Talk:Names and titles of Jesus

Why the fuss over Matt. 1:21?
Dear Friends: I'm not sure what the fuss is over here. Both versions of the text seem to say the same thing to me and I can read Greek and, with some lexical aid, Hebrew. Could we stop the edit war and do as Jayg suggested, talk out what we're going to say? --CTSWyneken 19:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Theological studies can be scholarly in nature (I encourage it), but much theology, itself, cannot fit into a scholarly framework. How can we use a scholarly framework to determine if Jesus was actually both man and God or born of an gynecologically virgin woman? Similarly, how can we determine that Gautama was actually enlightened and a Buddha? What criteria can we possibly use? Instead that is where we use a theological framework, no? :-)


 * Scholarly frameworks, by their very nature cannot take on these questions reasonably, which is an example of where the rift lies between scholarship and theology in religion. Arguing over divinity, therefore (within this context) cannot fit within a scholarly framework. What we can investigate is whether particular sects (such as the individual sects that contributed to the New Testament) believed that Jesus was divine, which is why I propose a new section to specifically discuss the theological implications of these titles in. This way, we can go over origins from a scholarly standpoint (and not just one framework, either). --Steve Caruso 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Theology is not science, but that does not mean it isn't scholarly. Simply because many of its claims are not subject to scientific study does not mean it cannot proceed in a scholarly fashion. In fact, if I remember correctly, the idea of scholarship began in the theological and philosopical disciplines. Theology is scholarly in much the same way that philosophy is scholarly. In both disciplines, much cannot be verified empirically. So, of course, we cannot measure whether Jesus is both God and Man at the same time (and the virgin state of His mother would be difficult to document, were she alive today), nor a number of other doctrines of numerous religions. But neither can we demonstrate that "all people are created equal," "there is (or is not) absolute truth," and other cherished philosophical theses. That does not mean that we cannot study such matters to understand what one religious teacher or another taught or teaches, that we cannot learn how other faiths see the world, that arguments cannot be made from one's carefully stated presuppositions, try to persuade others according to the canons of logic, rigorously translate, cite, compare, analyze, etc. --CTSWyneken 13:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


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