. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi,

1. We have already discussed your misconstruing the meaning of the out-of-context phrase "he is not mentioned by name". The fact that a) Powell himself quotes the Talmud referring to Yeshu, and b) explains what he means when he writes "Yeshu [=Jesus?]" indicates that there is no real controversy here - indeed, you have provided no response to either point. Powell is explicit, and your inferences based on that sentence fragment are both incorrect and irrelevant. There is really nothing else to be said on the matter – this issue is resolved, and we won't be discussing it again.
2. Regarding copyright, fair use certainly covers brief quotes that are relevant, or about which an article comments. When material is included that serves neither of those purposes, but instead some unrelated polemical one (about what you imagine Powell is really saying despite his explicit words to the contrary), then there is no justification.
3. "determined effort to suppress/delete/distort modern academic sources" is a personal comment that is clearly pejorative. WP:NPA is quite clear: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". It's both the "nutshell" of the policy, and found in the lede paragraph. I'm going to give you a pass on this latest use, because I believe you are in good faith when you state "this is not pejorative, it is what you are doing", but in the future, if any of your comments are about me, rather than content, they will be ignored in their entirety.
4. "inserting something from 1922 requoted in 1935 as the only source, and then in the lede sentence states the view in that 1922, 1935 source is a fact - that it is the only view in the lede sentence" is at best inaccurate, at worse a falsehood. I'm the person who inserted citations to sources from 1966, 1991, 1998, 2005 and 2008 in the lede.[2] In the future, please insure that all your statements are accurate and contain no hyperbole.

Now, in response to your questions,

(1) No, you apparently disagree,

(2) Irrelevant - this article is not about Maier,

(3) Yes, everyone agrees, including you, despite your protestations to the contrary; this is proved by your refusal to acknowledge or respond to the fact that a) Powell himself quotes the Talmud referring to Yeshu, and b) explains what he means when he writes "Yeshu [=Jesus?]"

(4) I don't know what you mean by "the name Yeshu refers to another Yeshu". Powell explicitly questions whether Yeshu is Jesus.

(5) Yes, of course, I've cited several of them.

Also, you've used the phrase "for the 28th time", which you've been told is unhelpful, because of its inaccuracy and its irrelevance. This question has been answered more than once. Again, to assist us in productive conversation, and to circumvent the time-wasting fixation on certain phrases and wordings, any further references to "for the 29th time", "for the 30th time" etc. will be ignored. We need to have productive, meaningful exchanges, rather than ritualistic invocations of specific mantra-like phrases. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

Rather than telling me not to ask for the 29th time for a modern source (i.e. more modern than Joachim Jeremias 1935 citing Gustaf Dalman 1922) that Yeshu in any Aramaic or Hebrew text doesn't refer to Jesus of Nazareth, why not just give a source. There are over 3 dozen modern texts in the last 30 years touching on this. Why don't you provide one to support the POV "or individuals" of the 1st line of the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comment invoked the ritual phrase "29th time", and was therefore ignored. Please review the previous comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

Ritual comment or not, the fact remains that you and Slrubenstein have been asked 29 times to provide a modern academic source for the "individuals" word, and have refused to do so.

Now, why did you delete Voorst? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments with ritualistic incantations ignored; see earlier comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What sort of Wikipedia dismisses 29 requests for a modern academic source (since 1935) for the POV of the lede as "ritualistic incantations"? This is not good Wikipedia behaviour In ictu oculi (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"or individuals"

The point being why did you delete "Voorst" from the text and relegate it to a footnote? The purpose of trying to get a modern scholar who disagrees with your "or individuals" line in the lede is for the disagreement of scholars with the lede sentence to be visible, given that there are no modern scholars who agree with the "or individuals" view in the lede sentence. The intention was to start with Voorst and then add the other 20 or so. I can add them in the slot if you wish. How many am I allowed to add before you will start deleting them because it is too many? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You are continually starting new sections, particularly when your claims are disproved, splitting the conversations into multiple threads, which then forces us to repeat statements and disproofs in all these threads. I've mentioned this before, and I'm not playing this game any more. Van Voorst is being discussed in a previous thread, I will post further responses only there. And if your response there includes the ritual incantation "there are no modern scholars who agree with the "or individuals" view" I won't respond there either, since, as pointed out already, I'm the person who inserted citations to sources from 1966, 1991, 1998, 2005 and 2008 in the lede that support this view.[3] Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

You might consider that not everyone has as fast a connection as you. It takes several minutes for these long chunks to load, and then when I reply I get an edit conflict, reload, get another and so on. Will you allow other academics who disagree with the lede sentence be added into the Voorst reference slot? (and btw, in Europe we don't usually add the van/von/de but I assume he is American, so okay). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Several issues with the Talmudic quotes

I see a number of issues with the Talmudic quotes. (Unfortunately, I do not have an uncensored Talmud with me.)

1. Most importantly, we are dealing with censored passages, so it is necessary to cite the edition being quoted, not page numbers alone. In fact, one of the quotes (Yehoshua ben Perachia) wouldn't even fit on the page if it were to be restored. Unless you are quoting the Vilna Shas (and a lot of it is censored from there), you need to cite your edition.

2. In the "sorcerer" quote, it says he was "stoned and hanged". Does your edition say he was hanged, or are you assuming based on the fact that he was stoned?

3. The Onkelos story says Yeshu is explicitly mentioned. Since the censored Vilna edition says "sinners of Israel", which edition says Yeshu?

4 In the Yehoshua ben Perachia story, there are some interesting wild speculations from a Paulist Press book, but the most basic information (which the book should have if it is worth quoting) appears to be missing:

• The Talmud itself gives the lesson to be learned, and it is not that different from the speculation. Why skip it in favor of speculation?

• The story is clearly 100 years earlier than than the time of Pilate. Why not mention this?

• The story is the second of a series of two with the same lesson; the first (uncensored) about Elisha the prophet and his wayward pupil Gehazi. Why leave this out?

• Why not mention that this story and the sorcerer story have the exact same statement (unless I misremeber) as to the crimes of Yeshu?

Thanks you. Please excuse any mistakes due to faulty memory.Mzk1 (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Mzk1,

Well this is one of the problems with the entire article. The whole article is fixed on what 2 (or is it 3?) texts in some variant readings of the Talmud say, yet Wikipedia doesn't even have a textual criticism of the Talmud article which would set out a basis for comparing different versions. In the absence of this however these sources are set out better, and with variant readings, in the article Jesus in the Talmud. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is such a section, though, I think in the basic Talmud article. At any rate, I think any reference to a page number whose content is not in the standard Vilna Shas is unsourced and removable.Mzk1 (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Checked the original article. Interesting. So some of the quotes are real; at least the Soncino can be checked.Mzk1 (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes "real" in some versions. At some point, I was hoping to go into the university library and make notes from Neusner's Talmud on these passages, but at the moment too many other things happening. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)