Talk:Jesus/Archive 105

Archive 100

←

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

→

Archive 110

Genealogy "reloaded"

Jesus was a Galilean Jew is in itself a contradiction. Jesus "rightful" father is not Joseph, he was only raising him. So even though Joseph was a faithful and decent Jew, and we know that he is an offspring of David, he is not his father. Looking on the side of mother, we know Virgin Mary was a Galilean. According to In Isaiah (8:23), Galilee is referred to as גְּלִיל - הַגּוׁיִם; lit:G’lîl Haggôyim, which could be intrepeted (correct me if I am wrong) the land of goys. In this case we should check the ethnicity of Virgin Mary, who herself was a goy. Jesus can be anything, we cannot firmly state his ethnicity. Abdulka (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

First, you are misquoting the article. The article does not make a claim about Jesus' identity, it makes a claim about what most scholars believe: "Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew." This is true: most scholars do agree he was a Galileean Jew. If you have reliable sources that claim that most scholars today do not believe this, provide your source. Second, Isaiah was writing after King Solomon presented King Hiram of Phoenicia with a gift of land in what is now called the Galilee. Even at the time of the Macabbean revolt, many non-Jews lived in the Galilee. However, after the Macabeean revolt - i.e. before Jesus was born - many Jews moved into the Galilee (this is long after Isaiah wrote). Finally, your translation is wrong. "Goy" means nation and can be applied to nations other than Israel (as in Genesis 10:5) but it can also be applied to the Israelite nation (as in Genesis 12:2). There is no evidence that Mary was a non-Israelite, according to Luke 1:26 she was related to Elizabeth, a descendent of Aaron. jesus made chocolate. He was well pleased. No one could beat this creation even if they tried. HA CEASER! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Place of birth

The template shows up Bethlehem, a small city in the continent of Asia at the time as his traditional birth place, fine. But then it states Bethlehem was part of Judaea. This cannot be, since Judaea was officially made a roman province later (in 6 CE), so it didn't exist as a political state at the time Jesus was born. I am not sure if the province Syria stretched farer before, or if it was a region not occupied by romans at the time Jesus was born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.58.54.190 (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the status of Judea was for the Romans of the time, for Jews it was a clearly identified territory. It was when the Romans occupied it about fifty years earlier, and Jews clearly considered it to be a meaningful way to identify where they came from and of course who they were as the word Jew derived from Judea (and came to signify an ethnic identity between the time of the Hasmonean and Herodian dynasties). Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea were a Roman ethnarchy governed by Herod Archelaus from 4 BCE to 6 CE. Before 4 BCE is was ruled by Herod the Great who was appointed King of the Jews by the Roman Senate. 75.15.195.168 (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Which religions?

The lead says: "several other religions also consider him an important figure". Which religions, besides Islam and Christianity, consider Jesus to be important? One is probably Bahaism. I think it may be only few, and thus it is better to specify the religions.Bless sins (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the word important varies. Some Buddhists view Jesus as a Bodhisattva, some Hindus venerate him as a manifestation of Brahman. In short, there are many other religions who do not claim to hold objective views of Jesus. So it would be too tiresome to list all religions, and it would not be appropriate considering how they view him (it varies considerably) so I guess listing Christianity and Islam is best since they are the most notable ones that hold Jesus in high regard.Tourskin (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

was jesus ever bar miztvahed?

was jesus ever bar miztvahed? 71.224.194.97 (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing it with jerk remarks isn't the same as an actual answer; the article says nothing on the topic. Would the next editor to respond please provide some actual information on the topic or its' exclusion? thanks. 71.224.194.97 (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is little known about the childhood of Jesus. I have never read a scholar who proposed this. What we know is the Jesus was a Jew whose earthly parents were observant Jews. I suppose you can hypothesize from there, but we don't have evidence of such. Does this make sense? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, it is very likely that Jesus went through any and all Jewish Initiation ceremonies that existed during his childhood, however there is no evidence to back this up, thus we can't really comment on it without it becomming speculation and Original Research. Gavin Scott (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are those who say Luke 2:41-52 is about Jesus' Bar Mitzvah, and others who disagree. Finding in the Temple does point out that Bar Mitzvah per se is a later tradition in Judaism. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

May I remind users not to respond to anonymous and rude editors on discussion pages. User 71, do not call me a jerk, my comments were not of a jerk nature. If you wish to use wikipedia, use it with the rules. As for other editors responding, by answering this user you have endorsed their rude comments and allowed yet another inappropriate discussion. This page is not for asking questions, but for discussing how to improve the article. Tourskin (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your action was indeed of a jerk nature. It's a fair question, which you provided what was possibly an incorrect answer, and certainly not a helpful one; and is quite certainly a case of newbie biting. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I could've been longer in my question the first time, but I really meant 'why isn't there anything about his barmitzavah (or non-bar mitzvah) in the article, and did he have one to write about?'. Sorry I didn't say that in a long enough way for Tourskin. thank you jpgordon for helping out. Now I know WHY it's not in there. Having read the comments and the links ,there really wasn't such a 'ceremony' till later and just a social convention of recognition back then. Now I know. (And knowing is half the battle.) 71.224.194.97 (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only is very little known about Jesus' childhood, there is also very little known about Bar Mitzwah in those days. And neither can we say what these supposed "all Jewish Initiation ceremonies" would be - don't transplant back the norms of post 2nd century Rabbinical Judaism when the Pharisees weren't the obliging norm. What does Jesus' "earthly parents were observant Jews" mean anyway? Hence Gavin is correct: we should remain silent on the matter. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not have a ready reference to prove that this practice was not done at the time of Christ; I took the shorter route for me and stated there is little known of Jesus' childhood and even less of his teen years. My comment that about Joseph and Mary being observant Jews is a simple, straight-forward statement that is historically accurate; they observed Jewish holidays and were "active". It was a tip of my hat to my ignorance; if by chance they celebrated this during the time of Christ, one could assume that Mary and Joseph may have done so. I qualified the statement that readers could hypothesize about the possibility.

The best answer is that Jews did not practice/celebrate bat/bar mitzvahs at this time. Str, you are being abnormally...tense lately. Hope all is well with you. It is acceptable to hypothesize about things, but it is not appropriate to "teach" such hypothesize as facts. Do you think I was off base? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Storm, I have absolutely no complaint against you. What you said was correct, only I was a bit worried about what you, obviously well-meaning, left out. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make another comment here in reference to Tourskin's revert and later comment. Often pages like this will attract abuse and/or comments which are totally without place on a discussion page, however we must also adhere to the principle of Good Faith and thus assume that the original (in this case anonymous) user intended to make a constructive contribution. Therefore we should try and be accommodating and answer any statement posted (that is not outright and blatant vandalism) as if it was an inquiry related to the article. (As Stormrider did) On the point of this thread. We can assume Jesus went through whatever the relative initiation rites were- but the fact is we don't know, also is it really notable? Not really- both these factors (no credible source and no notability) mean we should indeed stay silent on the issue. However, if Jesus did not go through the normal initiation ceremonies that all other Jews did at the time then that would perhaps be notable! Alas there is no information to suggest that is the case. Therefore, to sum all that I said up...we just shouldn't mention it. Gavin Scott (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "comparison" :
  • .
  • For a general comparison of Jesus' teachings to other schools of first century Judaism, see [[John P. Meier]], ''Companions and Competitors (A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume 3)'' Anchor Bible, 2001. ISBN 0–385–46993–4.

DumZiBoT (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus and the lost tomb

Do you know if Jesus married and died like others ? "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" James Cameron presents this movie, with Simcha Jocobovici. in 1980. a bulldozer accidentally uncovered, a first-century tomb in Jerusalem. Of the ten ossuaries (stone coffins) found inside, six bore inscriptions: Jesus son of Joseph. Maria, Mariamne (the name which Mary Magdalene was known). Joseph, Matthew, and Judah son of Jesus. Dismissed by archaelogists as coincidence, the ossuaries were warehoused and forgotten. Twenty-five years later, film maker Simcha Jocobovinci and his team went in search the ossuaries and the lost tomb. i think this is very controversial movie, we must gathering the evident and take their action as science. http://www.bigcity-thinkcorner.blogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuspatty (talk • contribs) 04:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the findings of the Documentary are largely, inconclusive and as such they do not really change the historical view on the life of Jesus. However, there is I believe somewhere, a mention of this in the article but no more than what it is warranted. Gavin Scott (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Some believe that Jesus was of middle eastern ethnicity, and not a caucasian

Should a section be added regarding this relatively recent controversey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.65.243 (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You can be a Middle Eastern and a Caucasian, and Jesus is known to be a Jew. Furthermore, Caucasian means nothing these days , as if there was one race of white people from the Caucasus mountains or something? Therefore your post is, with all due respect, without any meaningful language. Tourskin (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There's not much controversy here. Despite the way he is frequently portrayed in European artwork, as I understand it there is practically no scientific support for the idea that Jesus was white. Looking across the world, we can see that Jesus is portrayed by most cultures in a way which is socially acceptable to them. Early Catholic missionaries to the new world brought with them a darker-skinned portrayal of Mary in order to better reach out to native populations. German artwork frequently portrays a pale, blue-eyed, blond Jesus. There is nothing to say that these artistic renderings are by any means accurate. In any case, do you have any sources about a mainstream controversy? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

All this is discussed in the Race of Jesus article. Whether or not people from the middle east are "white" or "not white" is pretty much unanswerable, because there is no agreed critera for whiteness. Also, since Jesus' birth is supposed by most Christians to have been a miracle operating terms beyond human biology, normal ideas of "race" would be inapplicable anyway, since God has no racial identity. Paul B (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's reading too much into Christian thought. Jesus' Christ came from God, but then why does that mean that he should be different in the physical characteristics of his mother's race? The Catholic Church (one of many churches but still the most well known one) says nothing that I know of concerning what Jesus' biological composition is - and the reason why is because it doesn't matter what race he is. Tourskin (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, early theologians argued precisely that Jesus's appearence was linked to either prophetic prediction (Justin) or to the symbolisation of his divine role (Augustine). The supposed divine nature of his birth simply means that if one accepts the Nicine creed normal speculation about what a person would naturally have looked like ceases to be meaningful. Paul B (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your words are baffling to me, so pardon my ignorance. All I understood was that you were talking about early theologians and predictions regarding Jesus. Well, these predictions speak of what Jesus does, not what he looks like physically but spiritually. Tourskin (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about what Christian theologians said when they discussed his appearence. Anyway, this is rambling rather offtopic now. Paul B (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

wordTourskin (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the only people who list Jewish as "non-Caucasian" are white supremacists, and they are hardly mainstream. This is a non-issue.Tim (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If Jews are Caucasian, are Arabs? Piːtru Farrutʃ (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess GOD sent a pale person into the middle of desert people because he/she (GOD) thought it would be good to give us things to argue about 2000 years later, we should not judge his/her judgement, just fight about it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.108.59 (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

While there is no specific description of Jesus there are descriptions that give us an idea of his appearance. He is described as looking so much like everyone else that he could not be picked out in a group by someone who only had his description. This tells us he was definately not pale. Wayne (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Either that, or God struck the Romans with blindness so that Jesus could be properly betrayed to make the prophecy work out... Seriously, as others have pointed out, there is no serious doubt that Jesus (or whoever became the core of the myths) was a typical Levantian (i.e. about as "white" or "caucasian" as Steve Jobs). And yes, the Caucasus is in the middle east, of course ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I went to a small open meeting about the appearance of Jesus and what is actually known about his looks. There is some written material on his looks. I can't remember what scripture or texts these are. But they mention Jesus being short, having black curly hair and being somewhat "ugly". Looking like a working man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.52.153 (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think some people are missing the simple facts... How could Jesus possibly be Caucasian if he was a Galilean Jew born in the Middle East. Jews Emerged from Ethiopia, to Egypt to Israel -- Africa (Blacks) to Egypt (Black & Mixed Middle Easter, to Israel (Mixed). Essentially Jesus is described as having wool like hair.

He clearly must have looked Middle Eastern Indigenous – I.E. NOT Caucasian. But mixed as most modern day Middle Eastern & North African People look.

I’m not sure where there could be an issue unless the question is motivated by people hoping and praying that Jesus looked European or equally, people who have been brainwashed by Roman Catholic propaganda to believe Jesus what white.

Also… the advent of white Jews is a result of Jewish Migration, Intermarrying and Europeanization. Jews 2000 yeas ago were not Caucasian.JusticeBlack (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A vision of "the Son of Man" in the Book of Revelation is described as having hair as white as wool. That's it. This whole topic can be discussed at Race of Jesus. It is offtopic here since the article does not speculate on this subject. Speculation about the history of Semitic peoples should go in relevant topics (eg Pre-history of the Southern Levant). Paul B (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Mispelled cat at the bottom of this talk page

The "A-class Christianity article" is spelled incorrectly and is thus a redlink, but I don't know which template it's being transcluded from. Could someone tell me what's transcluding it so that I can fix it? It's driving me nuts. bibliomaniac15 03:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Harmony

Instead of "The genealogies cannot be harmonized", it should be The genealogies cannot be construed together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy K DJ (talk • contribs) 10:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dating system

I think it looks clumsy, and is unnecessary, to put AD/CE and BC/BCE everywhere. And putting AD after the year is technically wrong since it stands for "In the Year of Our Lord" in Latin--so you could argue using AD implies belief in Jesus being "Our Lord".

There should be a decision on which convention to use, and it should be use consistently in the article. Either the CE/BCE system because it is not Christian-centric, or the BC/AD system because it is most well-known. Whichever we use we can provide links, eg CE anyway. Kingal86 (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This conversation has been done to death with people such as yourself who are too intolerant to accept the AD/BC system also bringing up such pointless arguments. It has, after many, many debates been decided by consensus to use both systems. Besides, if you don't use AD/BC, but use only BCE/CE, then you are making the assumption that Jesus Christ is not our lord - which is the same Violation of a Neutral Point of View as saying he is our Lord. So we include both to satisfy both ends. You can't have your non-Christ way and I can't have my Christ way but we can together have a middle ground which is what countless debating and consensus has achieved before you. Why should we choose non-Christianity over Christianity? They are both belief systems, and neither can be proven scientifically Tourskin (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree that use of CE/BCE actively implies disbelief in the divinity of Jesus, I do think the argument is a moot point since AD/BC is in widespread use by people who do not believe in its literal implications. However, just as Wikipedia's policy encourages consistency within articles over national spelling differences, I think it would be quite nice if usage within an individual article or section did not alternate between the two. Robin S (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Cause of death: Crucifixion? Wait, int Jesus like, still alive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.112.14 (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

AD/BC and BCE/CE do not imply belief in Jesus- the former in the conventional choice and is most widely used the second is more recent. We should choose one or the other- atheists and Muslims and Buddhists use AD/BC and Christians use BCE/CE...we should select one! It should be noted that according to the Manual of Style (WP:SEASON) it is WRONG to use both in the same article "Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article." Thus, one must be selected. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Transliteration"

I hate to have to go into so much detail on such a trivial edit but ...

I recently modified the following

The name "Jesus" is an English transliteration of the Latin (Iēsus)

to read

The name "Jesus" comes from an alternate spelling of the Latin(Iēsus)

Grover cleveland attempted to revert this with the comment

"transliteration" is correct for the "I"/"J" transposition. Transliteration implies nothing about pronunciation

This indicates a misunderstanding on mutliple levels:

• The transliteration article provides the following description

Transliteration is opposed to transcription, which specifically maps the sounds of one language to the best matching script of another language.

Transliteration has everything to do with pronunciation. It means finding a way to write the same sounds in a different way (well, practically speaking it may be sounds that are "close" but you get the point).

• The I/J "transposition" was simply a matter of different customs in Europe at different times. In classical times there was no letter J. There was only I. The letter J came to be used in Medieval times to represent the consonant sound of I in Latin. In fact this was the way Latin (and to a great extent Italian) was commonly written until fairly recently when there was a return to the classical spelling style.
• As such "Jesus" was the common way the name was rendered in Latin for centuries.
• English simply adopted the spelling "Jesus" directly from Latin and eventually came up with its own pronunciation based on English spelling rules.

So the previous statement was factually incorrect. If you don't like my version feel free to rewrite (as long as it is factually accurate).

--Mcorazao (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You write: "Transliteration has everything to do with pronunciation. It means finding a way to write the same sounds in a different way", citing above the Wikipedia article transliteration. However, the quote you give actually explains that what you have described is called transcription, and mentions that it is opposed to transliteration (which, as Grover cleveland explained, implies nothing about pronunciation). Your modification was therefore unnecessary. Since, as you pointed out, I and J were essentially the same letter until recently, and "Jesus" was how the name was spelt in Latin, this is indeed an example of transliteration, so Grover cleveland's reversion was justified. In order to avoid an edit war, I will not repeat his reversion but await your comment. Robin S (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are right about the quote from the Transliteration article. I grabbed it without paying close enough attention. Apologies.

But you are wrong about transliteration having nothing to do with pronunciation. If we are being technical, transliteration is, effectively, the combined process of converting script to phonemes (or phones), and then converting the phoneme/phones back to script (transcription). So pronunciation is part of the process even if it is not the beginning or the end point.

One could argue that the J/I transposition is an example of transliteration in the sense of transliterating from classical Latin to medieval Latin. I think most scholars would disagree with that viewpoint since classical Latin and medieval Latin are normally considered variants of the same language, not separate languages or separate writing systems. This transposition is better characterized as a change in writing styles, not transliteration. One could similarly argue that Iesus is a transliteration of IESVS because the latter was how it was originally written and the former was how it came to be commonly written later. Again, most scholars would call it silly to treat this as transliteration.

Aside from that the phrasing as stated said "English transliteration of the Latin", not "Medieval Latin transliteration of the Classical Latin" so that is clearly false.

It seems to me you folks want to throw in technical jargon because it sounds smart. In this case the jargon being used was incorrect. If you want to find some jargon that is accurate feel free. I actually started to do that but it made the text more complex so I opted for low-tech phrasing that was both concise and accurate.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should use technical jargon correctly. It may be that classical and medieval Latin are dialects of the same language (well, I know it is true). But if their respective orthographies and phonemics were different, then transliteration may still apply. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the use of transliteration, if i understand the topic of this discussion correctly. Jesus in midieval latin, or Iesus in classical latin, is the same word, pronounced in the same way. (Latin constant I and J both make the sound of english Y). Jesus is a Latin transliteration of or the Greek name, which is a transliteration of the Armaic\Hebrew name. But English did not "Transliterate" Jesus from Latin, it is the same word - only pronounced in english it is pronounced differently. This is the same with almost all classical English names (like French, Spanish, Italian), the latin spelling is retained, but the pronunciation has changed. Transliteration is literally taking a word from one language and changing the spelling so it sounds the same in another language. This is just the opposite, the spelling is left the same as latin, but is pronounced differently. I am not sure what the correct term is. Anglicization? :) Charles Edward 17:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I like "Anglicization" except the same spelling is used in Spanish and I bet other languages. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What about "Anglicized pronunciation"? of the Latin word Jesus?Charles Edward 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the pronunciation is anglicized but the spelling remains the same as Latin (as it does in Spanish as pointed out). So how would you phrase it? Saying that "'Jesus' is an Anglicized pronunciation of the Latin (Iēsus)" would obviously not be correct. You could say "In English the name 'Jesus' is spelled the same as medieval Latin but uses an Anglicized pronunciation" but this seems to be opening up too much detail. I chose the wording I did because being more explicit seemed like it would delve into more detail than was warranted for this tiny point.

By the way, regarding the medieval vs. classical Latin thing, be careful about saying that their writing systems were different. The classical spelling was not rejected in medieval times per se. In other words, "EGO SVM VIA" would not have been considered a wrong way to write "Ego sum via." It would have just been considered old-fashioned. Indeed it was common on buildings and monuments to still use the classical style throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance so this certainly was not considered wrong.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not mean to quibble, but two dialects (or even one) can have different orthographies yet users of one can recognize and even use that of the other. Dialects are different. How people use them can vary considerably and it is not unusual for speakers or writers of one dialect to use, or use elemenst of, another for any number of reasons. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are stretching the definition of the term to fit a preconception. This is not what transliteration means. What you are arguing is equivalent to saying that the English word man is a transliteration of the German word Mann which is not a proper use of the term. The two words originated as the same word in a common language and each language developed its own writing conventions over time. Transliteration refers somebody deliberately converting from one writing system to another.

um, no, because I did not szay anything at all about the meaning of transliteration. I think you are missing my point. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks, the term transliteration does not apply here at all. As I say if you want look for some technical terms that do apply, fine. But I am not sure why the affinity for this term to the point that we are trying to shoe-horn it into the text.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are correct in saying Jesus, in English, is not a transliteration of Jesus in Latin (But rather an English pronunciation of a Latin word)- But are you also saying Jesus, in Latin, is not a transliteration of the greek name? I would have to disagree with that.Charles Edward 20:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

? Who said anything about Greek? That has not been any part of this discussion.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, sorry, I just noticed your edit. I guess I don't understand what you are trying to refer to. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I will concede that "transliteration" is the wrong word to use to describe the English use of the Latin word Jesus. I do feel that it would be worth mentioning the transliteration from Hebrew (or Aramaic) to Greek, and thence to Latin, with an appropriate link to the Yeshu article. It may also be worth mentioning that the English pronunciation is not the same as the Latin, despite the spelling being the same. Robin S (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The text already does say most of that (although it does not specifically say that the Latin is a transliteration of the Greek). In any event I have no problem with mentioning all of this although I would be careful about getting too verbose (e.g. you can mention the difference between English and Latin pronunciation but frankly I think it would just come off sounding overly detailed). Just my opinion ...

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)