Talk:Yeshu/Archive 3

Slow down
There's a lot of Talk happening here but it mainly hinges on 1 issue. Every single other comment on this talk page is redundant until one academic WP:source contradicting the unanimous view of Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, Neusner etc etc etc etc etc is found In ictu oculi (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * is there any modern scholarly secondary source with views that the word Yeshu occuring in any Hebrew text refers to anything else than the traditions of Christendom?


 * You slow down. I have never claimed that critical scholars do not think the stories are about Christianity.  If you look at the talk before, long before you came here, you will see I insisted on adding the views of critical scholars who say that these passages are reactions to Christianity (which still does not precisely mean they are "about Jesus.").  I have said that Orthodox Jews do not think the stories are about Jesus or Christianity.  Their views are also significant.  NPOV says we must represent all significant views.  V also says we represent views, not truth, so I have only been insisting that we identify the views of critical scholars as views, not truth.
 * You either do not understand my point, or are misrepresenting it. If you do not get it, please consult our core policy, WP:NPOV.  If you get it, then stop misrepresenting it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Slrubenstein,
 * 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. You have provided no source for other views, therefore other views are NOT significant, UNTIL you provide a source.
 * "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". All the sources cited in the article are verifiable and state that the Jesus traditions in Jewish literature are reactions to Jesus traditions in Christianity. Therefore the lede should reflect the verifiable sources used in the article.
 * And "No original research" requires that the lede should not be tilted to take as its starting point a view that is not sourced in the article.
 * Will you let the lede reflect the WP:sources in the article or not? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting or misunderstanding my comment. I have never added unsourced views to Wikipedia. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein,
 * This is very simple. You edited the 1st sentence in the article to say that "Yeshu... individuals.. in Jewish literature" from "Yeshu" is the Hebrew spelling of Jesus. Now, for the 12th time, please provide a source for your statement in the lede. Provide one modern scholarly academic published WP:source that any Hebrew or Aramaic text reference to Yeshu is not a reference to the Yeshu of Christianity but is a reference to another individual. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying here. Yeshu is an individual (or individuals) mentioned in the Talmud. This is a simple fact, just as Rav or Hillel the Elder or Elisha ben Abuyah are individuals mentioned in the Talmud. It is the identification of Yeshu with Jesus that is more speculative. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jayjg. I suppose I'm saying 3 things.
 * (1) The B.Talmud variant readings are, what, 1% of total Hebrew/Aramaic references to Jesus as Yeshu. Why should 13th-17th century disputations of thse 3 or 4 passages (about which there is no modern dispute) wag the dog about the other 99% of uses in Hebrew and Aramaic?
 * (2) The article for Hillel does not start "Hillel ha-zaqen is an individual (or individuals) mentioned in the Talmud" There's only one Hillel ha-zaqen, and his identity is not defined by mentions in the Talmud. Likewise it is not a simple fact that "Jesus is an individual (or individuals) mentioned in the Talmud." Jesus is an individual mentioned in Christian, Jewish and Muslim traditions. ....which illustrates the problem with this article, it's a dicdef like Isa (name) or Yeshua (name), but it has loaded into it a giant stack of material related to Jesus in the Talmud, which belongs in Jesus in the Talmud.
 * (3) You say "It is the identification of Yeshu with Jesus that is more speculative." but do you have a source for this? Slrubenstein has failed to provide one despite repeated requests. This again is the problem. We have no doubt sincere religious beliefs (= WP:OR) on one hand saying that the identification of Yeshu with Jesus is speculative, but we have all credible WP:source scholars unanimous on the other hand that the identification of Yeshu with Jesus is not speculative, that Yeshu is in all cases a reference to (Klausner) / reaction to (Maier) Christian traditions. The place for religious convictions, when no reliable modern published sources support them, is not in the lede of an article. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS ... imagine if we had an article "Isa is an individual or individuals mentioned in the Quran" Would that be NPOV? How is the lede here any different.
 * Do we have a source that it is speculative? Yes, Theissen and Merz make clear that this is speculative. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again Jayjg,
 * please ignore the above interjection from Slrubenstein, he evidently has not got access to Theissen's Lehrbuch and has not read the section. The opposite is true - Theissen reports where Maier and Klausner are agreed - that the name Yeshu is a reference to Jesus - in a section dealing with Josephus etc references to Jesus. I ask you, are you aware of any modern academic source that says identification of Yeshu with Jesus is speculative, as you wrote above? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Theissen makes it clear this is speculation, I have the book right in front of me. Apparently Blinky hasn't read it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In ictu oculi, Hillel's identity is indeed defined by the Talmud (and related Mishnaic literature) - without that, we would know nothing of him. Also, no-one disputes that Isa is simply an Arabic name for Jesus, but there are sources that clearly state that the references to Yeshu in early Jewish sources are not to Jesus (Meier, Maier etc). I don't know why you interpret what they say so differently from what I see as the plain reading of their words, and I don't know how to overcome that impasse. Please don't remove the words "individual or individuals" from the lede sentence, as I think that's the only way of accurately representing the spectrum of views on Yeshu in an NPOV way. Jayjg (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg. "but there are sources that clearly state that the references to Yeshu in early Jewish sources are not to Jesus (Meier, Maier etc)." - This is not correct, there are, so far, no such sources. '''Maier and Meier both clearly state that the name Yeshu in early Jewish sources are to Christian traditions about Jesus. '' The way to overcome the impasse would be to reproduce the full paragraphs I guess. Is that what I have to do? In ictu oculi (talk)
 * Yes, could you please do that? The would be very helpful, because I currently cannot get your understanding of these authors from my own reading of their words. Also, again, please don't change/remove the "individual or individuals" from the lede sentence until we resolve this. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have produced full sentences in quotation boxes. Sorry that Maier is in German.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Name Yeshu as idolatry
Any ideas about the original historical source for this I have no particular opinion. I had encountered this about Yeshu and the yimach shemo in one of the Wikipedia articles earlier and I believe may even have marked it or, however appears there is something. Does the explanation by User:Lisa explain why Jesus ben Ananias is "ישוע בן חנניה" in modern Hebrew but Jesus of Nazareth is Yeshu? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. Many Jews, even those who aren't aware that there's a prohibition involved, feel acutely uncomfortable saying the name of the Christian god.  I doubt I'd be able to find you a reliable source for that widespread phenomenon, largely because it doesn't seem all that productive to publish a book about it when we're living in a predominantly Christian society.  That's why I can't say it in the article.  But I can say it here on the talk page.  I've seen people write Jeezus, just to avoid writing his name.  In the middle ages, he was referred to as "that man".  Common usage among English speaking Orthodox Jews is "Yoshke" or "Yushky", and there are even Hebrew books where Yeshu is spelled with a mark that identifies it as an acronym (יש"ו as opposed to ישו).  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lisa, thank you for your comments. Please support all edits of articles with WP:sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary
Just to keep track, this is now the 26th time I am asking for a single academic WP:source arguing for the name Yeshu in any Aramaic or Hebrew mss being anything other than a reference to Christian traditions:
 * 1. The figurehead issue here is the wording of the lede whether it should be:
 * (A) "Yeshu is an individual or individuals in the Talmud" - which represents a view "held by many Orthodox Jews" according to Slrubenstein (although no source has been supplied to prove that many Orthodox Jews believe this)
 * (B) "Yeshu is a name used with reference to the Christian Jesus in rabbinical and secular Hebrew texts." OWTTE - i.e. the view which is supported by ALL the modern academic references in the article, including those deleted.


 * 2. The secondary issue regards the deletions of scholarly sources from liberal/secular scholarship, and the reality gap between some of the wording in the text, for example before footnotes to Steinsaltz, Maier, others, and what the source texts actually say. Again the issue is effectively as the lede above, is "Yeshu" a reference to Christianity or not? The sources in the article say (B), the first line says (A). In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of dispute. Look... the main thing is that most Jews simply don't care.  Yeshu, smeshu.  The whole JC thing just isn't on our radar 99% of the time.  When the issue does come up, there are different views.  Some views say that the Yeshu in the Talmud is the historical basis for a fiction created in the Christian Bible.  Since Yeshu is identified as living 200 years too early to be the Christian JC, there are views that either the Christians have it wrong, or there were multiple people with that name.


 * Since all the mentions of Yeshu are negative, it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference to Jews which of these is the case. The bottom line is, we don't care about him.  And except for assimilated Jews who want to minimize differences between us and Christians and certain high profile rabbis like Shmuely Boteach and Daniel Lapin who have a strange fascination with the Gentile world, the Jewish view of him is a very negative one.  A bad guy, or a fictional bad guy, who inspired a world movement that's sort of like our Evil Twin, and which has been responsible for more massacres of Jews than the Germans in WWII could have dreamed of, albeit spread over some 17 centuries, rather than a handful of years.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "When the issue does come up, there are different views" - well said, Lisa (and exemplary of the WP spirit). The problem, Lisa, is that In icto oculi demands a reliable source for this - not in order to justify adding what you just said into the article, but to prevent him from saying that "Yeshu" in the Talmud is a name for Jesus of Nazareth.  Like most POV-pushers, ho do not think they have a POV but only "the truth," they think that anyone who insists on identifying their POV as a ... POV are actually the POV-pushers.


 * Lisa, I fully understand your point that many Jews don't care (about him). But this is an article about Talmudic texts, and thus about the Talmud, and many Jews do care about the Talmud.  I certainly want to make sure that the Talmud is represented accurately at Wikipedia.  When there are multiple views about the meaning of a Talmudic text, our articles should not favor any one view. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lisa, just two points:
 * i. this article is not about the Talmud. This article is about a name which occurs in hundreds of Aramaic and Hebrew texts, medieval Sephardi, early modern, Israeli, etc., among which are two variant late readings from B.Sanhedrin.
 * ii. according to WP:POV only reliable published views are notable. Which means that Wikipedia is secular, it does not reflect religious views, except in description of religions.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In icto, be honest. This article is about a genre of stories in Rabbinic literature.  Since this is a "religious" text, religious points of view are highly relevant.
 * In octo, Sanhdrin 43a is in the Talmud. By the way, is B.Sanhedrin a typo?  Why do you write, "B.Sanhedrin?" Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Slrubenstein.
 * I don't consider religious points of view should be relevant unless they are describing a notable individual or movement and are properly sourced.
 * B.Sanhedrin (or b.Sanh.) etc. is the common academic abbreviation to distinguish from t.Sanh., j.Sanh. etc.
 * Can you please provide a WP:source for the edit in the article lede sentence. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede changed following agreement with Slrubenstein on Maier
Following agreement, above, that Maier (a) considers Yeshu a reference to Christianity, and (b) a late gloss. I have amended the lede to reflect the WP:sources in the article:


 * The name Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) is understood by modern scholars as a reference to Christian traditions about Jesus of Nazareth. [ref The list of 20th and 21st century academic scholars supporting this view includes: Maier, Meier, Theissen, Neusner, Klausner, Steinsaltz, Schafer, see references in this article /ref]
 * It is also the common spelling for the Christian Jesus in medieval and Sephardi texts, early modern Hebrew, and modern Israeli secular usage.
 * The oldest texts in which use of the name Yeshu occur are some anecdotes in the Tosefta and the Talmud, although some scholars, such as Maier (1978) and Jacob Neusner, consider these late glosses.

This should be the end of this needless dispute. If, however ,anyone can produce a modern academic published WP:source to contradict the view of Maier, Neusner, Klausner, Meier, Schafer etc. that the name Yeshu is a reference to Christian traditions, then that WP:source may be added.

Alternatively, if anyone reverts it to the "two Jesuses" view because of their own prejudices, opinions, religious convictions, etc. without providing a modern academic source, then I am going to be calling in every admin I can find, have a lock down on this page and a dispute resolution process. I have asked 26 times for an academic source to support the "name for an individual or individuals" nonsense, and not a single source has been forthcoming. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "two Jesuses?" Which of the sources that you mention uses the words "two Jesuses?" Whwere does this phrase come from? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Slrubenstein,
 * It came from the reference you deleted to the D. Berger essay in Jewish history and Jewish memory: essays in honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi 1998 p33.
 * Do you have a reference for the lede sentence of the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Time for dispute resolution?
Jayjg, Slrubenstein We seem to have reached an intractable situation. The academic sources say that Yeshu is a reference to Christianity, but you both evidently (a) cannot accept this, (b) cannot provide academic sources to justify an alternative view. This revert is unreasonable. It took a lot of hard work, like pulling teeth frankly, to get the two of you to accept that Maier was saying what should have been obvious from his own words, Theissen, Voorst, Schafer etc commentary on Maier. And having reached agreement on that (never mind "who agreed with who") now it is time to let academic views which are already in the article footnotes (though some have been twisted in the text) be reflected not just in the article but in the lede. I present two options here.
 * (A) this is the 27th time I am asking - provide one single academic WP:source that the name Yeshu in any Aramaic or Hebrew text is ever anything else but a reference to Christianity.
 * (B) go to dispute resolution.

I am done here, I have presented somewhere between 15 to 20 modern sources, some have been deleted, there comes a point where enough is enough. Either provide a WP:source or we go to dispute resolution. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a deletion of " the historical " from my text above Maier reference?
Following on from the presumably good faith, but still wrong, misrepresentation of Theissen & Merz and P. Meier in the article I unfortunately have to note that the words "the historical", which I thought I added in (?) have gone from "Johann Maier argued that neither the Mishnah nor the two Talmuds refer to the historical Jesus"..... the whole point of Maier's work, as illustrated in the quote from Theissen above, was to argue that the Yeshu passages were late Reaktion to Christian Provokationen, not evidence of a historical Jesus. To remove the words the historical  makes it appear that J. Maier believed that the Yeshu fragments refer to "another individual" in support of the unWP:sourced POV of the lede. Historically anyone can understand the significance of the "another individual" idea, it's a defence that presumably saved the lives of a few like Yehiel in 1204 Paris, but the place to document history of persecution is on Christian persecution of Jews, not puff it up as a credible scholarly view in the 21st C. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I went back to Theissen and Merz, and did not where in reference to Maier they wrote "the historical" Jesus but i can check again. 10:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein,
 * Sorry maybe I have confused things - I meant deleted my comment "the historical" from the text, 'before the Maier ref. historical Jesus is my words, supported by what I just pasted in German. Incidentally do you have access to a paper copy of the English trans of Theissen and Merz? Only the German is on Google Books, but I presume you'll find the section heading on Sanhedrin leads you to the same content I pasted in German above. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I do. I happen to agree with you, that Maier does not believe that Sanh 43a refers to the historical Jesus and I do not object to the article saying that.  But we have to rep0resent Maier accurately.  He believes that that there was an original story that referred to some sorcerer, and that later editors of the Talmud added in the reference to Jesus.  So Maier has a more nuanced view of the Talmud and of the Rabbis, that this is a composite text that changed over time.  To represent Maier then as saying that the Talmud refers to (a non-historical) Jesus is a misrepresentation.  He is not saying that "the Yeshu passages were late Reaktion to Christian Provokationen, not evidence of a historical Jesus"  He is saying that the passage originally was not about jesus, and it was later altered as a "Reaktion to Christian Provokationen,"
 * By the way, my copy of Theissen and Merz cite only Sanh 43a, and only Maier. According to your volume, do they say any other passages refer to Jesus?  And do they say any other scholars believe they refer to Jesus? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein.
 * Either way the way that the Theissen quote is presented in this current Wikipedia article, per this Talkpage is a misrepresentation. Maier and Theissen believe that the subject of the article the name Yeshu is a reference to Jesus. Therefore the lede of this article should be changed.
 * The other comments seem more relevant to the Jesus in the Talmud article, you might want to make them there. Yes the German edition only refers to 1 passage in the Talmud and only cites 2 scholars, Maier and Klausner who both acknowledge that the reference to Jesus is a reference to Jesus. Which again means that the lede of this article is misleading and at odds with sources. As indeed the comment before this ref is misleading and at odds with the source. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Boy do you react poorly to people saying they agree with you! In the meantime, where does Theeissen say that Yeshu = jesus? In any event, this is a view. You cannot represent a view as a fact. Sorry to tell you this, but the world just does not revolve around Jesus! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein,
 * Likewise I'll assume that "Boy do you react poorly to people saying they agree with you!" and "Sorry to tell you this, but the world just does not revolve around Jesus!" are further attempts to generate heat and avoid the sourcing issue. Theissen indicates that Yeshu in Sanhedrin etc is a reference to the Christian Jesus in the source already given at the page number given in the discussion of Maier and Klausner already given. This is now the 11th time I am asking. --- please find one modern scholarly published source with an ISBN to support your view in the lede sentence that any reference to Jesus in any Hebrew text is not related to the figure of Jesus in Christianity. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Theissen indicates that Yeshu in Sanhedrin etc is a reference to the Christian Jesus " I do not see Theissen saying that what are you referring to. In the meantime, stop repeating yourself I know what Maier and Klaussner say; they are expressing their interpretations of the texts which is great, we should include them, but they are interpretations, views. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, Do you not see it because you do not have access to a copy of the book? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I have the book right in front of me. Do you have the book? Where do Theissen and Merz say this? Yes, I have read their account of Maier, and of Klausner, so I know what maier and Klausner say. But you are making claims about Theissen. Where does Theissen say that Yeshu in Sanhedrin is a reference to the Christian Jesus? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As for Maier, you write, "he whole point of Maier's work, as illustrated in the quote from Theissen above, was to argue that the Yeshu passages were late Reaktion to Christian Provokationen" No, this is not hat Theissen and Merz say about Maier. "Naier comes to the conclusion that the name Jesus was inserted only secondarily into the account of the execution of some magician and deviant teacher who by chance had been killed on the eve of Passover." The "Reaktion" (since this is English Wikipedia and we are using English words, why not spell it "reaction") to the Christian provocation is to insert the name "jsus" onto an exiting passage about someone else. So Maier is NOT saying that the Yeshu passages are the "reaction." He is saying the passages are really about someone else. It is only adding Jesus' name that maier says is the "reaction." You keep preaching about sources, but you misquote and distort them. Show a little respect for real scholarship, will you? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein,
 * Obviously Maier says it's an insertion, I have said that 3 times on this Talk page. But finally now you're agreeing with what Maier and Klausner and Theissen say - that the name Yeshu inserted into the text (per Maier) is a reference to Jesus. Why did it take this long for you to recognise what the passage is saying, that the name Yeshu is a reference to Jesus. Now that you have accepted that the name Yeshu is a reference to Jesus can you please restore the lede? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did I ever write anything disagreeing about what Maier and Klausen said? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You however did write that, according to Theissen, "the Yeshu passages were late Reaktion to Christian Provokationen." But this is not what Theissen wrote.  Do you now agree with me, that you were wrong? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You however did write, "Theissen indicates that Yeshu in Sanhedrin etc is a reference to the Christian Jesus " I still say you are wrong. I have asked you to show me where Theissen says this.  You have yet to answer.  Apparently you cannot. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And, uh, no, just because two scholars interpret Yeshu to mean Jesus does not mean we can change the lead. You continue to ignore the views of Jewish authorities. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that more than just Jewish authorities say Yeshu in early Jewish literature is not Jesus. Jayjg (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein
 * Jewish/Catholic/Hindu primary source authorities are irrelvant. This is an encyclopedia not a synagogue/church/temple pulpit. Provide a modern academic WP:source please.
 * Jayjg,
 * Same point: WP:source please. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maier and Meier, for example. In icto oculi, I know you understand Maier and Meier than others here do, but I don't think it's helpful to pretend that they haven't been raised again and again as counter-examples. Jayjg (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg,
 * This is thoroughly painful. Why would you cling to the idea that Maier would consider Yeshu was another Yeshu when Maier says that San43a and 107b weren't even in the original Talmud? If they were references to Yeshu Smith, why would they be added in. Maier says in black and white repeatedly that the name Jesus in the Sanh43a 107b late texts refers to Jesus. Meier follows Maier. I provided these as helps:
 * Question i: How do you understand the word "redaction" in the following:


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


 * Question iii: How do you understand the word "anonymous" in the following:


 * Question iv, how can the addition of the name Yeshu be "reaction ..to Christian provocation" (Maier, in Theissen) if the name Yeshu is not a reference to the Christian Jesus?
 * Evidently Horbury, Voorst, Seztzer and Theissen have no problem understanding what Maier is saying.
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD
Thinking more broadly, what is this article about that is not covered in other articles? And why does a name in Hebrew need an article in English wikipedia? Likewise why does Yeshua need an article? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is about a highly controversial figure in Rabbinic literature - it is not just about a name (only you are making it about a name, in part by unilaterally deciding that the article should open with a modern Hebrew dictionary transliteration of a non-Hebrew name). There are conflicting significant views about the meaning of this figure and the stories about him, and there are reliable sources about the meaning of these stories.  I think this is enough to justify an article.  If we can have an article on Elrond, surely we can have an article on Yeshu. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Slrubenstein,
 * (1) There is a difference between Jesus and Elrond. Elrond only exists in Tolkein, it is immediately evident what the context is. Jesus is mentioned in hundreds of Hebrew texts from the 5thC through Andalusia Hasdai Crescas, Milhamoth ha-Shem, Sefer Nizzahon Yashan, Sefer Joseph Hamekane, Ibn Shaprut, to modern Israel. If we have a text specific article Jesus in the Talmud, Toledoth Yeshu then fine, but if it's simply the Hebrew spelling of the name.... this is English Wikipedia, why does a non-English spelling justify an article?
 * (2) "a highly controversial figure in Rabbinic literature" I'm sorry but I have to press for a source on this. Yes the identity of "Yeshu" was controversial to Rabbi Yechiel being tortured in 13th Century Paris, etc. but where is the mainstream modern academic source that finds the reference of the Jesus in the Talmud material controversial? I have asked I think 4 times for a source for this. This sounds to me like a fringe view, in academic terms, the sort of thing we would expect in a church/synagogue Bible class pdf on a blog, not in a serious modern academic text, no matter how sincerely many believers today hold to a view of centuries earlier.
 * Where do you think this material would be better covered? Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jayjg, the Jesus in the Talmud material is already duplicated there. If this is an umbrella article Jesus in Hebrew language literature, then it would only require a main-link out to Jesus in the Talmud, Toledoth Yeshu, Hasdai Crescas, Milhamoth ha-Shem, Sefer Nizzahon Yashan, Sefer Joseph Hamekane, Ibn Shaprut, etc..... Or if the subject is Yeshu (name) then per Isa (name). In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Make up your mind. Are you saying that the topic does not merit an article, or that it does?  You said it doesn't merit an article and I explained why it does - to which you respond with arguments as to why it merits an article.  i am confused. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, Jayjg asked "Where do you think this material would be better covered?" to which I answered that:
 * the material on Jesus in Hebrew language literature, if it requires a separate article, would be better in an umbrella article Jesus in Hebrew language literature with linkouts to Jesus in the Talmud, Toledoth Yeshu, Hasdai Crescas, Milhamoth ha-Shem, Sefer Nizzahon Yashan, Sefer Joseph Hamekane, Ibn Shaprut, etc.....
 * the material on Yeshu (name) (if Wikipedia really has to an article which is a DICDEF) then Yeshu (name) then per Isa (name).
 * Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue here is actually more with the (relatively new) Jesus in the Talmud article, which (by title alone) presupposes that Jesus is, in fact, found in the Talmud. Some versions of the Talmud refer to one or more individuals named "Yeshu", and to various other individuals (ben Pandira etc.) which some claim are also references to Jesus. This article is really a better place for much of this material, since it's more neutral and accurate. Jayjg (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg
 * WP:Source please? Which modern scholars say any use of the name "Yeshu" is other than as a reference to Christianity? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're moving the goalposts - the question here is whether the individual spoken of in the Talmud stories is Jesus, which is a different question. And Maier and Meier, for example, are modern scholars who say he is not. Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg,
 * With respect, the article is entitled Yeshu therefore the "goalposts" of the article follow the title. The "goalposts" are what is Yeshu, and all the scholarly sources in the article say that the name "Yeshu" is a reference to Christianity (I say Christianity so that no one will misunderstand historical Jesus).
 * If the article was entitled Jesus in the Talmud then per Maier and to a lesser extent Meier, certainly there are modern scholars who say that Jesus is not in the earliest Talmud mss. (for what it's worth I'm more sympathetic personally to Maier's end of the spectrum than Klausner's, but that isn't the point, Maier and Klausner agree that the name Yeshu is a reference to Christianity (legends in Maier's view, some fact in Klausner's view).
 * As the article stands the first line of lede is POV - Yeshu is no more "an individual or individuals mentioned in the Talmud" than Hava or Avraham. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You keep changing the words, though, to make a different point. Again, the question here is whether the individual spoken of in the Talmud stories is Jesus - only that. And Maier and Meier, for example, are modern scholars who say he is not. If you want to ask a different question, that's fine, but that doesn't mean you've answered my question. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Jayjg
 * Sorry, but please look at the titles of the articles:
 * Yeshu = Yeshu (name), per Yeshua (name), Isa (name), Jesus (name).
 * Jesus in the Talmud = Jesus in the Talmud.
 * If you want to have a discussion about Yeshu (name) have it here.
 * If you want to have a discussion about Yeshu in the Talmud have it there.
 * It seems to me that your argument is that this page is not about Yeshu (name) it is about Jesus in the Talmud. Is that your position? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not really. The Jesus in the Talmud article is actually about possible references to Jesus in various Jewish sources, not just the Talmud - the article is either exceeding its scope, or is mis-named. This article is about Yeshu specifically, regardless of where he is mentioned - not just the name, but the stories/details attributed to him. Yeshua is just a proposed Hebrew/Aramaic name for Jesus, nothing more - the article on Yeshua discusses the name, because there are no unique stories or details attributed to "Yeshua". Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

New lede following Slrubenstein's acceptance of Maier's argument
Added:
 * Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) is a name used in Hebrew and Aramaic literature to refer to the Jesus of Christian traditions, although in the opinion of many scholars ref see article refs for Maier, Neusner, Meier /ref some of the earliest references to Yeshu are in fact traditions about other individuals to which the name Yeshu was attached in reaction to Christian provocations. ref Theissen Lehrbuch p88 /ref

I should say I completely expect Slrubenstein to delete what he's just agree with above because his own fixed POV is that there was another individual called Yeshu and he will revert to this when he realises what he agreed above. We will then have a reversal to Slrubenstein's view, and then I will ask for the 18th time for a WP:source. And all this in a WP:Dicdef article ripe for AdD. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did I say I accepted Maier's argument? Can you even read? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted it because there are others who claim that Yeshu does not refer to Jesus. The meaning of the word is not certain.  Our article should reflect the range of views, and the introduction should not take the position of any one viewpoint.  This is not a reversal to my view (but you give yourself away - obviously you acknowledge that your edits are merely your view).  I am referting to a consensus lead that I did not write and that has existed for a long time.  The article names people who have provided other views.  KG also named a more recent source for you.  FInally, as Theissen makes clear, Maier is proposing his own interpretation, there is no claim that this is a fact.  It should be presented as a view, not a fact.


 * Why is it soooo important to you to misrepresent htis view as a fact? I take no position on what is a fact.  I think all views belong in the article.  I am neutral.  But you really are a zealot.  Why? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein
 * It is important to represent modern scholarly views as "fact" because that is what encyclopedias do. If we have 70 or so modern scholars who have written on Yeshu (name) in the Talmud and 70 modern scholars conclude that Yeshu (name) is a reference to Christian traditions, that should represented as fact in the lede. That has nothing to do with being a "zealot" or the various other insults you substitute for a WP:source, that has to do with Wikipedia policy that only published views from reliable sources are notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In ictu oculi, I see your proposal as incompatible with WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg,
 * Well yes it would be if the way the Maier ref is slanted in the current article is correct, but it isn't correct as restoring the original full quote and context deleted by Slrubenstein will show. In any case, I have now demonstrated this on the article Johann Maier (talmudic scholar) which hopefully will not be attacked as Maier's refs have been on this one.
 * Re. "The article names people who have provided other views." - you know my view on this, that primary source medieval texts are not "views" for Wikipedia WP:source purposes and should not be part of the lede, but mentioned in body of article in secondarys sources as history. If my view of Wikipedia policy on this matter is incorrect, please redirect me to WP guideline.
 * Back to the article
 * we still have the problem that the article has a conflict:
 * (POV A) LEDE = Yeshu (name) is not a reference to Christianity.
 * (POV B) SOURCES = Jesus in the Talmud has no trace of the historical Jesus
 * As the article (in its reverted state) has text-miswrites misreprsenting Maier, John P. Meier, Klausner, Neusner (and 100% of modern tenured scholars) who present POV B in the footnote refs we have an additional clash between bits of the texts skewed to the same POV A in lede


 * We still have no single WP:source for the POV A lede sentence, which therefore I have removed under WP:source and replaced with a sentence compatible with the academic secular sources in the footnotes. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Where does the Lede say that the Yeshu "is not a reference to Christianity?"? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein
 * As I said, I will repeat myself:
 * It is important to represent modern scholarly views as "fact" because that is what encyclopedias do. If we have 70 or so modern scholars who have written on Yeshu (name) in the Talmud and 70 modern scholars conclude that Yeshu (name) is a reference to Christian traditions, that should represented as fact in the lede.
 * The current lede "Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) is an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature." is taking the "two Jesuses" explanation of Yechiel of Paris in the 1240 Disputation of Paris as a WP:POV and presenting it in the lede despite the fact that it has no modern scholarly WP:source support. So the lede is saying, per Yechiel of Paris, 1240 that Jesus in the Talmud is not a reference to Christianity. This is WP:fringe and should not be the opening lede sentence in an encyclopedia article. I will repeat myself again:
 * primary source medieval texts are not "views" for Wikipedia WP:source purposes and should not be part of the lede, but mentioned in body of article in secondarys sources as history.
 * In addition to restoring a view from a medieval disputation as the first sentence in the lede, in your bulk revert you destroyed 4k worth of supporting refs for modern academic views, and de-corrected misleading representation of Maier, Meier and other modern scholars.
 * I will now ask for the 22nd time: where is your modern scholarly source for the view that Jesus in the Talmud is not a reference to Christianity? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In ictu oculi, this is an article about Yeshu, not Jesus in the Talmud, which is a different (albeit obviously related) topic. We've already discussed the fact that individuals mentioned in the Talmud are simply individuals mentioned in the Talmud. I don't think your question is really that relevant; the lede currently makes it abundantly clear than many scholars identify Yeshu with Jesus. Jayjg (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg
 * Same again - why doesn't the article Abraham start: Avraham is an individual or individuals .... the only difference between Avraham/Hava/Hillel/Yeshu is that in the case of one of these names Yechiel of Paris said that Yeshu in San43a and 107b is not related to Jesus of Nazareth - which no scholar accepts, yet this article is skewed to presenting this view in the 1st line of lede. Why?
 * "the lede currently makes it abundantly clear than many scholars identify Yeshu with Jesus." --- Again ALL scholars, not "many" scholars. NO scholar takes the view of the lede that the Yeshu name refers to "individual or individuals" ... hence my asking 24x for an academic source for the lede. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed out below, 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 the identical stories about this individual, but uses 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg,
 * Sorry but what WP:source do you have for: >and of Yeshu from completely unrelated Hebrew/Aramaic sources< ALL academic sources from Maier and Neusner through to Peter Schafer agree that the name Yeshu in Rabbinical literature is not completely unrelated, no more than references to Isa in Islamic literature are completely unrelated to Christianit traditions.
 * Again this article's lede is POV contradicting the WP:sources. I have asked 25x for a single source saying that the name Yeshu in any Aramaic or Hebrew text is anything other than a reference to Christianity. I am still waiting. While I am waiting, you cannot say >and of Yeshu from completely unrelated Hebrew/Aramaic sources and of Yeshu (which is completely related) from contexts which Maier considers were orginally completely unrelated Hebrew/Aramaic sources< in which case fine, but then the lede still has to change to reflect modern scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Hebrew/Aramaic Tosefta and the Talmud are works that are not related to the Greek New Testament; they were composed by unrelated authors, writing in different languages, living at different times and in different places, practicing different religions, for different purposes etc. In addition, the lede is replete with "modern scholarship" on the subject. I don't think you are making your point clearly, because many of the things you are writing seem to me to be at odds with simple reality and logic, so I know I must still be misunderstanding you. Can you think of radically different ways of saying what you're trying to say, or making your point? Jayjg (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg
 * 1. Sure, the WP:sourced lede sentence I wrote which you deleted. the name Yeshu is a reference to Christian traditions
 * 2. "simple reality and logic" are unWP:sourced. While it may appear "simple reality and logic" to have an article saying "the name X refers to an individual or individuals" we don't normally start an article about a specific name that is only used to refer to 1 individual with such a lede-line. "the name Hava refers to an individual or individuals" for example, doesn't, since Hava only refers to one individual (at least without a surname). In this case Yeshu is even more narrow, since modern scholarship is unanimous that the name Yeshu in 100% of cases refers to Christian traditions. Please do not unilaterally amend the lede to reflect "simple reality and logic" if it is unWP:sourced.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need to try different words to make your points, because in your effort to avoid the fact that the Talmud is actually telling stories about an individual (or individuals), you've really painted yourself into a corner with that "refers to Christian traditions" phrase. Should Yeshu, then, simply be a redirect to Christian tradition? Clearly not, since Yeshu isn't actually a "Christian tradition"; rather, it's the name give of an individual (or individuals) who is often associated with Jesus. By the way the Rabsaris article starts "Rabsaris... is the name or title of two individuals mentioned in the Bible." Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg
 * Please believe me that I'm doing my best to chose my words as carefully and distinctly as possible. The choice of the wording "Yeshu is a reference to [Christian traditions about] Jesus" is a necessity since if I say "Yeshu is a reference to Jesus" it may be misread as "Yeshu is a reference to the historical Jesus". It isn't my terminology it's there in Klausner, Meier etc to prevent people misunderstanding. Rabsaris is a title, so that's not really comparable, but yes there are 2 Rabsaris in the HebBib. Just as there are 3 Herods in the NT. 20 Iesous in Josephus and so on. 198,234,200 men called Fred. But there is only one Yeshu in all of Aramaic and Hebrew literature. All uses of the spelling Yeshu (as opposed to Yeshua ben Sira etc) are always, without exception references to Jesus of Nazareth. As all the WP:RS sources after 1900 in the article agree. Plus we now have 1 source Nosson Dovid Rabinowich who may disagree. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And no Yeshu should not be a redirect to e.g. Jewish name for Christian traditions about Jesus because, at least in the opinion of Berger 1998, from Leon Modena onwards there is also an approach to the historical Jesus under the Yeshu (name). Certainly Klausner 1925 Yeshu ha Notzri includes both the Jesus of Christian traditions and the historical Jesus. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS > rather, it's the name give of an individual (or individuals) < if one is threatened with death in 1240 Paris, yes. But if one is a Wikipedia editor in 2011, no. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you're trying to choose your words carefully, I just think you shouldn't get so stuck on particular phrases, particularly when they themselves are confusing (or at least confuse me). I don't think, for example, Roger T. Bekwith is "being threatened with death in 1240 Paris", yet in his Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian (Brill Academic Publishers, 2005, p. 294) he states 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. In Jermias's view (The Eucharistic Words, p. 19) it refers to the Yeshu who was a disciple of Rabbi Joshua ben Perahiah (c. 100 B.C.) and who fled from his master to Alexandria from the persecution of Alexander Jannaeus..." Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg
 * Thank you. This could be the WP:RS that everyone has been waiting for to justify the POV in the lede first sentence. If Joachim Jeremias considers that the name Yeshu refers to a different Yehoshua, then we have our lede sentence, we can say that at least "some scholars", ie. one, consider that Yeshu can be a reference to someone else called Yeshu. Now we need to verify this. Then we can focus the article on his view. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Theissen on Maier and Klausner
In icto wrote "Theissen indicates that Yeshu in Sanhedrin etc is a reference to the Christian Jesus" and I asked where Theissen says this. It has now been over a day and he has still not provided a page number or quote. So this means he has withdrawn the claim. Now that he has withdrawn the claim, I think we can agree that major scholars are diverse enough in their views, that we can move one from this argument about the lead. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein,
 * Have you seen a physical copy of Theissen and Merz' Historical Jesus textbook, yes or no?


 * The page numbers, German p83-84, English p75-76, were among the scholarly WP:sources you deleted, and the quote of Maier in Theisen p83 continues as Reaktion to Christian Provokation is in Talk above. If you had looked at either the German or English edition of what is merely a chapter in a school textbook on historical Jesus sources you would see that Sanh43a is being dealt with, after Josephus, exactly because the name Jesus is a reference to Jesus. The whole point of Theissen's "historical Jesus" textbook is to examine passages with the name Jesus, as a reference to the historical Jesus. Theissen does not even give mention space to the Yehiel of Paris/Slrubenstein theory that there were two Jesuses. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have the book in front of me. Please stop misquoting it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein
 * I asked Have you seen a physical copy of Theissen and Merz' Historical Jesus textbook, yes or no? Please answer the question - Have you seen a physical copy of Theissen and Merz' Historical Jesus textbook, yes or no?
 * Yes
 * Who is Yehiel of Paris? Where do I say there are two Jesuses? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein
 * Yechiel of Paris in 1240 was the first to claim (as per the lede sentence "individual") that the Jesus in the Talmud is a different Jesus, that the Jesus in the Talmud was not Jesus of Nazareth, that there were two or more Jesuses. cf. Jewish history and Jewish memory: essays in honor of Yosef Hayim 1998. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where do I say there are "two Jesuses?" Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein
 * You said earlier that the Jesus in the Talmud is not a reference to Jesus of Nazareth. = 2 Jesuses. But by all means clarify.
 * Do you consider that the Jesus in the Talmud is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth, yes/no?. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Jesus is not an Aramaic word. The Talmud is written in Aramaic.  When you refer to the Talmud, tell me what Aramaic word you refer to, please.  I am a scholar and scholars cannot work unless the terms are as precise as possible.  Please be precise. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You write, "You said earlier that Jesus in the Talmud is not a reference to Jesus of Nazareth." I do not recall ever saying this. Please remind me where I wrote this. Please do try to top fabricating claims. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Slrubenstein
 * Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth?
 * yes/no? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Inu ict oculi:
 * Do you believe that texts can mean only one of two things? Do you believe that hermeneutic questions have yes/no answers?  have you ever read the work of Gadamer? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Slrubenstein
 * You are not a text, you are a Wikipedia editor, you should be able to say what Slrubenstein thinks. In view of your deletion of academic sources and your statements on what "many Orthodox Jews" (unsourced) believe, it is reasonable to ask a straight question and get a straight answer.
 * For the record, my answer, based on Maier, Meier, Klausner, Neusner and every other academic source I have ever seen is yes and I know of no academic source which says no.
 * So please answer the question:
 * Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth?
 * yes/no? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

NOR policy states: "The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles." We are not allowed to put our own views into articles. Therefore, our own views are irrelevant. Why do you want to know what I think? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein
 * NOR policy above means you can't edit your POV into articles, not that I can't ask you in Talk what your POV is.
 * Why would I want to know what you think? Six reasons:
 * 1. You've been asking my views, and I've been honest and open.
 * 2. You justified your edits thrice with "many Orthodox Jews believe" "Jewish authorities" and so on, leading me to understand that "many Orthodox Jews believe" "Jewish authorities" was your starting point.
 * 3. Because you have provided no source for "many Orthodox Jews believe"
 * 4. Because you have been deleting academic references and provided none of your own.
 * 5. Because it would help to know what you think to understand your opposition to edits opposing the consensus view of all modern scholars that the name Yeshu in the late BTal mss refers to Christianity.
 * 6. Because after 24x requests for a source it is time to ask if the source for your edits is your own POV.
 * Dear Slrubenstein
 * Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth?
 * yes/no?In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Inu ictu: once again you are fabricating lies. You write, "You've been asking my views, and I've been honest and open." Please show me where I have ever asked for your views? Please provide a time code or im possible an edit difference. I do not care what your views are. NOR policy says our views do not go into articles. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Slrubenstein
 * e.g. "By the way, do you consider the views of contemporary Orthodox Jews concerning the Talmud and other Rabbinic texts mainstream or fringe?" ... "If you reject Nahmanides as a significant view concerning Yeshu, you are actually rejecting the view of many Jews." etc.
 * This (plus the reasons I gave above) makes it reasonable to ask for your view.
 * I've been answering your questions, now please
 * EITHER
 * Now 25th time - provide a WP:source
 * OR
 * Explain yourself: Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth? yes/no?''' In ictu oculi (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In icto oculi, try opening your eyes and reading clearly. NOR states that our views on the topic are not relevant to the article, and I have NEVER asked your view on what you believe about "Yeshu." Never. That is the question you are asking ME< and when I ask you when have I ever asked you your views, I am actually following the line of the conversation, which is, asked you for your views on Yeshu, the question you are asking me, which I think violates NOR. Now, you bring us an example that does not answer my question. Of course I asked you whether you think Orthodox views are fringe! The purpose of this page is to discus improvement so the article. A major way to improve the article is to add significant views from verifiable sources (not our own views, significant views). I asked you if you consier Orthodox views fringe. This is perfectly in keeping with our policies for improving articles, we ought to be discussing what views are fringe and what views are mainstream.

That question is valid for this talk page because it can help us improve the article.

It is the purpose of this page to discuss what views are or are not fringe/significant; what sources are reliable; how best to organize the article. I have been very open about my views on these.

YOU are asking me whether I think Yeshu refers to the Christian Jesus. Since we cannot add our views to the article I fail to see how this information can help us improve the artical.

I ask you again: when have I ever asked you what your views are? Obviously, NOT views on how to improve the article. I mean the views you are asking me. You are asking me if I think Yeshu refers to Jesus or not. Now I ask you AGAIN: When have I ever asked you for your views on "Yeshu?" Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein
 * You have not asked for my views on the name Yeshu you asked > "By the way, do you consider the views of contemporary Orthodox Jews concerning the Talmud and other Rabbinic texts mainstream or fringe?" ... "If you reject Nahmanides as a significant view concerning Yeshu, you are actually rejecting the view of many Jews.".< unquote.
 * You do not have to answer on your view. But you do have to justify your edits and deletions with WP:sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not mind telling you my views on anything. But the only questions I ever asked you related to specific ways to improve the articles, specifically, which views are significant. Now you ask me a question that seems to go against policy, viz. what is my view. I want to know why you are asking me a question that has nothing to do with improving the article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Slrubenstein. I wanted to know because I was seeking to understand why you had made somewhere between 15 to 20 deletes and edits removing sources, reversing text, etc. all in one direction - away from the unanimous academic view that the name Yeshu is a reference to Christianity, towards the view that it is not. If I could understand why you are deleting sources, then that might, eventually, help improve the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it has nothing to do with my personal beliefs about the meaning of Yeshu. I am not like you, I do not go on rampages making sure my personal point of view is presented as facts in WP articles.  In fact, I try to edit articles where I can bracket my personal views.  You want to know why I made these deletions?  Because I know that a view developed in Judaism that Yeshu does not refer to Jesus; being in the Talmud folio itself, it is in a RS, and it is a significant view.  So the question of what Yeshu refers to is a matter of interpretation.  Theissen and Mertz make this clear and it bothers me when someone quotes some lines from their book of context.  Scholarly views need to be presented accurately.  In this case, that means presenting the view that Yeshu = Jesus must b presented as a view.  This is the explanation.  I have reflected on the possibility that I am biased by I concluded that my own views about what Yeshu mean, in my opinion, have not infuenced my editsSlrubenstein   |  Talk 09:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein
 * >I know that a view developed in Judaism that Yeshu does not refer to Jesus; being in the Talmud folio itself, it is in a RS <
 * Please see
 * The Talmud, Bible, Quran are not RS. Neusner, Maier, Meier, Herford, Horbury, Seltzer, Schafer, Steinsaltz, Theissen, Klausner, Hoffmann, Evans, Nickesburg, Charlesworth, Berger, etc. are WP:RS.
 * My whole position is premised on the view that the Talmud does not "speak for itself." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you misread my, I wrote "Talmud folio" not "Talmud." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Slrubenstein, a Talmud folio, Catholic communion instruction class notes, Quranic commentary from an unnamed Imam, mp3 of a Southern Baptist radio show, notes from a modern Hindu guru, whatever, these are all either primary sources or sources descriptive of a particularly religion. Wikipedia is not a religious blog, it is a secular encyclopedia, deferring to academic sources and encyclopedic content must be verifiable. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Maier on the name Yeshu
In ictu Oculi wrote, "The whole point of Maier's work, as illustrated in the quote from Theissen above, was to argue that the Yeshu passages were late Reaktion to Christian Provokationen" According to Theissen, Maier is not referring to the passage itself. I have asked In ictu to provide substantiation for his claim that Maier is referring to the passage. So far he has not so I interpret this to mean that he withdraws his claim about Maier. I am glad that we can put this behind us. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein,


 * Just read that - and then answer this:
 * Does Maier indicate that the name Jesus refers to Christianity or not? yes/no?
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You have provided a qote about the name but not about the passage. Where does Maier say that "the Yshu passage" is a reaction to Christianity? This is only about the name. So you don't have any evidence? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein
 * Article Yeshu is about the name Yeshu.
 * Article Jesus in the Talmud is about Jesus in the Talmud.
 * This is Talk:Yeshu. So please answer the question:
 * Does Maier indicate that the name Jesus refers to Christianity or not?
 * yes/no? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In ict
 * Article Yeshu is about a genre of Rabbinic stories involving a figure referd to as Yeshu
 * Article Jesus in the Talmud is a POV fork
 * This is the talk page for Yeshu and is meant for discussing improvements to the article.
 * I repeat my question, Where does Maier say that "the Yeshu passage" is a reaction to Christianity?  I am quoting you, you made the claim, I want to see you substantiate it - your repeated refusal means that you cannot. I trust that you hav withdrawn the claim. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein
 * Maier says that the Name Jesus was inserted into Talmud as a reaction on p83 in the German edition of Theissen, in the quote already given above which refers to pp219-237 of Maier's German edition.
 * Now,
 * I am going to ask you for the 24th time - please provide one scholarly secular reference that the name Yeshu in any Aramaic or Hebrew text is not related to Christianity. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are saying his claim is about the name? So you are now saying that he was not referring to the passage?  So you now admit that Maie is not talking about the passage?  Finally? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Slrubenstein
 * Yes, I have always said Maier is talking about the name in some mss of San43a and 107b.
 * No, Maier is talking about the passages.
 * As above I have always said that Maier says that the Name Jesus was inserted into the Talmud as a reaction on p83 in the German edition of Theissen, in the quote already given above which refers to pp219-237 of Maier's German edition.
 * Did you see this question
 * Does Maier indicate that the name Jesus refers to Christianity or not?
 * yes/no? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now,
 * I am going to ask you for the 25th time - please provide one scholarly secular reference that the name Yeshu in any Aramaic or Hebrew text is not related to Christianity. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I corrected you a long time ago and I told you that Maier is refering to the word Yshu, claiming it is a name for Jesus (it is silly to "argue" that a name = a name; the whole point of interpretation is to take a text and suggest what it actually means). But don't lie about having "always" said maier is talking about the name, here you clearly say he is talking about the passage.  Fortunately for you I have corrected you. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Slrubenstein
 * Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth?
 * yes/no? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear In ictu oculi
 * Do you now agree with me that when invoking Jesus Maier is referring only to the word "Yeshu" and not to the passage?
 * yes/no Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Slrubenstein
 * No.
 * Repeat:
 * No. I do not agree with you that Maier is referring only to the word "Yeshu" and not to the passage. Maier refers to both:
 * When he refers to passages San43a San107b he is referring to the passages (and his conclusion is that they were not originally references to Jesus in the Talmud.
 * However when he refers to the name Yeshu, he is referring to the name and concludes it was not part of the original texts.
 * So again, please have the civility to answer the question. Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth?
 * yes/no? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So, now you write, when he refers to passages San43a San107b he is referring to the passages (and his conclusion is that they were not originally references to Jesus.

So, I repeat my question: Do you now agree with me that when invoking Jesus Maier is referring only to the word "Yeshu" and not to the passage? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Slrubenstein
 * As before No. as above. Though my main impression here is that you haven't been reading before pressing reply. It's a characterstic of Talk-ers on Wikipedia who don't provide references of their own but simply revert and argue that someone should say "So, now you write," as if you having realised what I've been saying for the last 2 weeks is somehow a change. Let me repeat again: when Maier refers to passages San43a San107b he is referring to the passages (and his conclusion is that they were not originally references to Jesus, as I have said before repeatedly, AND when Maier refers to the name Yeshu, he is referring to the name and concludes (i) it relates to Jesus, but (ii) it was not part of the original texts.
 * So now,
 * please have the civility to answer the question.
 * Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth? yes/no?
 * Or alternatively, provide a WP:source. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"when Maier refers to the name Yeshu, he is referring to the name" = "when invoking Jesus Maier is referring only to the word "Yeshu" and not to the passage." So you do agree with me. Finally! Thank you very much. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein
 * If you are satisfied that my comment "when Maier refers to the name Yeshu, he is referring to the name" = your comment "when invoking Jesus Maier is referring only to the word "Yeshu" and not to the passage." then we agree. I will now revert the article to reflect our consensus that the name Yeshu is a reference to Christianity. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In ictu oculi, I don't think this is fair. It's pretty obvious that Slrubenstein is asserting that you are agreeing with him, not the opposite. Changing the lede wording, when I've asked you not to until we work this out, and in particular when all know that neither Slrubenstein nor I have agreed to the change, is not reasonable. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Jayjg,
 * If Slrubenstein needs to believe "I" am agreeing with "him" fine, the more important point is that we have agreed.
 * >when I've asked you not to until we work this out, and in particular when all know that neither Slrubenstein nor I have agreed to the change, is not reasonable.<
 * There comes a point when both your good self or Slrubenstein need to accept what the sources in the article say. Maier has been made the pivot of this Talk, because (a) he was misrepresented by an earlier editor, (b) he I suppose represents the no-Jesus-in-the-original-Talmud view most convincingly in modern scholarship.
 * I have provided sources, some have been deleted, but we now have agreement that Maier says that the name Yeshu is a late addition, a reaction to Christianity.
 * I must press you for a source if you intend to remove the academic view from the lede line of article and replace it with an unsourced view. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You and Slrubenstein didn't "agree" at all, as you well know, and certainly not to change the lede in the way you did. I understand you're frustrated, I think we all are, but I am disappointed now too. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg,
 * Slrubenstein says we agreed on Maier. Since Maier was the disputed source, that should have allowed Maier's view that the name Yeshu is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth go into the lede.
 * Yes I am frustrated, but to be honest more with your good self than with Slrubenstein. It became fairly obvious after the 3rd or 4th delete/revert that Slrubenstein will not accept a lede sentence of the article, nor refs, which present the academic consensus that Yeshu is always a reference to the Christian figure. But you are an admin, you should not as an admin be participating in deleting academic references when no alternative view has been sourced, or editing into the lede sentence an unsourced view. Even at this point, we still don't know for a fact that Nosson Dovid Rabinowich is a WP:RS for the modern continuance of Nahmanides' view, though I think Avi is right that he will be. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein is also an administrator, and possibly one for even longer than me. Anyway, I'm sure it won't happen again, so let's talk about content instead, and let's try to consolidate discussion into fewer sections, to avoid repetition. Did you see my comments above regarding Beckwith and Jeremias? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes let's talk about content. I've just seen them as you've just added them. Or rather him, since the source is Jeremias and Beckwith is based on this. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Lighter note
Even The Daily Mail understands WP:NPOV, with its use of "many". Now they just need to learn WP:V and they'll be doing just dandy. Are hacked voicemails "reliable"? --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Views, sources for article
By the way, do you consider the views of contemporary Orthodox Jews concerning the Talmud and other Rabbinic texts mainstream or fringe? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If a modern author has published according to WP:source criteria with an ISBN, date, and page number saying for example "the Yeshu references in the Talmud have no reference whatsoever to the Jesus of Christianity" then whether he is tenured academic, an orthodox rabbi or a reform rabbi, or anyone else would not make any difference to the availablity of a modern secondary source. At this point I have no objection to you providing a published modern WP:source for this view from anyone. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is that many Orthodox Jews consider texts written in the Middle Ages authoritative. That is, a text written by Nachmanides does not merely represent his own views, articulated in a particular place and time. They are views that are considered to have some current authority by many Jews. If you reject Nahmanides as a significant view concerning Yeshu, you are actually rejecting the view of many Jews. You keep insisting on "modern sources" when the real issue is not a difference between modern and medieval views. The issue is the difference between traditional Jewish views, traditional Christian views, and the views of critical (untraditional) scholars. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Slrubenstein, modern WP:sources are the basis of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Otherwise the Christianity articles would all just contain the opinions of Augustine and Luther - even though Augustine and Luther are authoritative to many Catholics and Lutherans. But if you have a source that says "many Orthodox Jews consider texts written in the Middle Ages authoritative and therefore accept that the Yeshu references in the Talmud have no reference whatsoever to the Jesus of Christianity." then by all means include it. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. Orthodox Jewish men read the Talmud every Sabbath. Do Catholics read St. Augustine every Sunday? The Talmud is not a modern source if you are asking when it was composed. But it is a modern source if you are talking about when it is used. We are not talking about an esoteric source here - we are talking about something all observant Jews refer to regularly. When they get to the passages on Yeshu, most Jews do not interpret these passages as being about Jesus. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Many Orthodox Jewish men learn Talmud every single day - see Daf Yomi. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, Jayjg.
 * Whether Orthodox Jewish men read the Talmud every Sabbath and Catholics every Sunday is beside the point, the point is that neither is a modern scholarly WP:source for Wikipedia. Currently the lede is POV reflecting Yehiel of Paris rather than modern sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where in the lead does it say that Yehiel is right? You are fabricating lies again. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What Slrubenstein means is that the lede doesn't "reflect the POV of Yeheil of Paris rather than modern sources", so using that kind of rhetoric isn't helpful. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg,
 * It is not "rhetoric" it is a fact sourced and documented in the article. The view of the lede, that "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" is first documented with Yechiel of Paris. Although Slrubenstein in mentioning that "a text written by Nachmanides does not merely represent his own views, articulated in a particular place and time," may have (I don't know) intend to say that the view is not just Yechiel's but also Nachmanides (which may be correct), none of this is relevant for a Wikipedia article. Whether it is Yechiel's view (which it is according to sources in the article) or Nachmanides, these are primary sources, medieval texts, and should not be the basis of the lede. WP:source indicates that content must be from modern reliable secondary sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, is your objection here specifically to the words "or individuals"? Is this what you have been trying to say is "first documented with Yechiel of Paris"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jayjg,
 * Well my primary objection is to failure to follow WP:RS.
 * However yes the plural "or individuals" is particularly egregious since it can only be informed directly or indirectly, by the "theory of the two Jesuses" (Berger 1998) originated by Yechiel of Paris in 1240, possibly (?) followed by Nachmanides at the Disputation of Barcelona, and developed in its most mature form by Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillas in the 14thC. (and yes possibly still supported in 1984 by Nosson Dovid Rabinowich, maybe.
 * It would still be ridiculous to start the article with "Hava is an individual in Bereshith," but slightly less ridiculous than "Hava is an individual or individuals in Bereshith" In ictu oculi (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean about using different words; it would have been much more clear from the start if you had been specific that by "Yechiel's view" you were referring to the idea that Yeshu might be more than one individual. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg,
 * Well I apologise if my first statement "It is not "rhetoric" it is a fact sourced and documented in the article. The view of the lede, that "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" is first documented with Yechiel of Paris. wasn't clear that the view of the lede, that "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" is first documented with Yechiel of Paris. But it is clear now. So why is a 13thC view which all WP:RS in the article reject being represented as fact in the lede sentence of a Wikipedia article? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because that's not what the lede does, and it's not just Yehiel who holds this view. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction
I see there are contradictory references to the opinion of Rav Steinzalts (Even-Yisrael) in two sections. Also ,would there be any objects to my adding the opinion of J. D. Eisenstein in Otzar Vikuchim? (I presume a lot of the contradiction is because of ambivalence; whether and when Jesus existed does not particularly affect Judaism, which tends to be more concerned with what he was not than with what he was.)Mzk1 (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Mzk1, no objection from me, Julius Eisenstein's Treasury of Debates is a WP:RS, but references should quote in the ref enough of the Hebrew text that we can distinguish what is simply (a) primary source of a 1922 author recording a 13thC debate or (b) secondary source where Eisenstein is saying "and in my scholarly opinion the medieval debater's analysis was correct." In ictu oculi (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)