Talk:Yeshu/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

1. NAME material moved to Name. 2. OCCURENCES of the name structure per Eras of the Halakha

Hi Katowski's Ghost,

I've gathered the material relative to Yeshu (name) to section 1. Can you please have a look that it correctly reflects the sources that you have?

Hi Jayjg,

At the start of Section 2. I've entered a historical template and brief description:

Historically, occurences of the name Yeshu are as follows:

• Tannaim (70-200 CE) the Mishnaic period - no uses of the name Yeshu
• Amoraim (200 to 500 CE) the period of the Gemara, Talmudic commentary on the Mishnah ::- the originality of the mentions of Yeshu in Sanhedrin 43a and 107b in the Babylonian Talmud is disputed. Johann Maier, John P. Meier and Jacob Neusner consider these to be later additions.
• Savoraim (500-700 CE) - the Sefer Nestor Ha-Komer and Toledoth Yeshu may be contemporary with the Savoraim but does not form part of authorative halakha.
• Geonim (589-1038 CE) - in the opinion of Maier the Yeshu mentions in the Talmud belong to the Middle Ages.
• Rishonim (1038-1563 CE) - the Milhamoth ha-Shem of Jacob Ben Reuben 12C, Sefer Nizzahon Yashan or Nizzahon vetus 13C, Sefer Joseph Hamekane of R. Joseph ben Nathan of Paris, and The Touchstone of Ibn Shaprut belong to this period.
• Acharonim (1563 - present)

Given Maier and Neusner's conviction that the Yeshu mentions in the Talmud belong to the Middle Ages, the statement that the Talmud is the earliest use in the lede cannot be assumed. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, "conviction?" Where do they state that this is their conviction? You are refering to usually sound scholars, and professional historians of their caliber are seldom as conclusive as you are claiming they are. Are they saying that this is what they think is most plausible, or are they saying that this is a fact? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,

Saying "wow" is not going to cover for the fact that you have deleted scholarly references which do not agree with Yechiel of Paris, 1240. You have the sources, or have them in the article history before the delete, go read them. Now I ask you for the 23rd time - do you have a single modern scholarly source for the view that usage of the name Jesus in the Talmud is not a reference to Christianity? If you cannot provide a source you should not be maintaining your POV by deleting scholarly sources. Please restore the WP:sources in the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, please stop asking this question, because I don't see it as being relevant. We've discussed the fact that Yeshu is an individual mentioned in the Talmud, just like many other individuals mentioned in the Talmud. We've discussed the fact that Meier and Maier (among others) appear to say this individual is not Jesus, though I understand that you dispute this, and I'm hoping that you'll bring more detail from their work to help clarify this. The lede already also clearly states that many scholars identify Yeshu with Jesus, so NPOV is amply covered. Regarding your concern that "the Talmud is the earliest use... cannot be assumed" the lede already stated that some consider them to be later glosses, but I've changed the lede to now read "The oldest works in which references to Yeshu occur is in some anecdotes in the Tosefta and the Talmud etc.", which I think should cover any remaining concerns about this. Regarding your insertions, please don't add material while simultaneously changing the lede to be about a name (or about Jesus), rather than about Yeshu, at least until we have those sources you were going to bring, and some consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

1. "We've discussed the fact that Yeshu is an individual mentioned in the Talmud, just like many other individuals mentioned in the Talmud." ... well we have but we haven't applied that discussion to this article, we haven't resolved why there isn't a POVfork article on Hava, Avraham:

• "'Havva (חַוָּה in Hebrew and Aramaic) is an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature."
• "Avraham (אַבְרָהָם in Hebrew and Aramaic) is an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature."
• "Moshe ben Maimon (משה בן מימון in Hebrew and Aramaic) is an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature."

Why is it okay to have a POVfork article on the Hebrew spelling of Jesus, but not a Hebrew POVfork on Eve?

2. "please stop asking this question, because I don't see it as being relevant" - I'm sorry but no, absolutely not. WP:POV requires published reliable WP:sources. If we're going to have a lede sentence claiming that "Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) is an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature." we should have at least 1 source other than Yechiel of Paris, 1240. ---- doesn't it concern you that I've asked 23x for such a source and none has been forthcoming?

3. It is not the case that "many scholars identify Yeshu with Jesus," ALL scholars identify the name Yeshu as a reference to Christianity. ALL scholars. This is the point of asking 23x for a source that doesn't.

4. "We've discussed the fact that Meier and Maier (among others) appear to say this individual is not Jesus, though I understand that you dispute this, and I'm hoping that you'll bring more detail from their work to help clarify this." With respect John P. Meier and Johann Maier (talmudic scholar) do not remotely "appear" to anyone who has any knowledge of the historical Jesus debate to say anything remotely of the kind. When someone says, per Maier that the name Jesus is a later addition added in reaction to Christian provocation, how can anyone possibly read that the name Jesus is not a reference to Christianity? This is why I have asked 23x for a source that the name Jesus is not a reference to Jesus. Maier, Meier, Theissen, Neusner, you name it. ALL scholars consider Jesus is a reference to Jesus. NO scholar takes Yechiel of Paris 1240 seriously as a scholarly explanation of the occurence of the name Jesus in Sanh43a, 107b.

In ictu oculi (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, we've already gone over much of this. For example:

1. There is no dispute or question about whether or not the the Hebrew "Avraham" is the English "Abraham", in part because the primary text on Abraham is the Hebrew Bible, of which all others are a translation. However, in this case, the primary sources on Jesus are Greek texts, which use Greek names, and the Jewish sources are later, use different names (in different languages), describe the individuals differently, and the identification is disputed.
2. One needs no source for the statement that Yeshu is an individual mentioned in the Talmud etc., because this is a simple fact - one can even cite the primary sources for this, since no interpretation is required (see WP:PRIMARY). Are you disputing that the Talmud has stories about an individual or individuals named Yeshu? Clearly not, since it obviously does. It is only when one wants to identify Yeshu with Jesus that one requires a reliable source, since they are different names used in different sources. While your other questions may be valid, you are simply focused on the wrong question in this area. You can ask this 22 time or 222 times, but it's simply not relevant, and further questioning on this line won't be helpful.
3. Several scholars (including Maier and Meir) do not appear to do so.
4. When Meier says "As far as Jewish sources are concerned, while not accepting the full, radical approach of Maier, I think we can agree with him on one basic point: in the earliest rabbinic sources, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth. ", that's a very high hurdle to overcome, and I don't think you've done so yet.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

• 1. There is no dispute or question about whether or not the the Hebrew "Avraham" is the English "Abraham" -------- likewise there is no dispute or question about whether or not the the Hebrew "Yeshu" is the English "Jesus"
• 2. One needs no source for the statement that Yeshu is an individual mentioned in the Talmud etc., ------ Your edit currently allows a plural, and if someone added a line to the lede of the Hillel article that suggested there were plural Hillels someone would rightly ask for a source.
• 3. Several scholars (including Maier and Meir) do not appear to do so.--------- Appear to whom? Please give me a source that anyone has read Maier and Meier and thinks that they consider the name Jesus to refer to anyone
• 4. When Meier says "As far as Jewish sources are concerned, while not accepting the full, radical approach of Maier, I think we can agree with him on one basic point: in the earliest rabbinic sources, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth. ", that's a very high hurdle to overcome, and I don't think you've done so yet. ----------- How is (A) "in the earliest rabbinic sources, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth" a hurdle to (B) "the name Jesus means Jesus". i.e. How would "in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth" be a hurdle to (B) "the name Jesus means Jesus"?

Question i: How do you understand the word "redaction" in the following:

the identification of the condemned man as Jesus has nothing to do with that context, and should probably be ascribed, in Maier's view, to post-Talmudic redaction; Jews and Christians p105 William Horbury 2006

Question ii: How do you understand the words "were added later in the Middle Ages" in the following:

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient p108 - 2000 "While Herford was somewhat critical of their accuracy, he seems almost never to have met a possible reference to Jesus that he did not like!70 On the other end of the spectrum, Johann Maier in his Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung has concluded that no genuine Tannaitic or Amoraic references are present, even in the Talmuds when first issued, but were added later in the Middle Ages. 71 Most scholarly opinion falls between these two extremes."

In ictu oculi (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point about the original sources. We know of "Abraham" from English translations of the Bible, which are in turn based on older Latin and Greek translations of the Hebrew original (and often translated directly from the Hebrew itself). Each of these sources tells identical stories about this individual, but in a different language. On the other hand, we know of Jesus from Greek texts, and of Yeshu from completely unrelated Hebrew/Aramaic sources, and the sources tell radically different stories about these individuals. These are fundamental differences which invalidate your analogy. Regarding Maier, what is he saying was in e.g. Sanhedrin 43 before Yeshu was there? Isn't he saying it was a story about an unrelated sorcerer named Ben Pandera? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg,

No, I don't believe I've missed the point about the original sources, and what you say of "Abraham" doesn't change that an article that started "Ibrahim is an individual or individuals in the Quran" or "Abraham is an individual or individuals in the Greek New Testament" would be grossly POV. It would only be countenanced where there was a genuine scholarly debate - such as the possible references to Enoch in the Quran. In the case of the Name Yeshu there is no scholarly debate, 100% of all modern scholars consider Yeshu in all instances in Aramaic/Hebrew literature is a reference to the Christian Jesus.

>Regarding Maier, what is he saying was in e.g. Sanhedrin 43 before Yeshu was there? Isn't he saying it was a story about an unrelated sorcerer named Ben Pandera?< Correct.

So evidently Maier does not support the lede that "Yeshu is an individual or individuals in the Talmud", as far as Maier is concerned the name Yeshu is a polemic reference to Christianity added at a late date in reaction to Christian provocation.

For the purposes of the Jesus in the Talmud article there is not an enormous difference between Yechiel of Paris' "theory of two Jesuses" and Maier's interpolation argument. But here, on the Yeshu article Maier and Yechiel are chalk and cheese, and the article shouldn't be representing medieval POV at the expense of modern academic scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I still think you're failing to acknowledge the point that the English Bible or Greek Septuagint are direct translations of the Hebrew Bible, whereas Tosefta and the Talmud are Hebrew/Aramaic works completely unrelated to the Greek New Testament, and so the analogy simply doesn't work. Now, getting back to Maier, according to him there was/is, in fact, a story told about an individual in Sanhedrin 43, but that individual wasn't/isn't Jesus, but rather a second century sorcerer. Correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

Again I'd need a WP:source that any 3rd-5th C text can be completely unrelated to 1st-2nd C traditions but whether or not the compilers of the Talmud were aware of the existence of Christianity or not is another question and not relevant to this article on the name Yeshu which only occurs in some disputed late Talmud mss.

Re Maier, correct.

Now, on Maier, can you share the consensus I have reached with Slrubenstein that Maier is saying the name Yeshu was a late addition, as "a reaction to Christian provocation"? If you can, then you have no need to revert the lede away from the view of Maier, Klausner, Neusner, Meier, Schafer, etc. that the name Yeshu is a reference to Christianity. If you have a modern scholarly WP:source that suggests that the name Yeshu is not reference to Christianity, please produce it here on Talk for discussion. Please do not unilaterally alter the lede contrary to the consensus we have just reached on Maier above. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The point here is that the various language versions of the Bible are all translations of a Hebrew original (or of each other), whereas the Talmud has almost nothing in common with the Greek New Testament, and thus the analogy doesn't work. Regarding Maier, you know you and Slrubenstein did not reach any "consensus" regarding the lede and Maier, so it is, again, not fair of you to maintain that pretense here. Let's be respectful with each other please. In that vein, could you please answer my question? Is it Maier's view that there was/is, in fact, a story told about an individual in Sanhedrin 43, and that individual wasn't/isn't Jesus, but rather a second century sorcerer? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

Mutual respect might start with not telling me I am maintaining a pretence when Slrubenstein himself said, we agree, and I said we agree, but whatever. Re your question, I surely have answered this nearly a dozen times on this Talk page but yes it is Maier's view that there was in fact, a story told about an anonymous nameless individual in b.Sanh43a with no name, not called Jesus, and that anonymous nameless individual was never called Yeshu/Jesus, but rather was an anonymous second century sorcerer, with no name, who wasn't called Yeshu.?

Please re-read the quotation from Setzer (use CTRL F to scroll find). So how does Maier saying the sorcerer was never called Charles justify the sentence "Charles is an individual or individuals in the Talmud"? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand Maier as saying "there's a story about a sorcerer who is called Yeshu in the Talmud, but that guy isn't actually Jesus". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

At this point further discussion is somewhat irrelevant as you have (I'm tempted to use the word "finally" but won't) provided a WP:RS for the POV that Yeshu can be "individuals" per Joachim Jeremias 1960. Jeremias is a respected academic source although a bit dated today, so my objection, which is that religious convictions with no academic support are not sufficient for the the first sentence is now moot. Now you have Jeremias you do not need a second academic to agree with Yechiel of Paris.

As for Maier, you have read John P. Meier's comment on Maier (which could admittedly be ambiguous if one hasn't read Maier and doesn't understand John P. Meier's terms of reference re the historical Jesus in the textual critical development of the Talmud) but aside from that I have provided above Maier's own words in German "Reaktion", Theissen on Maier, Voorst on Maier, Horbury on Maier, Setzer on Maier "anonymous". Evidently there is no question that according to Maier Yeshu was not originally in B.Sotah47a. Following Maier's own words, Theissen, Voorst, Horbury, Setzer on Maier, two further on Maier below:

Jewish quarterly review: 1982 p79 cf. Maier's proof that the name Jesus was not originally in B.Sotah47a, and was interpolated later from B.Sanh.107b is that Sanh reads Yeshu... wheras Sotah omits Yeshu The interpolation also accounts ... "In regard to Rabbinovicz's statement (cited by Maier) that Haggadol Ha-Talmud, ed. Constantinople, 1511, omits these words, Diq. Sof. to B.Sot.47a (ed. Liss; p. 297) incorrectly cites this work as reading Maier's "

Shlomo Pines Jerusalem studies in Arabic and Islam: 9-10 Universiṭah ha-ʻIvrit bi-Yerushalayim. Makhon le-limude Asyah ṿe-Afriḳah - 1987 The passage is attributed to Eliezer, who lived in the third century, but Maier considers that it is a later interpolation. I believe, pace Maier, that everything points to this expression being used in the passage to designate Jesus

In ictu oculi (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If this discussion is now "somewhat irrelevant" then lets continue in the more active sections; I keep finding the same discussion split over many sections. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well it is irrelevant since Joachim Jeremias 1960 has belatedly been found as a source for the lede sentence POV but that just adds sources 7 and 8 (8 and 9 counting Maier himself) saying that Maier considers the name Yeshu was not in the text. And yet you still cite Maier that the name Yeshu is in the text and refers to another Yeshu. And I am wondering how you cannot accept words such as "anonymous" "added later" "interpolation" "emendation" "redaction" ? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeremias, Gustav Dalman, Roger T. Beckwith etc. Can we please keep these discussions in one place, not spread in multiple threads? This is being discussed in a section below, so I won't respond here any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Restoring the deleted academic refs

Judging by the material on various blogs on American haredi rabbi Nosson Dovid Rabinowich‎ it looks as though Avi may have provided what the article was missing, a modern source who holds (not describes) holds the view of Nahmanides (1194-1270) that Yeshu is not a reference to Christianity. If that is the case, and if it is published in a reliable source, then evidently it should go in the article.

But if we now have a source for a modern ref, there's no need any more to make false claims about Johann Maier and Adin Steinsaltz in the article. Maier and Steinsaltz are currently being represented to make it appear that they support the view that Yeshu is not a reference to Christianity, and sources from them which show the opposite have been deleted. If an orthodox haredi rabbi can be provided as a WP:source for the view of the lede sentence, then there is no longer any need to distort or delete WP:sources supporting the scholarly view. Can these sources now be undeleted? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please quote Maier and Steinsaltz stating Yeshu is not an individual, but rather a "reference to Christianity". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg,

As before, per "Hillel is an individual or individuals in the Talmud," the issue is identification. Maier and Steinsaltz and Neusner identify the name Yeshu is a reference to [Christian traditions about] Jesus of Nazareth. Among the academic references which were deleted here were these 3:

• ref William Horbury Jews and Christians p105 2006 "the identification of the condemned man as Jesus has nothing to do with that context, and should probably be ascribed, in Maier's view, to post-Talmudic redaction;" /ref

We have already included Maier's view, so we do not need to cite someone who simply refers to his view. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• . ref The Blackwell companion to Judaism p157 ed. Jacob Neusner,- 2003 "The Jewish criticism of Christianity began early, disparaging both Jesus and the subsequent religion. Toledot Yeshu, an early parody written in Hebrew, presented an unflattering biography of Jesus. Hebrew chronicles written during and .." /ref
• ref Steinsaltz The essential Talmud - Page 105 2006 "Wherever the Talmud makes derogatory reference to Jesus or to Christianity in general, the comment was completely erased, and the name of Christ was systematically removed, even when the reference was not negative." /ref

Which has a certain delicious irony to it, I add in the ref from Adin Steinsaltz saying that the name of Christ in the Talmud was erased, and then Adin Steinsaltz are erased for saying so, and Jacob Neusner and Johann Maier are erased for identifying Yeshu in Jewish texts with Jesus of Nazareth.

Do you see me erasing religious sources? What gives others the right to erase academic ones? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

SO, you conceed that according to Steinsaltz the Yeshu passages may be references to Christianity and not to Jesus? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Steinsaltz says "reference to Jesus or to Christianity in general" but I think we can safely assume based on Steinsaltz' other writings that he only means reference to [Christian traditions about] Jesus rather than any real historical Jesus, and so, FWIW, Steinsaltz on the Maier/Neusner/Meier side of the spectrum rather than Herford/Klausner. But where he says "name" he evidently means "name." Have you restored the ref? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Steinsaltz is not an "Achranomin" but his is a significant view. I created a new subsection for him and potentially others. I added a basic statement but feel free to expand on it. Have you checked to see how he translates Yeshu into Hebrew or English in his translationss of the Talmud? That itself would be relevant and you should be able to add the information in a straightforward way. Do you have his Hebrew or English edition? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, thank you for restoring the Steinsaltz ref. Can you restore Berger Neusner Voorst Horbury and Setzer too please? No, but I'll have access in about 2 weeks time and can report back. I don't know Steinsaltz' view on textual criticism, he may like Neusner simply exclude it. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I hope you do not mind but I would like to ask Jayjg to put these other citations and views back in. He is a better writer than I am. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, as long as the text above the WP:RS matches up.

We still need a modern WP:RS for the two Jesuses theory in the first line. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You single out "Berger Neusner Voorst Horbury and Setzer." I do not own them. Apparently you do. Can you provide the following information:

• do they attach the name Yeshu to the stories, or like Maier do they think the name is a later interpelation to an older story?
• When, exactly, do they date the story itself, and if they think "Yeshu" was added later, when?
• Do they say that the story (or name - whichever they say) is a reference to:

• Jesus of Nazereth, who preached and healed in the first century?
• Christians in general
• minim in general
• something else? if so, what?

Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, no I don't own them, but I added the academic refs/sources and I would like them to be undeleted. They say in each case what presented with " " in the source. Also in each case they contradict the unsourced OR in the first line of the article lede. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant, if you have taken them out of your library. in any event, can you please provide the information, since you have the sources? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to undelete? Okay I'll add them back in tomorrow, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Before, they were taken out of context and poorly written. I have asked you some reasonable questions. The answers were not in the text you added, in he process making much more majo edits to the consensus version. Now, I am politely and in good faith asking you if you can profide the following information about these views you wish to add: Can you provide the following information:

• do they attach the name Yeshu to the stories, or like Maier do they think the name is a later interpelation to an older story?
• When, exactly, do they date the story itself, and if they think "Yeshu" was added later, when?
• Do they say that the story (or name - whichever they say) is a reference to:

• Jesus of Nazereth, who preached and healed in the first century?
• Christians in general
• minim in general
• something else? if so, what?

Can you please work collaboratively with me? For the views you wish to add, can you please answer the above question? Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, yes the deleted academic references do make clear the above in the quotation marks following the publication year and page number " ". If you restore them it should be evident. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, In ictu, you did not provide this information before. You used Berger to support your claim that the widely held view that the different Yeshu stories in the Talmud refer to different people was the invention of Yechiel of Paris - in other words, using Berger to present Yechiel's view. Sorry, but I want more context: who is Berger and what makes him an expert on Jewish-Christian disputations or French rabbis? What makes this the best source on Yechiel of paris? Does he really say that this was Yechiel's own view, rather than a Jewish iew Yechiel was reporting on to the Christian authorities? That is, is Berger reporting on Yechiel's own scholarship, or on Yechiel acting as a representative of the Jewish community?

You simply say Neusner "treats them as late glosses" and does not include them in his translation of the Talmud. Why does he treat them as late glosses? Do you mean just the name "Yeshu" or the stories? Does he include the stories in his translation? If he does not translate "Yeshu" what name does he provide? Do you even have Neusner's translation of the Talmud? have you looked at it? Please share with us his interpretation of these passages.

You do not answer any of my questions about Voorst, either. All we know is that Voorst reports that the Greek name Iesous is usually translated into Hebrew as Yehoshuah, well, we don't really need any source for that. We all know that Iesous = Yehoshua. And since we do not have a Greek source for the braita, this is not relevant to the article.

You provide none of these details about Horbury. You simply wrote that he says Yeshu is a "reference or reaction to the Christian Jesus." Really? You are being vague. Which one is it? Does Horbury say the stories are references to Jesus? or does he say they are reactions to Jesus? In what way are they "reactions" to Jesus? Why are the names of the disciples wrong? Or how does Horbury explain the discrepancy between stoning and crucifiction? When jesus was alive, Rabbis had no authority to stone anyone, so either the story took place before Roman rule, or was altered - which one? Why?

All the same questions about Setzer.

Several editors have reverted your edits not because they reject these views out of hand, but because what you wrote was poorly written, what you wrote did not provide sufficient information about the sources or about the views they present, and without more knowledge we cannot write a better article.

See, In ictu oculi, you just think you can throw out names and use sources like a sledgehammer, to impose your own personal POV on others. I however, care about the encyclopedia, and I care about making this article encyclopedic, and so I unlike you actually care about the sources. I do now have these sources, but apparently you do. If we are going to use these sources, lets be careful! First, what is their expertise in Rabbinic literatufre? neusner is quite famous as a Talmud scholar, but I do not know these other people - can you tell me something about them? I am not asking for a full biography, but what is their degree in and where do they teach? Are they acknowledged experts in Rabbinic literature? That is all I want to know to establish their authority. I also care about their views! If they are authorities, let's present their views fully and carefully. That is why I ask these questions, so we can be sure to present their views with care.

So for a third time, I am politely and in good faith asking you if you can provide the following information about these views you wish to add: Can you provide the following information:

• do they attach the name Yeshu to the stories, or like Maier do they think the name is a later interpelation to an older story?
• When, exactly, do they date the story itself, and if they think "Yeshu" was added later, when?
• Do they say that the story (or name - whichever they say) is a reference to:

• Jesus of Nazereth, who preached and healed in the first century?
• Christians in general
• minim in general
• something else? if so, what?

Can you please work collaboratively with me? For the views you wish to add, can you please answer the above question? Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

Working collaboratively with you may prove problematic while you are only willing to restore academic sources which agree with your view.

• do they attach the name Yeshu to the stories, or like Maier do they think the name is a later interpelation to an older story? - some of the deleted academic sources do, some don't, but all agree with name Jesus being a reference to Jesus, or they wouldn't have been deleted.
• When, exactly, do they date the story itself - the deleted references generally don't date the story, when they do they date the text with Jesus as "later."
• Do they say that the story (or name - whichever they say) is a reference to: Jesus of Nazereth, who preached and healed in the first century? Christians in general minim in general something else? if so, what? - the deleted academic sources say that the name Jesus, where it occurs, is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Or they wouldn't have been deleted.

In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"You are only willing to restore academic sources which agree with your view." You are a liar, and clearly acting in bad faith. You do not eve know what my point of view is - remember, you asked me what my view was and I told you that according to our NOR policy my view is irrelevant. So you know I am happy to include views whether they coincide with my view 9which you still do not know) or not.

Please read what I write. Since it escaped you, remember that I wrote, "If they are authorities, let's present their views fully and carefully. That is why I ask these questions, so we can be sure to present their views with care."

In response to my question, you write, "some of the deleted academic sources do, some don't," and this is the typical evasiveness on your part that tells me that you have no respect for scholarship and no respect for the sources.

Why can't you answer just these basic, reasonable questions:

You used Berger to support your claim that the widely held view that the different Yeshu stories in the Talmud refer to different people was the invention of Yechiel of Paris - in other words, using Berger to present Yechiel's view. Sorry, but I want more context: who is Berger and what makes him an expert on Jewish-Christian disputations or French rabbis? What makes this the best source on Yechiel of paris? Does he really say that this was Yechiel's own view, rather than a Jewish iew Yechiel was reporting on to the Christian authorities? That is, is Berger reporting on Yechiel's own scholarship, or on Yechiel acting as a representative of the Jewish community?

You simply say Neusner "treats them as late glosses" and does not include them in his translation of the Talmud. Why does he treat them as late glosses? Do you mean just the name "Yeshu" or the stories? Does he include the stories in his translation? If he does not translate "Yeshu" what name does he provide? Do you even have Neusner's translation of the Talmud? have you looked at it? Please share with us his interpretation of these passages.

You do not answer any of my questions about Voorst, either. All we know is that Voorst reports that the Greek name Iesous is usually translated into Hebrew as Yehoshuah, well, we don't really need any source for that. We all know that Iesous = Yehoshua. And since we do not have a Greek source for the braita, this is not relevant to the article.

You provide none of these details about Horbury. You simply wrote that he says Yeshu is a "reference or reaction to the Christian Jesus." Really? You are being vague. Which one is it? Does Horbury say the stories are references to Jesus? or does he say they are reactions to Jesus? In what way are they "reactions" to Jesus? Why are the names of the disciples wrong? Or how does Horbury explain the discrepancy between stoning and crucifixion? When jesus was alive, Rabbis had no authority to stone anyone, so either the story took place before Roman rule, or was altered - which one? Why?

All the same questions about Setzer.

This is not a test to see whether these sources agree with my view or not. It is an attempt to make sure that we present their views accurately and in context. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Joachim Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu 1935, 3rd Edition 1960

Jayjg, has found a source which supports the first line of lede, i.e. has found a WP:RS of a modern scholar who considers a use of Yeshu in an Aramaic or Hebrew text to be a reference to another Yeshu than Yeshu ha-Notzri. Roger T. Beckwith cites the 1966 English translation of Jeremias' Eucharistic Words of Jesus, which in Joachim Jeremias says:

Footnote: "On the other hand, as Gustav Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, London and New York, 1922 (ET of Jesus-Jeschua, Leipzig, 1922), 89, rightly supposed, the often quoted passage b. Sanh. 43a (Bar.) : 'on the day of preparation Jeshu was hanged' does not refer to Jesus but to a namesake, a disciple of R. Joshua ben Perahiah (c. 100 bc), cf. b.Sanh. 107b ( Bar.) par. b.Sot 47a. 8 E. Schwartz, 'Osterbetrachtungen', ZNW 1 (1906) Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu 1935, 3rd Edition 1960 / Eucharistic Words of Jesus English translation 1966

So that's it, we have found a source to justify the first line of lede. This changes everything, although this was published in 1935 Jeremias updated this work extensively following the Qumran discoveries retracting some earlier material, so the 1960 edition represents his 1960 position on Jesus having a namesake called Jesus 100 years earlier. I would like to offer my congratulations to Jayjg for sticking with it and having found a verifiable WP:RS to support what, evidently, is not just a medieval view. I would still request however that scholars after 1960 should not be deleted simply because they disagree with what Berger calls the "theory of two Jesuses".In ictu oculi (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's not just Jeremias who says this, of course. For example:

• Roger T. Beckwith, in his Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian (Brill Academic Publishers, 2005, p. 294), concurs with Jermias, stating regarding Sanhedrin 43a "... the rest of the baraita, which states he was first stoned, and that his execution was delayed for forty days while a herald went out inviting anyone to say a word in his favour, suggest that it may refer to a different Yeshu altogether."
• Mark Allan Powell, in Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Westminster John Knox Press, 1998, p. 34) writes "Scholars debate whether there may be obscure references to Jesus in some of the collections of ancient Jewish writings, such as the Talmud, the Tosefta, the targums, and the midrashim". Note, not that "all scholars agree that there are references to Jesus", but rather that they "debate whether there may be obscure references to Jesus".
• Amy-Jill Levine, in The Historical Jesus in Context (Princeton University Press, 2008, p. 20) writes "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!)".
• John P. Meier, in A Marginal Jew, p. 98, writes "... I think we can agree with him on one basic point: in the earliest rabbinic sources, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth." Despite our differing understandings of what this means, we both seem to agree, for example, that Meier thinks that the story about Yeshu in Sanhedrin 43a is not actually a story about Jesus.

Sources aren't "deleted simply because they disagree with what Berger calls the "theory of two Jesuses"". It's not the sources that are the issue, it's the re-writing of the entire focus and meaning of the lede so that it states specific POVs as fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

Please do me a favour and scroll up and look how many times I have been asked specific questions, and I have answered. Then compare how many times I have asked you specific questions and you have answered. Now I'd like you to look at a text and tell me what it means:

"but since he is not mentioned by name"

What does that mean?

Could you humour me please. What does this statement mean?

As for POV, I think you know my view that secular POVs are facts, while religious POVs are not facts, unless it's in article describing religious belief such as Judaism's view of Jesus in which case primary sources are more acceptable.

Re the above:

• Beckwith is just footnoting Joachim Jeremias, that's still only one WP:RS source in this article supporting what Berger 1998 calls "the theory of two Jesuses." = Jeremias 1960
• Unfortunately Amy-Jill Levine does not say "some Rabbinic experts..!" Do you have any idea who she means by "some Rabbinic experts..!"?
• Mark Allan Powell follows Maier and does not consider the name Yeshu is even in the Talmud so he can hardly be saying that he thinks the name in the Talmud refers to another Yeshu can he? And likewise note that he says "debate whether there may be obscure references to Jesus" not "debate whether the name Yeshu is a reference to Jesus." There is no notable scholarly debate today about Yeshu, all scholars today accept that in the texts where it occurs it is a reference to Jesus. Including Mark Allan Powell.
• John P. Meier, as per refs deleted earlier, clearly says Yeshu is Jesus in Hebrew texts. And anonymous characters in texts which don't mention anyone called Yeshu are not references to another Yeshu. But as above, please I'd like you to look at a text and tell me what it means:

"but since he is not mentioned by name"

What does that mean? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Beckwith makes his own statements, and indicates that he agrees with Jeremias.
2. I don't know who Levine is referring to, but her statement on this matter is clear and she is an eminently reliable source on the subject.
3. I think your interpretation of Powell is strained - the Talmud clearly has references to Yeshu, and Powell is clear that they "debate" whether they "may be obscure references to Jesus".
4. Meier is clear that the stories that refer to Yeshu in the Talmud are not stories about Jesus.
5. I don't know what "but since he is not mentioned by name" is a reference to. I don't see it elsewhere on this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg,

No it isn't mentioned on this Talk page, since you omitted it in your citation; "but since he is not mentioned by name" is in the next line of one of the four sources you used to say that the name Yeshu occurs. And I'm wondering how you can read "but since he is not mentioned by name" as meaning that the name Yeshu occurs? I really don't want to be personal, but isn't this parallel with not accepting reading the 7 or 8 citations for Maier's "interpolation" "anonymous" "added later" theory and being determined to see evidence that Yeshu is mentioned by name.

in Maier's view, to post-Talmudic redaction p105 William Horbury 2006

What does "redaction" mean? - according to Maier was the name Yeshu in Sotah43 already but refers to another Yeshu?

"added later in the Middle Ages." Van Voorst

What does "added" mean? - according to Maier was the name Yeshu in Sotah43 already but refers to another Yeshu?

"anonymous" p217 Claudia Setzer - 1994

What does the word "anonymous" mean? - according to Maier was the name Yeshu in Sotah43 already but refers to another Yeshu?

"but since he is not mentioned by name"

What does "not mentioned by name" mean? - according this source was the name Yeshu in the Talmud already but refers to another Yeshu?

Am I missing something here? Is the name Yeshu present in an authoritative edition of the Talmud (Soncino?), such as KJV Bible is authoritative to many Protestants, so that what is in the authoritative edition is taken as the default, even when an academic like Maier says it's an interpolation and it may be missing in Neusner's Talmud or the NIV Bible? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking: can you be more explicit please? For example, which source uses "but since he is not mentioned by name"? By the way, as Slrubenstein points out below, the Soncino translation of the Talmud is not considered in any way "authoritative", it's just the first complete English translation. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you're referring to Powell, who, following the part I've quoted, writes "Occasional polemical comments in these writings are sometimes thought to be veiled references to Jesus, but since he is not mentioned by name, no one knows for sure". As I've said previously, it would be helpful if you were more explicit and tried to use different words when you weren't being understood. Well, what I think you may trying to suggest is that it means that Powell is stating that the stories in the Talmud et al mention no names whatsoever, but merely present these as anonymous stories about unnamed individuals. This, however, is not likely to be the case, since a) we know that these sources do, in fact, attribute these stories to various individuals/names, and b) because when Powell himself quotes Sanhedrin 43a he writes "On the eve of Passover, they hanged Yeshu [= Jesus?] etc.". Note that Powell does not says "they hanged Jesus", but rather "they hanged Yeshu", and he questions whether or not this is Jesus - the question mark is his. Given the context, it's quite obvious Powell questions whether these stories about Yeshu are references to Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Soncino Talmud is not an authoritative edition of the Talmud, it is just the first English translation. If you think it bears comparison to the KJ Bible, you are really demonstrating just how embarrassingly ignorant you are of the Talmud.

Jayjg wrote, quite properly, "Sources aren't "deleted simply because they disagree with what Berger calls the "theory of two Jesuses"". It's not the sources that are the issue, it's the re-writing of the entire focus and meaning of the lede so that it states specific POVs as fact." In ictu occuli won't respond to this very reasonable comment. instead - more blather about Maier. How is this a reply to Jayjg?

I happily agree that Maier thinks that the Braita in Sanh 43a is quite old and that Yeshu, which he believes refers to Jesus, was added later. And he is a real scholar, so we should include his view in the article. But it is one view, coming out of one scholarly tradition. In the meantime, there are other views which should also be included per our NPOV policy. I have said this before, but In icto oculi is going to keep pestering us with Maier because In icto oculi has seen the TRUTH hallelujah and wants all of us to see it too, until we see nothing else.

By the way, who are Horbury and Setzer? Why are you quoting them and not Maier? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• This has been debated for many centuries of years now. The claim that this name did not refer to Jesus of Nazareth was a repeated claim by the Jews engaged in defending the Talmud in the Middle Ages (and later). It met with great skepticism from their opponents, then and later . I think the article needs to be worded as if the matter were unsettled, though I personally think it rather obvious whom the original writers had in mind. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? People living more than 1500 years ago, in the Sassanid Empire in Asia, and you think you know what their intentions were? For the past ten years the US and UK have been fighting a war in a country not that far from where those people lived, forging alliances and building national institutions and year after year the war goes on ... perhaps the wizards at the CIA, State Department and Department of Defense who have been managing things don't actually understand th people there as well as they think they do. And this is present day. Or, if you want a closer-to-home example, scholars still debate whether Shakespeare was anti-Semitic, and still write new books on what his plays meant - and we speak the same language and have orders of magnitude more knowledge of Shakespeare and his culture than we do about these guys in the Sassanid Empire. I honestly do not understand how anyone could think it obvious what they had in mind. As for the people who censored the Talmud in the Middle Ages - they had a very strong agenda that determined their reading of these texts. I am not sure their arguments are any more historically valid as those who look at Matthew and Luke and say this is obviously about Horus, or Dionysus. Modern historians should have more sophisticated criteria for interpreting ancient texts. But then again, those Inquistors had a clear agenda. I thought it was obvious that contributors to Wikipedia would not have the same agenda. So I would not take it for granted that they would reach the same conclusions. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"Yeshu is a name"

Jayjg You wrote >Attempting to suppress the "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" viewpoint is a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV< but with respect your lede sentence is not a WP:fact unanimously held by everyone. On the contrary "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" is a WP:fringe viewpoint, with the only recent academic source Jeremias in 1935 citing Dalman 1905. Wheras "Yeshu is a name" could be agreed by everyone. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

All the sources cited would agree with the consensus lead. Maier surely believes Yeshu was an individual. Blinky, you had an RfC on this and you failed to garner any support for you POV-pushing. Hey, isn't there a mass somewhere you can attend right now, rather than waste our time? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I meant to withdraw, but, Slrubenstein, I can't help suggesting you examine that last boutade and consider striking it out. You've been around long enough to know that kind of cheap remark is not acceptable here.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Slrubinstein, regardless of the English translation of in ictu's name, calling someone "blinky" can be construed as ad hominem and certainly does not go towards ensuring there is consensus here. Regardless about how frustrated you may feel about in ictu and his/her possible stonewalling or misrepresenting POV, name-calling just makes you look worse, even if your position is the consensus positions.

Specifically about the change from "individual or individuals" to "name"; my own point-of-view (which should be clear) notwithstanding, I do not think that the change is bad, and on the contrary is less awkward. "Yeshu" is a name. That name belongs to one individual according to some sources, more than one individual according to other sources, one or none of whom may be the Christian Jesus, once again, highly debated among sources. Therefore, I think the following lede encapsulates all of those points without being unduly awkward:

Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) is a name found in Jewish literature. The oldest works in which references to Yeshu occur are anecdotes in the Tosefta and the Talmud, although some scholars consider these later glosses. It is a matter of long-standing debate whether if any one of these mentions of Yeshu refer to the Christian Jesus.

The pagan writer Celsus knew of one of the accounts independently and equated it with the story of Jesus. In the Middle Ages, disputations were staged by the Christian church with allegations made that the passages about Yeshu were insulting references to Jesus. In response, Jewish and Talmudic authorities such as Nahmanides and Yechiel of Paris asserted that the Yeshu of the Talmud was entirely unrelated to Jesus.

There are some modern scholars who understand these early passages to be references to Christianity and the Christian figure of Jesus,[3][page needed] and others who only see references to Jesus in later rabbinic literature.[4][5] Johann Maier argued that neither the Mishnah nor the two Talmuds refer to Jesus[6]. The Yeshu in the Toledot Yeshu narratives is a central Hashmonean era character based on Talmudic references to Yeshu.[citation needed]

In modern Hebrew, Jesus is most commonly referred to as Yeshu.[7][8][9] Hebrew translations of the New Testament usually refer to Jesus as Yeshua (Hebrew: ישוע‎).[10]

I think the above pretty much encapsulates what we know to be supported by multiple sources, and yet saves a bit of the awkwardness of "individual or individuals." Thought? -- Avi (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Avi

I would be very happy to see the "individual or individuals" be replaced with "name", the same as Yeshua (name) and Isa (name). The wording "individual or individuals" is quite clearly a forceful presentation of a WP:fringe view, and a sectarian medieval WP:fringe view at that. As for "It is a matter of long-standing debate whether if any one of these mentions of Yeshu" is somewhat misrepresentative because the only confirmed source, Joachim Jeremias 1935, is actually dead, and therefore is not an "is". It would be more honest to say that "historically it was" In ictu oculi (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not compromise on "the name of an individual or individuals found in..." That accommodates In Ictu's concern that the lede start by mentioning it is a name. We can't just say it's a "name", because that's uninformative and ambiguous: is it the name of a person, an animal, a country, a city, a deity, a literary work, etc.? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

Did you re-read the full paragraph above from Powell "he is not mentioned by name"?

Re above,

because "the name of an individual or individuals found in..." is not WP:NPOV, since even if you do not accept that no modern living academic believes that it is "the name of an individual or individuals found in..." you must recognise that most don't, and the lede is still presenting medieval religious tradition as modern fact. "A name" is not ambiguous, "Yeshu" is a name. "Yeshua" is a name. "Blinky" is a name. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Did you read the parts where Powell specifically quotes the Talmud using the name "Yeshu", and questions whether that Yeshu is Jesus? And did you read my comments about getting stuck on phrases that defy reality? "presenting medieval religious tradition as modern fact" can't really be reconciled with a lede sentence that cites only 20th and 21st century scholars. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to this, except some people really think it is an acronym. I know this make it less elegant, but what about "name or title?" or something like that. But if we can reach a consensus I will not get in the way.

My own view is that what is really important is not the name but the stories that accompany the name. So what bugs me the most is the phrase, "mentioned in Jewish literature." Is there any way to call attention to the stories that so much of this article are actually about? For example, "the name of an individual or individuals who feature in a number of stories in the Talmud and other Rabbinic literature" or something like that? I am sure it can be expressed more eloquently but I hope you all will consider this. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

No modern scholar thinks it is an acronym, so "some people" don't need to be reflected in the lede. The lede of an article should be for neutral secular modern academic sources, not for "some people" if they're getting their opinions from medieval polemics.

Re "Is there any way to call attention to the stories that so much of this article are actually about?" this article, ostensibly about the name Yeshu, is already massively WP:Overweight to a tiny portion of relevant references: the two possible late texts in the Talmud B.Sot43a and B.Sanh.107b, rather than the 100s of references to Yeshu in Sephardi and later Jewish literature. It's as if B.Sot43a and B.Sanh.107b were the centre of the universe, and yet Neusner's Talmud doesn't even have the name Yeshu in B.Sot43a and B.Sanh.107b. Where is the content in this article about Yeshu in the writings of Profiat Duran, Hasdai Crescas, Ibn Shaprut etc.? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"he is not mentioned by name"

I'm just curious as to how much actual reading of the sources is going on in this article, given that the current article is a bright pile of WP:fringe, medieval polemic, and fruitcake. Is there anyone contributing to the article who can read WP:RS such as "he is not mentioned by name", or "anonymous," or "added later" and actually read those words in the normal sense of English, without having to e.g. defend the reading of the Ramban? Even the Turin Shroud article has less pseudo-religious POV in it than this Yeshu article. Gentlemen, if you consider yourselves Wikipedians you should be ashamed of yourselves. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What a farce, you always know that something is wrong when you see edit remarks like this:

Slrubenstein (talk | contribs) (55,462 bytes) (restoring compromise/consensus version)

In ictu oculi (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Avi put a collapse on this, but as much as I (and Wikipedia) will have to live with the spectacle of 3 admins deleting academic references which do not agree with the Ramban, I prefer not to have my parting observations on the Talk page collapsed, if you do not mind. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Age of sources

In octi, I am still struggling to find where in wikipedia policy it is written that when discussing 1500 year old texts, 700 year old discussions by people who spent significantly more time on said texts than any modern scholar are considered inappropriate? The texts are all published (none of them self-published), all are secondary sources (centuries separated from the original texts and "often making analytic or evaluative claims about them." As can be seen in WP:PRIMARY, "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." These are all books about the Talmudic statements; none of them are written contemporaneous with the Talmud (which itself is centuries separated from the time of the Christian Jesus). Furthermore, these sources are considered authoritative in the circles of the majority of Talmudic scholars today; unless, of course, you would invalidate a seminarian from commenting on Christian theology because said seminarian works for the clergy; which is a misrepresentation of policy in my opinion. When academic opinion changes over time, we prefer as best as possible to show that. When modern scholars can pretty much prove, that earlier analysis was wrong, we take the latter as better, obviously. Here, the various medieval source opinions are accepted pretty much unchanged by modern Talmudic scholars as well, and deserve equal weight to non-Talmudic academic opinions, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Avi, with respect, you are missing the point. In ictu has written "As for POV, I think you know my view that secular POVs are facts, while religious POVs are not facts," so he just does not care about our NPOV policy and is creating his own. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

She actually wrote that? Wow; someone does not understand WP:NPOV obviously. Religious and secular points-of-view are just that—points of view; deserving of the same proportion of representation in the article as they have outside wikipedia, and should be identified as such. As an aside, I would guess that there is something along the order of 10 to 100 times as much written by religious figures (Jews and Christians) as by irreligious figures about this issue. Back on topic, it is not like we are discussing whether or not gravity exists, or whether the sun rises in the east or in the west, but who was being discussed by whom in the Talmud, when, and why. To say that the explanations tended by religious figures is less authoritative than those of irreligious figures (and do we know if all those in in ictu was referring to are atheists?) is sadly mistaken. With someone editing in accord with, and after overtly penning, that blatant of a bias, should we request more eyes from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to ensure that our policies and guidelines are adhered to? -- Avi (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Avi,

Yes I actually said that, it was a generalization, but on Wikipedia religion articles where ancient and medieval sources are regarded as "authoritative" by some editors there's a tendancy to slant the articles to primary source-based views. The issue isn't WP:NPOV per se but the reality that per the first line of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources "Overview - Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." which means that a Christian bishop quoting St. Augustine is (i) not third-party on a subject as a co-religionist, and (ii) if he regards St. Augustine as an "authority" is unlikely to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" unquote. There evidently are going to be exceptions where a secular academic (and please note that I said "secular" not "atheist"), even a tenured academic at a secular academic institution professor turns out to have POVs which are WP:fringe, particularly in religious history where almost everyone is conflicted with biases of one sort or another, and likewise it is possible for religious POVs to be factual provided they are not simply deferring to St. Augustine, Maimonides, or Abu Dawud al-Sijistani, etc. as an "authority," but if so that's simply a primary text. If you look at how medieval/ancient/primary texts are used on the better Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and Christian history articles you'll see religious POVs (a modern Imam quoting Abu Dawud as an authority, a Southern Baptist preacher quoting Calvin as an authority) are distinguished from secular POVs a professor of archeology or literature writing from a third-party view. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a pulpit or amud for citing ancient or medieval traditions (WP:primary sources as authoritative, no matter how sincerely editors consider them authoritative. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC) And PS, no, as far as I know none of the 15 or so academic scholars who have been deleted would be atheists, as far as I can tell they were simply disagreed with "many believers" (no source given). In ictu oculi (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As always the knowledge of editors trumps policies (see the fifth of the Five Pillars). Most of our articles are on topics that are central objects of study by university academics. This is obvious for articles on physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, literature. When it comes to other topics, we typically draw on other sources - current events articles for example rely on newspaper articles to an extent unacceptable in a biology article. Now, there are Jewish Studies programs at some major universities, but they are not large in size or number and not old compared to other disciplines. These departments, and the seminaries of the Conservative and Reform movements, are producing a growing corpus of critical studies on the full range of Jewish literature and history. There is a much smaller number of scholars in other departments with the expertise and interest to write on Rabbinic literature. The fact remains: the overwhelming bulk of scholarly production on Rabbinic literature is produced through Yeshivas.

In icto oculi also muct underestand that the Jewish nation is much older than Christian civilization and has an older history of scholarship that predates modern universities. If we wish to prote3ct Wikipedia from Christian bias, articles on Jewish, Muslim, Indian, Chinese and other cultures will necessarily draw on scholarship that predates the University system that grew out of Christian universities in Europe.

Do these works represent a point of view? Yes they do. But so do the "secular" sources In ictu favors. Fortunately, NPOV acknowledges this. Wikipedia does not favor any view. What it does insist on is that all views be properly identified. I certainly think that this article should distinguish between Jewish and non-Jewish views, or between Rabbinic and critical scholarship. But we should not exclude any significant view.

In the Middle Ages Christians thought that the Yeshu stories are about Jesus. The result, at Steinsaltz and others points out, was censorship. For this fact alone, contemporary historians of Jesus usually at one point or another refer to these stories if only to say they have no historical value. What is really sad here is that In icto cannot see her own bias. She looks at a dozen or so scholars, whose combined scholarly output on Yeshu hardly amounts to one book (one book for texts that are older than the Koran!!!), an refuses to acknowledge that their own views are biased by the fact that they are interested in Jesus.

We are talking about texts that might have been composed in Roman-occupied Judea, but that were incorporated into the Talmud in the Sassanid Empire. If these were any other texts, the scholars writing about them would be expected to have expertise on the context - the Talmud in which they appear, the history of the Talmud ... for critical scholars, Jewish history in the Roman and Sassanid empires. I respect the views of Boyarin, Neusner, and Steinsaltz not because they say Yeshu = Jesus. I respect their views because I know that they have all the knowledge a serious scholar should have. Because they have that knowledge, I think their views should be included whether they think Yeshu = Jesus or not.

In ictu oculi however works another way. She doesn't care how much expertise a scholar has in the Talmud. Or what expertise they have in Jewish history under Roman and Sassanid rule. All she cares about is that they share her view, that Yeshu = Jesus. For a few days she kept naking a big deal of the fact that she thinks Yeshu is Jesus, and kept asking me whether I think Yeshu = Jesus, as if it matters. No, what we should be talking about is what kind of training makes one an expert on Rabbinic literature, and what are the different significant views on Jesus, and how to contextualize them. In ictu oculi wants none of this. She has made it plain: she knows the truth, and wants this article to represent the facts, not views. And now she is just cherry-picking quotes from books she has never looked at, because they support her truth. What a way the write an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but I noted a ref. to this on Ovadyah's page. I've edited quite productively with In ictu oculi, have no idea where he or she is coming from in terms of POV, and don't really care. The argument you are making,Slrubenstein runs in the face of everything we've learned in the development of 20th century scholarship and sounds like something out of Reb Saunders in remonstrating with his son, Daniel in Chaim Potok's novel. Daniel of course chose to come out of the yeshiva and embrace the secular, as his secularized friend Reuven moves the other way. It's essentially a novel of the dialectics of Jewish identity caught between the momentum of the Haskalah and the promise of Israel. When you wrote:

The fact remains: the overwhelming bulk of scholarly production on Rabbinic literature is produced through Yeshivas.

That only begs the question of what you mean by 'scholarly'. In ictu oculi thinks in terms of the tradition established by figures like Henning Witter, Jean Astruc and Johann Eichhorn, which though focused specifically on the Tanakh, developed the hermeneutic and philological principles which all modern scholars of Rabbinic literature, Jewish, Japanese, Orthodox or otherwise, apply to the analysis of the textual tradition.

In general, you have distorted In ictu oculi's arguments to the point of caricature. It looks to me as though in ictu is merely applying a Bergsonian/Popperian (both great thinkers of Jewish descent) distinction which you fail to recognize perhaps because you are thinking of some absolutely obscure ontological entity called 'the Jewish nation', as though there were a coherent body with a unified weltanschauung corresponding to this. There is no such thing, and there is no such thing as 'Jewish and non-Jewish views,' as the old Ladino saying 'Dos Judiyos, tres kehilot,' openly admits. The same goes for 'Christians' whose whole history is one of sectarian bickering.

the Jewish nation is much older than Christian civilization and has an older history of scholarship that predates modern universities

That leaves pagans like myself, comfortable from childhood in whatever Greek came my way, perplexed. Greek scholarship rose just as early, and indeed influenced it quite deeply, esp. under the Ptolemies, as it did the Judaic heresy that became Christianity. Your statement throws ' the Jewish nation' at everyone outside the pale who happens to be editing here by trumpeting antiquity and a collective interest (POV), and charging that the rest of us are Johnny-come-latelies embued with some original sin, the 'Christian bias' of the civilization we grew up in, and which 'if we wish to protect Wikipedia from Christian bias,' we have to guard against. I'm appalled by a lot of 'Christian' POV* editing on religious articles, as in ictu appears to be. I'm not happy with most articles I read about biblical 'history', either. But I don't get my knickers in a twist about some deep prejudice by some 'other', a community of believers. I just take refuge in the ideals of modern scholarship, and do what little I can to repair the objectivity of texts that are split between just-so stories and what archeology, history, linguistics and scholarship generally tells us.

And, Good tetragrammaton! Who on earth are you addressing with that we? Géza Vermes?, all wiki editors? Christians who must come wearing a black armband for their prejudices, humbly to bow and scrape for past sins? Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• by 'Christian'POV, I mean people who drag their doctrinal or communitarian interests in here in order to harvest anything from the literature that supports their particular slant on the New Testament, rather than doing what we are supposed to do, look for quality RS, preferably under an academic imprimatur, which tells us what the best scholarship says about this or that.Nishidani (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, I do not think you read my post carefully enough. By "scholarly" I obviously mean regardless of point of view - conforming with WP's NPOV standard. If you define as scholars only those who conform to your own POV, you have just corrupted NPOV. What different does it make what ancestry Bergson or Popper have? I am not distorting In icto oculi's approach, which is to disregard NPOV and to push his own POV on the article to the point of distorting well-known sources. Nothing that I wrote is anti-Christian - it is only anti-people who do not know what they are talking about editing certain articles. As to "knickers-in-a-twist" well, read your own comment. Nishidani, talk pages are here for improving the article. I and several others have explained why In Icto Oculi's edits are POV-pushing and his use of the talk page disruptive. If you have something to contribute - for example, more information to support the source In ictu is using (information she refuses to provide after three polite requests) or more sources, great! But all of your talk just shows that you actually do not know anything about this topic or the sources. So why waste our time with your pointless blather, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A scholarly method is not a POV, though its results may display a POV. It's that simple.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you agree with me on this point at least. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, because my use of 'scholarly' implicitly understands that word as it is used within the modern practice of historical criticism. I was once present at a 5 minute intense interchange between Cyrus Gordon and a deeply erudite, scholarly rabbi, which consisted solely and exclusively of textual citations from the Tanakh of the type '1 Kings, ch. . . verse.' 'Yes, but Genesis, ch. . . verse.' 'Quite so, but Numbers, ch. . .verse.?' 'Well, yes, but that must be read in turn in the light of Leviticus, ch... verse ..' Both were scholars, only Cyrus Gordon was explaining some philological cruces in the hermeneutics of the Tanakh in terms of Akkadian and Ugaritic. The rabbi was certainly fascinated by this, but his mode of argument was one that rested wholely on the internal method. Gordon was a comparativist. The rabbi not so: he analysed, with Pico della Mirandola exactitude of recall, the same texts but purely internally, or, in terms of the chain of tradition of later rabbinical commentary. This is what Bergson, and later Popper, meant by talking of open and closed societies. Scholars can exist in both, but only the former are methodologically and professionally obliged to challenge the premises and assumptions in their exegetic tradition. So let me rephrase:-

'Nothing that I wrote is anti-Christian.'

If we wish to prote3ct Wikipedia from Christian bias, articles on Jewish, Muslim, Indian, Chinese and other cultures will necessarily draw on scholarship that predates the University system that grew out of Christian universities in Europe.

In plain English, that strongly suggests scholarship derived from European universities post-1088, namely, all modern scholarship, is ineludibly fused with Christian bias, which is patent nonsense because a large part of the modern world's historical scholarship on the Ancient Near East and its historic aftermaths came out of Jewish scholars trained in European universities, and who certainly were not animated by the tinctures of Christian bias which were around in the groves of academe (Harvard, Yale etc.etc.) in their researches.

A scholarly method is not a POV, though its results may display a POV. Premodern methods have no in-built methodological cautions against their tendency to a POV. No one cites Thucydides without A. W.Gomme or Simon Hornblower at their elbow. No one quotes Livy without checking R.M. Ogilvie or D.S. Levene. No one should touch the Dead Sea Scrolls except through secondary sources, I know where you're coming from. It's all in Daṿid Halivni's essay 'Between Sinai and Auschwitz'. But There's no way your statement can be fiddled with to make it conform with what is specified as wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:RS protocols. Your argument is simply a plea for privileging primary sourcing in some areas. It's that simple.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

you definitely do not understand my point. I wish you would read what I wrote. Take a look at DGG's comment above, it might help although it is an example of a crude bias, which was not my main point here. Your own last comment perfectly exemplifies my point. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no trouble in construing English. I read what you wrote, quoted from it, and you have no reply to what I quoted, a phrasing which casts suspicion on all European learning as tinged with Christian bias, a position which is so suspicious it renders in turn suspect the neutrality of whoever entertains it. You keep complaining of being misunderstood, when your interlocutors remark that you are misinterpreting them. In a dialogue both sides are required to endeavour to figure out what the other says. To insist one is not understood is only to invite the same from the other side, and the result is an impasse. Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Nishidani; long time no speak. I have no issues with modern scholars' opinions being brought in this article and noted as such. I do have a problem with the blanket dismissal of centuries of Talmudic scholarship being discarded due to the twin "sins" of age and religion. WP:NPOV, in a nutshell, says that "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." The writings of the various Rishonim and Acharonim under discussion are certainly non-self-published works, cerainly removed from the event or text being discussed (by centuries), and supply expert analysis. I am not saying that they should be considered the only acceptable sources; but certainly, the opinions therein are as valid as any modern scholar. These people studied Hebrew and Aramaic, Talmudic logic and reasoning, and the History of both Judaism and its texts, daily, for most of their lives—often exhibiting a level of reasarch and/or scholarship that a modern professor, with his or her attention split over various fields, could not, if only because of the time spent in the subject. It is not similar to physics, where today's technology allows us to perform experimentation and observations that could not have been done 700-1500 years ago; the methodology of Talmudic scholarship is remarkably similar today as it was 800 years ago. Therefore there is no reason I can see, from a neutral point of view, to dismiss earlier sources from this article. I reiterate that all opinions need to be brought in proportion to their existence in "the wild" as it were, and it would be simultaneously foolish and incorrect to pretend that reliable sources from undeniable experts about Talmudic scholarship ranging near a millennium in duration,the volume of which, very likely, dwarfs any other written commentary or analysis by orders of magnitude, should be dismissed. -- Avi (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Avi! I'm just worried about the suspicions overtly sowed here that this is not a matter of disagreements in policy interpretation but underneath there's some Christian bias at work. That is totally irresponsible. I'm caught up with guests at the moment, but perhaps I could ask you to read an essay by Marc Shapiro published a few years ago [here], It highlights both points of view, showing how unreliable primary texts from Talmudic masters can be, even Maimonides, and yet generously allows that modern academic perspectives, though they presuppose new principles, often turn out to embody ideas already present in the Rabbinical tradition. In my own view, the safest guide is to filter the great tradition through modern secular scholarship, precisely because peer-review is ever at your shoulder threatening you with job-loss if you stuff things up, which doesn't happen in traditionalist circles! This is what we do in most areas, not only in classics (no one cites what Joseph Scaliger says of Manilius these days: they cite A.E. Housman's edition, even though Housman thought Scaliger more learned than himself. In Tibetan studies, there is a huge quasi-rabbinical tradition of intense commentary dating from the 11-12th century on the earlier history of that country. All invaluable, written by extraordinary scholars, but if you wish to quote Bsod-nams-rgyal-mtshan's rGyal-rabs gsal- baʼi me-long, (The Mirror Illuminating the Royal Genealogies), you do so at your peril unless you go to it forearmed with Per Sørensen's dense, annotated commentary. I think you are making a dangerous exception here to a general rule. Primary sources needed decantation through reliable ('reliable' implies trustworthiness of the information given) secondary sources produced by peer-reviewed scholars. Till later, best. Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Your mistake is that you interpret a contingent claim for an essential claim. I am well-acquainted with Academe in several countries, and I have noticed that people, including those who do not belong to a church, know far more about Christianity than about Judaism. I have noticed that even those people who reject Christianity refer to the Hebrew Bible as "the Old Testament;" if they are aware of any of its comments they more often than not assume the Christian reading (e.g. that the story of Adam and Eve is the story of a "fall.") Are these not examples of systemic bias?

I would be quite glad if the Talmud were given the same critical attention as other classical texts in modern universities. Unfortunately, it is not. Universities that have Classics Departments which promote the critical study of Greek and Latin Literature often do not have departments of Ancient Near Eastern Studies or Jewish Studies or call it what you may, but departments that would promote the critical study of Hebrew and Aramaic literature, like the Talmud. Is this not an example of systemic bias?

Moreover, as this article points out, a number of non-Jews have written on the Yeshu narratives. Have as many written on any of the other of the rich narrative portions of the Talmud? I have seen no evidence - there seems to be much greater interest in the Yeshu stories than in other stories. Do you really think this is unrelated to the claims made in the Middle Ages that these stories were about and therefore of specific interest to Christians?

You claim to defend modern critical studies, but if you did you would be critical of In icto oculi's arguments. Since he begins by assuming that the Yeshu stories are about Jesus, he (like many of the scholars cited in the "Jesus in the Talmud" article) takes an interest in them that he does not take in any other parts of the Talmud. This leads to taking these stories out of context. If you take the time to read my comments, I have repeatedly called for sources that examine the Yeshu stories in their context - first, in the context, of the Talmud; then in the context of Aramaic literature more generally; and in the context of Jewish life in the Sassanid empire. Would this not be the approach of modern critical scholarship? Instead, In icto oculi has limited himself to interpreting the Yeshu stories in the context of Christian belief and only those Jewish texts that Christian scholars favor, such as Josephus and the Septuagint, which were produced in very different contexts than the Talmud.

When in icto oculi, DGG and others have referred to the disputations between Jews and Christians in the Middle Ages, they consistently state or imply that the Christians were simply telling the truth and the Jews were obfuscating. Is this really an unbiased reading of events?

It is a simple statement of fact that the vast majority of those scholars who know the Talmud best are produced by yeshivas and not by modern Universities. I am not making any kind of value judgment. I am stating a simple fact. Would it be a good thing if there were more university trained and based scholars of the Talmud? I already told you Nishidani to read what I wrote; this is a point I addressed above. Be that as it may, this is what I mean when I say that I think you are interpreting my claim about a contingent fact to be a claim about an essential fact. I am not saying it is good that things are this way. Nor am I saying that they have to be this way. But the way history has unrolled so far, this is how things are. Why is it that this is the case? This is a question I tried to answer, at least speculatively - but I was not making an argument for or against anything, nor am I implying things cannot change, I was simply trying to explain why the situation is likely to developed as it has.

I have always fought for compliance with NPOV and I dare you to find an instance of my violating it or encouraging its violation. I think that it is fair to ask, of any scholar analyzing the Yeshu stories, how knowledgeable they are of the Talmud as a whole, or even Rabbinic literature (just as I would ask of someone analyzing Achilles' relationship with Patroclus, have they read the entire Iliad in the original language, how well do they know Homeric literature in general). I think it is reasonable to ask whether those scholars who chose, of the entire Talmud, to examine only the Yeshu stories, whether they are biased in their assumptions, and whether they are interpreting it not in its textual and historical context but in the context of a debate among historians of Jesus, and how that might bias their research.

I do not oppose adding any of these points of view to the article. I do however want them to be presented as views - just as the views of Orthodox rabbis should be identified as the views of Orthodox rabbis. I am surprised that anyone who has followed the debates here over the past few days might think otherwise of me.

By the way, this is NOT a matter of primary versus secondary sources, not on my side at least. The Talmud is a primary source. And its meaning is often opaque. When In ictu oculi (and I suspect DGG) declare that Yeshu = Jesus, they are the ones treating the primary sources as if it speaks for itself. It is precisely because the Talmud is a primary source that I wish this article to keep the consensus opening, that Yeshu refers to a figure in Rabbinic literature - anything beyond this is interpretation. When In icto oculi wants to change it to "Yeshu is Jesus" he is using "translation" to hide an act of interpretation. It is true that there are Orthodox Rabbis who say Yeshu is not Jesus - but this is not because they are Orthodox! As the article already points out, there are Orthodox rabbis who say Yeshu is Jesus. The point I was trying to make, which you seem to take issue with but I am taking seriously your invitation to dialogue and hope you sincerely are inviting me to clarify, is that the majority of scholars who know the Talmud as a whole are Orthodox. There are a whole set of critical tools they lack, which is why I have always welcomed the inclusion of qualified critical scholarly views here. But even critical scholars will accept the fact that many classic (Rishonim and Achronim) students of the Talmud could provide very compelling interpretations of a specific texts, because of their ability to put it into the larger context. This does not mean that they are right (My interpretation of NPOV is that no view is "right"), only that it is a view worth including.

Nishidani, you seem really to misunderstand the debate between myself and In ictu oculi. He views the claim that Yeshu = Jesus to be a fact, and wants the article to present it as a fact. I wish the claim that Yeshu = Jesus to be represented as a view, and I want the claim that Yeshu does not = Jesus also to be represented as a view. I want the views of Christian scholars, Orthodox rabbis, and critical historians to be represented in the article - I have said this repeatedly and I have never challenged anyone else who holds this view. But I do oppose In icto oculi's presenting one view (however significant) as a fact, and excluding another view from the article.

I sincerely hope this helps you figure out my approach. If something I wrote is still opaque or objectionable to you, even after this explanation, I will try to clarify it. But if you genuinely take In icto oculi's side here, I really have to ask you in the same spirit of dialogue how you can square that with our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but that is so full of uncomprehending generalizations and replete with 'attitude' that replying is almost pointless, since to do so would only generate an essay on a dozen subjects that would bore us all.

Briefly, re the OT and the Tanakh, I suppose the next time I'm in Athens someone will tell me, if I quote the 'Laws' of Plato, that I should drop my Celtic ethnocentrism and call it Νόμοι. After all, it belongs to the Greeks, not to outsiders who appropriated it and consider it part of Western civilization. Woolly assumptions and proprietorial attitudes, Slrubenstein, do not sit well with neutrality.

I have no opinion whatsoever on this question, since like most historical issues in the long past, the truth, and often the facts, are indeterminate and one just has interpretations that thresh out the stronger probabilities.

Anyone can easily write the article by (a) giving, as does Schäfer an overview of the historical rise of identification then (b) a comprehensive coverage of modern secondary sources dealing specifically with these passages. There is no need for direct citation of primary texts, since every single allusion is dealt with by Maier, and all of the relevant passages are covered by the academic literature. And you are deeply mistaken in your analogy. It's not for the likes of us to ask someone here analysing the relationship between Patroclus and Achilles in the Iliad if they have read the Iliad (or understand Hittite, a loan-word from which may well explain the crucial function of Patroclus's role as a substitute victim for the hero). All we ask of them is to use two standard books like Katherine Callen King's Achilles: paradigms of the War hero, (1987) and W.Thomas MacCary's Childlike Achilles, (1982) and paraphrase precisely what modern authorities like them say. This elementary procedure has not been used.

But rather than argue, someone should actually read the article, which is as dull as dishwater, and correct the simple errors on the page, like 'Yeshu it's also the acronym.' Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I took you at your word that you wanted an actual dialogue and wanted to understand my view. I see now that was a mistake. What Wikipedia needs more of are people who care about NPOV and real scholarship. We need less obnoxious POV-pushers, so I am glad to wish you well as you continue your progress to retirement. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The only proof of loyalty to WP:NPOV I know of is evidence that an editor consistently reverts bad or poor edits a 'friend' may make, puts in a timely word of caution to editors with whom otherwise he has a good working relationship, or never comes down predictably on one side, but always makes a call that shows complete independence from attachments to a colletive interest. Self-authentication and testimonials are irrelevant. But, I think we have clarified where we stand, so I'll leave it at that.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"self authentication and testimonials are irrelevant." Indeed. I am guessing this is as far as you will go to retract your ignorant appeal to support your friend In ictu. That's good enough. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubinstein, maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't read Nishidani as trying to support a Christian-specific bias to this article. Whether I agree with him or not, my engagements with Nishidani over the years make it pretty clear to me that he is a researcher and a widely read scholar, and is not only entitled to a point-of-view (as we all are, as long as we do not let it adversely affect our editing) but often has intelligent points to make, as do you, I know. Our points of view undoubtedly color which sources we each feel need to be in the article, but, at this point, I think we are all best served by minimizing assumptions about each others motives and focusing on the article. I have not sen Nishidani pen an overtly POV statement the way in ictu has; although I don't claim to have memorized the wiki.

Nishidani, I am not saying that the article should take the stance of the medieval and modern Talmudists as fact, but that the idea that "because they were penned by religious people, they are ipso facto opinions and not fact is a violation of WP:NPOV. I am happy to have a section on modern interpretations by the various scholars, as long as 1) they are verifiable in reliable sources, 2) they properly represent the opinions they purport to represent and 3) they are given appropriate weight and identification. I'd like the same application of policy applied to the Talmudic masters as well. Not that we have to have a laundry list of every perush on Sanhedirn, Sotah, etc. But that we need to have appropriate weight given to these opinions as well, and (bringing it back to the RfC) they serve to indicate that the assumption that the Talmudic "Yeshu" is the Christian Jesus is one that is in rather firm dispute and should not be the assumption that defines the lede, as in ictu wanted above. Thanks for dropping by; I always find your comments enlightening, even when I disagree with them :) -- Avi (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The only POV I think Nishidani is puswhing here is In icto oculi's POV. I opened this section with an attempt to expalain to In icto oculi which including the views of Rabbinis scholars in this article does not violate our policies. Nishidani seemed not to understant my comment and wanted me to explain it to him, or so he said. In fact, all he wants to do is stand up for his friend. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. I am speaking from my experience with Nishidani; your experience may be different. Even so, "standing up for his friend" is not a problem if he can demonstrate the validity of in ictu's position. I think the validity of said position has not been proven by either in ictu or Nishidani, but that doesn't make Nishidani wrong for what he wrote, in my opinion. Either way, the RfC is showing a consensus not to assume that the Talmudic Yeshu is the Christian Jesus in the lede, which is what I think the sources, in their entirety, represent—that the issue is disputed, and has been for at least 1300 years. -- Avi (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a set of citations to the lede which support the view that the Talmudic Yeshu is not, or may not be, the Christian Jesus. In deference to the on-going discussion here, I have (for now) included only 20th and 21st century scholars. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg

I know you're trying to maintain what you consider should be a NPOV you're not being objective. You appear so determined to find views supporting Nahmanided (and Nahmanides view isn't even sourced here) that you are misreading references. As an example among the refs you have added claiming that the name Yeshu is mentioned is the very ref where the next sentence says:

since he is not mentioned by name

You've answered above now, as to what you understand the English phrase "not mentioned by name" to mean, but haven't applied it since, quote "we know that these sources do" - but we do not know this, you know this. I haven't yet seen a clear statement from Maier Neusner or Meier (what Setzer Horbury Schafer treat as the later insertion school) that there was ever a Yeshu reference in the earliest Talmud mss. And I think the problem here is that Maier Neusner or Meier may have a different view of Talmud textual criticism than some of the editors here. It' looks to me that Maier and Neusner consider the Talmud to be a broad stream of textual traditions evolving over several centuries, hence Neusner feeling justified in removing Yeshu from his Talmud - as far as I know completely. If there is a use of Yeshu in Neusner's Talmud at all I'm not sure what verse it would be. You say we know but do you know for certain that Yeshu occurs in Neusner's Talmud? Since it is missing from the most discussed locations.

Again, as it stands we have the first sentence of the lede presenting as a fact Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) is an individual or individuals[1] - which is today a fringe view not found in modern scholarship, so much that Levine describes it with an exclamation mark as the view of some "rabbinical experts..!" a bit like saying "fundamentalist pastors..!" or "muslim imams..!". The last reference we have to a mainstream scholar defending the view is Joachim Jeremias in 1960. A more honest lede, not driven by church/mosque/synagogue-going believers and medival authorities would be: Yeshu is a name found in Aramaic and Hebrew texts Most scholars today consider ..... A minority of scholars consider ....

Can anyone explain to me why "Yeshu is a name" is less NPOV than "Yeshu is an individual or individuals"? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu, are you suggesting the only change to be made is "Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) is an individual or individualsa name mentioned in Jewish literature."? -- Avi (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Avi

Yes.

That and undelete the deleted modern academics. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Bu In ictu oculi, the whole "since he is not mentioned by name" quote of Powell has been conclusively shown to mean something other than your implication, since Powell himself also says "Yeshu [= Jesus?]" - so we know that Powell does know the Talmud actually does mention a name, and moreover Powell explicitly states that he questions the identification of "Yeshu" with "Jesus". In addition, you must move away from this "Yehiel's view" or "determined to find views supporting Nahmanides" or "driven by church/mosque/synagogue-going believers and medival authorities" rhetoric. I haven't referred to Nahmanides, and haven't read up on his view (or Yehiel's) - I could hardly be promoting a view with which I'm not familiar. It may seem to bolster your arguments to describe those who disagree with you as people promoting the views of medieval authorities or religious fanatics, but it actually undermines them, because those being so described don't actually fit those descriptions. Also, you're getting stuck on specific wordings of your arguments again, which considerably weakens them. You need to move away from phrases that don't really make sense, like "a fringe view not found in modern scholarship", since we do have "modern scholarship" presenting exactly the "Yeshu!=-Jesus" view - that's just not compatible with the phrase "not found in". And finally, attempting to suppress the "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" viewpoint is a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV, since that's a view expressed by modern scholars (in addition, apparently, to the medieval authorities you keep bringing up). The RFC you raised above could hardly be more clear in its outcome, which strongly supported the "individual or individuals" wording. I understand that you think it doesn't reflect reality or the truth in some way, but most others here disagree. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg Please read again the complete paragraph:

JEWISH WRITINGS Scholars debate whether there may be obscure references to Jesus in some of the collections of ancient Jewish writings, such as the Talmud, the Tosefta. the targums, and the midrashim.7 Occasional polemical comments in these writings are sometimes thought to be veiled references to Jesus, but since he is not mentioned by name, no one knows for sure. The text that is most often accepted as referring to him comes from the Babylonian Talmud. The main problem here is that the materials that make up this work were collected over a long period of time, finally coming together around over a long period of time, finally coming together around 500-600 CE. Thus, there is no way of knowing how early (or how reliable) the reference may be. Nevertheless, here it is: On the eve of Passover, they hanged Yeshu = Jesus? and the herald went before him 40 days saying "Yeshu is going forth to be stoned, since he practiced sorcery and cheated and led his people astray. Let everyone knowing anything in ... (Sanhedrin 43a) Later this same text also says, "Jesus had five disciples: Mattai, Maqai. Metser. Buni, and Todah." This of course is neither the traditional list of names nor the traditional number. New Testament Epistles Surprisingly... Mark Allan Powell Jesus as a figure in history: how modern historians view the man from Galilee p34

It is evident from the above that Powell is influenced by the view of Maier (1978) and Neusner and Meier, that the Yeshu name is a "late addition," "intepolation," "addition," "emendation, etc. and therefore when Powell says "but since he is not mentioned by name," this does not mean as you have read that "so we know that Powell does know the Talmud actually does mention a name." instead Powell's "he is not mentioned by name," = he is not mentioned by name. A reader may not realise that the "veiled references" include passages about Balaam and other unnamed individuals which some apply to Yeshu even though the name is not there, but whether the reader realise that or not no neutral editor would add a citation saying "he is not mentioned by name," as proof to an edit that he is mentioned by name. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It is evidence from Powell's own words that he realizes that the Talmud mentions Yeshu (he quotes it doing so), and questions whether that is Jesus. He does this all explicitly. Your inferences from specific phrases he uses do not compare to his explicit statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg,

Please explain "he is not mentioned by name," What do these words mean?

In ictu oculi (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please explain "Yeshu [=Jesus?]". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So Powell actually writes "Yeshu=Jesus?" - Powell puts in the question mark. Very interesting, it means Powell is not sure that "Yeshu" means "Jesus." Clearly, "He is not mentioned by name" means ... Jesus is not mentioned by name. The Talmud, in Aramaic, is not using Jesus' Aramaic name. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he does. He is quite explicit that he is not sure that Yeshu is Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)