Language desk
< April 8	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 9

Why The Jesus? What's with the definite article?

What's the intent when Richard Carrier talks about "the Jesus"? As in "Why invent the Jesus?" (Title of one of his videos) What would that imply to a native English speaker? Is it an ellipsis of "the Jesus [thing]"? Is "the Jesus" meant to refer to the story or to the person? Any other talk of "the Jesus" out there from other people (who are English speakers)?

Clearly this is different from say "the Donald" that is funny but that originated with Ivana Trump, who possibly didn't even realize she was being humorous. I don't know if that had anything to do with the Czech language but I do know that in some languages (like Greek) personal names do normally take the definite article (when you're referring to the person, not when you're adressing them).

In French-speaking Belgium (and possibly in some other peripheral varieties of French), where using the definite article with a personal name is not at all common, talking about "le François" implies that you do not think much of that François (at least not in the context of what it is you're telling about him at that moment). It also has a slightly rustic flavor. I think German too may have something similar.

178.51.93.5 (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe watching the video might clarify? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 17:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've heard that usage in English ("the Jesus" as a complete noun phrase, as opposed to cases such as "the Jesus Freak movement"), but in the original ancient Greek of the New Testament, names were preceded by definite articles in various contexts. Just flipping randomly through my Greek Testament, I noticed ho Iesous in verses Matthew 8:18 and 8:20, and ho de Iesous (article and name separated by a particle) in 8:22... AnonMoos (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One possible reason is that the first page of a search for "Why invent the Jesus?" online just finds Richard Carrier's video and discussion of it, while "Why invent Jesus?" also finds some other discussions. TSventon (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification on Czech. Like most Slavic languages, it does not have any definite (the) or indefinite articles (a, an). Slavic speakers new to English must learn when to use each type, and mistakes like: adding an article where it's not required ("the Donald"); or omitting an article where it is required ("Cat sat on mat"); or using the definite where the indefinite is required, or vice-versa, are common. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Carrier doesn't believe there was actually a Jesus, so it might be sarcasm of a sort. However, the more obvious way to say it would be "the Christ", especially as "Jesus" as a name is not unique in history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Christ" isn't either. Here's just one of a bunch of Christs. -- Hoary (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The Christ" is valid usage. See Christ (title). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, every Israelite and Judean King was a 'Christ', this being a Greek translation of Hebrew 'Messiah' (various spellings) meaning "anointed one". High Priests were also anointed and could be referred to as a 'Messiah'.

In the first century many Jews did not believe the Herodian monarchs were legitimate, since they were of non-Hebrew origin and not descended from King David. It was hoped that a legitimate Davidic heir would supplant them (and expel the Romans), and the appearance of "The (forthcoming, legitimate) Messiah" was hoped for. It appears that the historical "Jesus" (Jeshua of Nazareth, aka Jeshua bar Yussuf, aka Jeshua bar Maryam, aka Jeshua' bar Pantera) was believed by some and came to believe himself that he was destined to be "The Messiah" in that sense. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.145.123 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather unfortunate that "Jeshua bar Yussuf"[sic] consists of three words in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic), while "Pantera"[sic] drags in a fourth, since it's based on a Greek-language pun between the words Panther and Parthenos (kind of a dumb pun, since Panther has an eta while Parthenos has an epsilon). The 1st century A.D. Hebrew form of his name was almost certainly Yēšūʕ (also borrowed into the Aramaic of the time), which did not have an "a" vowel as such, but did have a pharyngeal consonant. This was the commonly-used late centuries B.C. / 1st century A.D. shortened form of the name "Joshua"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was a bit careless with the names as it wasn't the main thrust, and initially indicated the closing pharyngeal consonant in question and then removed it as confusing to the readership, though I missed the last one.

Unfortunately, unlike yourself I am not a scholar of the languages involved, and rely on the English-language writings and lectures of those who are familiar with the Aramaic, Hebrew and Koine Greek that the protagonists all likely spoke.

I question the 'Parthenos' pun element, since there is some evidence that the Greek-derived "Pant(h)era" was a name used (though rarely, but there is an unconnected 1st-century Jewish ossuary with it) by Jews of the era, and the 'virgin' element was a subsequent introduction to the later-burgeoning myth. The individual in question was (I think) likely that person named on his memorial in Latin as (Tiberius Julius) Abdes Pantera, and I understand a Talmudic passage states (rightly or not) that the name Pantera was one used in Mary's family.

As to the Principal of the events, the Talpiot tomb inscription on his ossuary is transliterated in that article as "Yeshua bar Yehosef" and in The Jesus Family Tomb as "Y'shua bar Yosef – Aramaic for "Jesus son of Joseph"" (and his mother's, "Maria – written in Aramaic script, but a Latin form of the Hebrew name "Miriam" ("Mary")"). Feel free to give us your more authentic renderings of the other descriptors I mentioned above. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.145.123 (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera seems to be a highly-historical individual, but no-one would have ever thought to connect him, or any person with his name, to Jesus, except by means of a pun between the Greek words Panthēr and Parthenos which was rather far-fetched even in the 2nd-century A.D. when the anti-Christian author Celsus first wrote the Pantera narrative down, while serious scholars without an axe to grind would now consider it rather ridiculous (paragraphs in the body of the Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera article say much the same thing, if you read down far enough)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have long since read the article thoroughly, and disagree with those conclusions, having studied the books and lectures of other scholars who take different views. However, let's not discuss this further here as it is rather beside the point of the original query. You may have correctly inferred that in these matters I discount any and all claimed supernatural elements as non-factual, whereas I suspect you do not, so we are unlikely to reach mutual agreement. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe everything written by opponents of Christianity, then you no doubt believe that Christians worshipped a crucified donkey, based on the Alexamenos graffito. And that's not even getting into modern pseudo-literature, such as The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross and The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors. Good luck in your endeavors. AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not (and in fact reject the concept of "belief" as a useful mental approach in any sphere), but neither do I accept as factual much of what early ex-pagan, Rome-friendly "Christian" converts concocted 4–10 decades after the actual events, inspired by the supposed 'vision' of a somewhat unstable individual who by even his own testimony was in ongoing contention with Jesus' actual family and personal follower. I am not and do not support "enemies of Christianity" any more that I support enemies of Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, Asatruism or any other religion, which are all interesting factors in human cultural history, without having to be "true" in their supernatural aspects. I am however an intellectual enemy of those who promulgate provably inaccurate 'facts'.

I read TSMatC when it was first published, and found it amusing but unconvincing. Some general ideas in it (such as the use of perception-altering substances in various ancient religions) likely have some value, but contrary to Allegro's suggestion I do think Yeshua/Iesos/Jesus was a real historical figure, as I already stated earlier in this very thread.

I have no "endeavors" other than to try to discover, largely for my own interest, what actually happened in historical terms, or what at least most plausibly happened in the absence of direct evidence. The beliefs of those involved (including Jesus himself) in supernatural entities and supposed "prophecies" are factors in doing so; acceptance of those entities and prophecies as real and genuine is not. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d assume it’s a reference to the character from The Big Lebowski who refers to himself as “The Jesus”. —Amble (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also The Jesus Rolls. --Lambiam 11:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VIEW ON CREATING JAT CLAN SYSTEM

first of all Due my request I am trying to start a initiative to create an separate article on the clan system follow under Jatt community based on Reliable sources Khalsajudicary (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the creation of an article on a given subject is a good idea, then the experienced, well-informed, careful editor doesn't start an initiative to create the article, they instead create the article. But why should that editor not augment the existing Jat Sikh#Clans? Also, you have just four days' experience of editing articles (and your most recent edit has an edit summary that's bizarre, to put it mildly): I suggest that for a month or so, until you're more experienced, you avoid the area of clans and castes as it tends to attract people keen to air their grievances and to "right great wrongs". -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to learn about reliable sources before editing in that area. User generated sources - such as most Wikis - are not regarded as reliable, and may not be cited in a Wikipedia article. (And yes, that does apply to Wikipedia itself, as well as to Sikhiwiki). ColinFine (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]