Talk:Yeshu/Archive 6

4035:. Of course, we cannot know for certain whether or not the Talmud referred to more than one person as Yeshu; the redactors of the Talmud have been deceased for near a dozen and a half centuries, we cannot ask them. However, the standard for wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Therefore, in our case, we have verifiable sources bringing expert opinion that the "Yeshu" in the Talmud refers to only one individual (Christian Jesus or not) and, conversely, we have verifiable sources bringing expert opinion that the "Yeshu" in the Talmud refers to more than one individual (Christian Jesus or not). Therefore, the first sentence is the very embodiment of 118:

of a proper source. By the way, when it is easy to represent a primary course directly, there is no prohibition against using primary sources if you think Census is a primary source; moreover insofar as he is commenting on the Talmud he is arguably a secondary source. If In ictu oculi knows of a standard scholarly collection/edition of Celsus' works translated into English perhaps he can provide the proper citation, that is what a serious scholarly article would do. Apparently this is where In icto oculi has expertise.

571:

perhaps there are different fault lines that are salient - fine! - I just think that in most of these cases pople are talking to one another. Well, we made clear that in specific contexts in the Middle Ages Jews and Christians talked to one another. But today, usually Orthodox rabbis talk to orthodox rabbis and critical scholars talk to critical scholars. So I think we should divide these people up based on which circle they are part of, and provide readers with some really basic information about the circl.

1726:

earlier. Is there a specific citation from Berger you wish to add? If so, what exactly is it i.e. what is the book name, page number, what does he say there, etc.? In general, I don't think people here have objected to the addition of relevant material - however, what keeps happening instead is a complete re-write of the article, including the wording, meaning and intent of the lead (contrary to the clear consensus at your RFC), combined with all sorts of "sources", some acceptable, others of the

3877:

even have the slightest impact is that I am likely to be familiar with some of wikipedias policies and guidelines, as one of my volunteer activities is enforcing them. Being a volunteer sysop or functionary here does not give anyone any extra authority in article space; thankfully. However, that does not mean that I won't be correcting issues I believe are counter to Knowledge's policies or guidelines or issues that make the article sub-par, as I'm certain you won't stop either :) . --

3048:"sometimes thought to be veiled references to Jesus, but since he is not mentioned by name, no one knows for sure. ....The main problem here is that the materials that make up this work were collected over a long period of time, finally coming together around 500-600 CE Thus, there is no way of knowing how early (or how reliable) the reference may be... and the herald went before him 40 days saying " is going forth to be stoned, since he practiced sorcery and ..". 328:

outlooks. Meatpuppetry, IMO, would be if there is some kind of insidious relationship off-wiki calculated to circumvent the consensus process. I, for one, would welcome your and in ictu's input, so long as the input remains NPOV, etc. (I am not worried about you, but I am still somewhat concerned about what in ictu was quoted as saying above, although your explanation about different pedagogic traditions was helpful in understanding in ictu's perspective). --

2492:

the name "Yeshu" is merely the name used by rabbis for Jesus. However, when you insist that "Yeshu" does not refer to an individual, or demand proof that it does, what you are also demanding is proof that "Jesus" refers to an individual, since it is you that insists "Yeshu"="Jesus". Do you not believe Jesus was an individual? I can assure you that Van Voorst (or "Voorst", as you like to call him) thinks Jesus was an individual. Are you promoting, then, the

3761:. Berger is being brought as a reliable source to substantiate the fact that Yechiel subscribed to the two Jesus's theory—no more no less. If you would like to write a paper on your beliefs about the multiple Jesus theory, by all means, go ahead, but wikipedia is not the place for it. This is not the place for us to discuss what Berger means. In any event, if you read Berger, you would see that his issue, if I am not mistken, is not with multiple Jesus's 31: 2909:

interpretation. So far you have not exhibited much of a capacity for or inclinication to do either. Repeating your complaints is not a reasoned discussion. I have asked you several times quite coureously to provide further information about sources and you have refused to provide the information that would resolve the dispute. On one oaccasion you confessed to lying. You really need to learn to do better.

1532:(A) Voorst, Horbury, Schafer, Berger, Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, Rubenstein, Boyarin, Teppler, Stanton & Stroumsa, Kessler, Sanders, Neusner, etc. stating that the name Yeshu where it is used in Hebrew and Aramaic texts is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth. And yes of course I would like "properly cite" as I was doing before it became clear that citations were being automatically deleted, but 3046:(1) Well you may not like it but your reading of Powell evidently is in dispute. I did not "acquiesce to that reading when repeatedly did not respond to the question "Why does Powell quote the Talmud using the name Yeshu, and write 'Yeshu ' "?"........ since I have said already several times in the Talk above, Powell does not say "the Talmud uses the name Jesus" (Jayjg), on the contrary he says 1434:, just that their introduction has always been combined with a re-write that went against the consensus of the RFC you yourself initiated above. Also, please keep in mind that what you call "deleted modern academic sources" weren't proper citations at all; rather, they were just lists of names (typically without even years of publication), which is hardly acceptable: for example, 1309:. Look: you added a citation of an article by modern author Berger, which I did not delete because that article was about the Yeshu stories in Rabbinical literature, which is what this article is about. Whoever put together the Bantam-Meggidoh Hebrew-English dictionary has not done any notable research on the Yeshu stories in Rabbinic literature, and is not commenting on them. 236:, is not 'commenting' on the Talmud, neither does he have, it would be an anachronism, the Tosefta in mind. 'he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus,' (εἰσάγει Ἰουδαῖον πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν λέγοντά). No mention of books, texts etc. The secondary scholarship links this to passages in the Talmud and Tosephta because Celsus seems to provide early and 3062:(2) Anyway, back to the point. Powell is not a major source, to insist with your own reading of Meier when you know it is in dispute simply, to me, demonstrates that you're seeking dispute and confrontation. A neutral lede would simply say "Yeshu is a name" - you're seeking dispute and controversy by having to add your extra words "of an individual or individuals" to it. 3820:. Also, the RFC you initiated came to the consensus view that the first line of the article was accurate and complied with policy. Finally, this section is about Yechiel and Berger; you've already raised your faulty understanting of NPOV and the lede sentence in several other Talk: page sections. Rather than repeating the same ritual phrases in 914: 139:. Please read I.28 where the discussion about Jesus is. While it may track the Pandera braysa, Celsus himself (or Origem quoting Celsus) makes no mention of Talmud or Tosefta, and Herford makes no mention of Celsus. I'm certain someone says "Celsus's dialogue is based on the Tosefta" - we just need to find that person. -- 2146:

back into the "Jeremias 1935" ritual incantation, which basically ends discussion. If you want to have a meaningful dialog here, please use words that a) explain what sources you'd like to use, b) explicitly state what they say, and c) explain how you would like to modify the article's text to accommodate those sources.

1599:

expert on Jewish-Christian disputations or French rabbis? What makes this the best source on Yechiel of paris? Does he really say that this was Yechiel's own view, rather than a Jewish iew Yechiel was reporting on to the Christian authorities? That is, is Berger reporting on Yechiel's own scholarship, or on Yechiel

2414:: "In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This 2621:

nevertheless as disputed references they cannot be used for the lede sentence if the article is going to ever lose the POV dispute banner. Find some references of the clarity quality of the Jeremias one, which actually say what Jeremias says post 1935 and they can be included. At the moment the last 4 are

344:

of these debates. As I remarked in another section, this means not only reporting Maier's hypothesis, for example, but providing an account of his evidence and arguments. The more context and detail we provide regarding all the views we include in the article, the less likely we would be violating NOR.

3606:

In ictu, do you have an actual English dictionary? I do not mean English - Hebrew, or English - whatever language you speak, I mean a real English dictionary? if so, please look up the word "or" in it. Once you know the definition of this word, you will see how much time you have been wasting with

3343:

The consensus of the RFC is quite clear, and involves quite a few individuals. Your attempts to pretend it is just me and Slrubenstein must stop; in this thread alone Ovadyah has also expressed his disagreement with you. If you continually make statements that defy or ignore reality, then people will

2620:

As you know of the citations you inserted in the lede 8 days ago the only recent one is Beckwith (not a scholar of this area)'s passing repeat of Jeremias 1966 (=1935) citation of Dalman 1922. The others are disputed, and as much as you may think your side of the dispute on those references is right,

2441:

As has also been explained, repeating long lists of last names, without any context (e.g. "Voorst, Horbury, Schafer, Berger, Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, Rubenstein, Boyarin, Teppler, Stanton & Stroumsa, Kessler, Sanders, Neusner") are also ritual behaviors that have little semantic content.

1266:

Jayjg. The conclusion being that the standard modern Hebrew dictionaries are correct about standard modern Hebrew usage? Where else exactly would anyone get information on use of a modern word other than a standard dictionary? If you're banning dictionaries for being dictionaries, what exactly do you

895:

to the views of Christians. So shouldn't we state what the Christians stated first, and then provide the response? This would require us to be clearer about which Christians were proposing this interpretation of the stories, and some basic information about them (theologians? Clergy? Representing

312:

have is a passage in Celsus that is about Jesus that is similar in form to one of the passages in the Tosefta. If I am not mistaken, the Tosefta passage in question does not even mention the name "Yeshu", although I may be misremembering. Regardless, whilst we can, and should, use this in the article

117:

I do not have Herford, so I cannot speak to this particular issue. But – and Avi, I really apprciate your efforts to make sure everything in sourced – Celsus is an important Church Father and his views are well known and important. Perhaps, from what I have recently learned, In ictu oculi will know

3876:

For the record, in ictu, the fact that I volunteer to do maintenance work "behind the scenes" as it were, to support the smooth running of this project gives me no more or no less authority when it comes to matters of article content than any other editor. The only issues I can think in which it may

3860:

In ictu, if you keep repeating phrases as talismans or incantations, despite them having little relation to reality, and little semantic content, then I'll likely have to keep pointing it out. Perhaps you should try just communicating clearly instead. As for the rest, you've raised the same question

3564:

B"), an article complies with this core policy, as some sources might agree with the view that "X is A" while others might agree with the view that "X is B". Also, there is no "controversy" regarding the lede; rather, the consensus, as demonstrated by the RFC you initiated, is that the lede properly

2312:

You have been told all of this already, and you really need to move on from this constant repetition of phrases and points that have already been answered. Any further reference to these will simply be ignored. You need to use new language for productive conversation, not re-hash old settled issues.

2145:

In ictu octuli, scholars don't "agree" or "disagree" with me; they don't know anything about me. For that matter, you have no idea what they think about the first sentence of this article. As stated before, you're getting stuck on words that don't express your meaning properly. Also, you're slipping

1743:

No "Voorst, Horbury, Schafer, Berger, Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, Rubenstein, Boyarin, Teppler, Stanton & Stroumsa, Kessler, Sanders, Neusner" are not "a proper citation" they are a list of modern academic authors from whom I have either already added properly cited citations (and had them

1630:

You provide none of these details about Horbury. You simply wrote that he says Yeshu is a "reference or reaction to the Christian Jesus." Really? You are being vague. Which one is it? Does Horbury say the stories are references to Jesus? or does he say they are reactions to Jesus? In what way

1598:

She used Berger to support her claim that the widely held view that the different Yeshu stories in the Talmud refer to different people was the invention of Yechiel of Paris - in other words, using Berger to present Yechiel's view. Sorry, but I want more context: who is Berger and what makes him an

1464:

That is evidently incorrect, see article history. When one time I write "Maier, Schafer, Voorst, Horbury, Setzer, references as deleted previously" that just illustrates the problem is so bad, that it is hardly worth retyping them every time just to have you or Slrubenstein delete them. I have tried

1408:

Yes, me. When I say "those deleting/shortening academic sources" I refer to yourself and Slrubenstein. So far you have consistently deleted/shortened/supressed modern academic sources which disagree with Yechiel's thesis that the name Yeshu can apply to multiple Yeshus. (Yes I remember that you said

931:

I think what we need is a section in the body of the article that distinguishes between these different contexts (Ramban and Yehiel of Paris, versus Tosafot haRosh) so that they are not conflcated. Ramban lived 1194–c. 1270 and the disputation of Paris was 1240; HaRosh lived from about 1250 – 1327.

4321:

Does the Rambam at the end of Judges:Kings chapter 11 (uncensored) belong here? True, he says Yehua and clearly refers to the NT Jesus, but he says, "he was killed in Bet Din". Wouldn't that indicate that he was referring to the Talmudic version, as the notes in the Shabsai Frankel critical edition

4268:

In ictu, Jayjg did bring up a salient point, and that is that names can be of places or objects, and not only people, so the target of the name is needed in the lede, and if so, then the fact that there may be more than one person is relevant. If names only referred to people, and nothing else, I'd

4245:

Well, if there's such a thing as "stop being a disruptive TALKer" given that I already gave up attempting to edit here 2 weeks ago. Do I need your permission to Talk as well now? I thought as I'm leaving I'd say simply and cleanly on a fresh bit of the page what I think. Feel free to fill the space

3949:

Well the problem is that a consensus of 3 editors, especially in cases where they might share a same philosophical approach to the relative value of medieval commentary versus modern text-critical scholarship (for example in a religion, Roman Catholic, Muslim related subject) against 2 editors does

3638:

In ictu oculi, unfortunately you're simply repeating yourself, or making unsupported assertions. The lede sentence is supported by a half dozen 20th and 21st century reliable sources, not "medieval polemic". Please review the many previous comments which have already responded to this issue. And if

2643:

Jeremias' third edition was printed in 1960 and translated in 1996, so that's the 1960s. Beckwith (2005) is neither Jeremias or Dalman - agreeing with another scholar does not make one identical to that scholar. Powell (1998) clearly also questions the identification of Jesus with Yeshu, and you do

2061:

You do not have my word that I will discuss in detail every source with you here and then only when I have convinced you post it. I am telling you now generally that I intend to counterweight your POV in the lede 1st sentence by adding scholars that disagree with you. That will include Horbury, Van

1684:

How can adding this information be a bad thing? Yet In icto keeps naming the sources without answering any questions about them. Can you please work collaboratively with me? For the views you wish to add, can you please answer the above question? This is the fourth time I am politely and in good

798:

for Yohanan. I see the Hebrew Nazareth article has Natzrat, but I don't see sources there either. If there are no good sources for early pronounciation, I think we should just take the Ibn Shoshan (Don't have one here, though), or give both variants. (I really don't want to get into other articles.)

343:

I think all of Nishidani's points make sense and are important. I still think that we can report what primary sources say, in a way that does not violate NOR. There is a debate as to the dating of certain texts, and i think the important thing is that we provide a clear and comprehensive coverage

327:

An aside, Nishidani, I don't think anyone thinks you are meatpuppeting, any more than people think I am meatpuppeting Slrubinstein. Editors are allowed to have similar interests, and it is not out-of-the-ordinary to have people with similar backgrounds sharing not only similar interests but similar

228:

Celsus, though conserving material, oral traditions, predating him. All the more reason, therefore, to hew closely to modern secondary scholarship, which is extensive, on Celsus and these questions. Citing material directly from primary sources is an open invitation to confusion of the type we have

97:

In the digitized version of Herford 1903 to which I linked on the article's page, Google does not return any references to "Celsus" (cf with searching for "Jeshu"). Perhaps it is there and not indexed properly, but otherwise, we will need another source to support Celsus's understanding the Tosefta

4113:

In ictu, you are just going to have to trust a handful of people who are native English speakers, since this seems to be a reading-comprehension problem. The first line of the article says that "Yeshu" may refer to an individual. Or it may refer to individuals. It does not say which position is

2594:

I have explained above why scholars do not believe Jesus is "or individuals" in Aramaic and Hebrew texts. It is a fringe view based on medieval polemics, any more than Eve or Abraham is "or individuals" and this should not be stated as a fact in the lede sentence. "name" would be perfectly neutral

2491:

have a neutral first sentence in the lede, despite your best attempts to the contrary - that was the clear consensus of the RFC above. Your fixation on the claim that Yeshu does not refer to an individual or individuals leaves you in a very difficult spot. It has been your on-going contention that

1699:

And this is the fourth time I am politely and in good faith replying that (a) each source you deleted says what it says and (b) you do not have ] of this page, a citation does not have to agree with you before you allow it "if you can provide the following information about these views you wish to

797:

I'm sorry, I'm missing the point here. Why are we speaking of Greek? I'm concerned here about Hebrew and Aramaic. Greek does not seem to be a good source for Hebrew pronounciation, as the Greeks (or Romans?) appeared to rather mangle other languages. Capernaum for K'far Nahum, for example, or John

3370:

mentioned in Jewish literature - specifically, Jesus. Jesus was, after all, an individual (or at least Van Voorst and most other scholars think he was one). Thus the lede says "an individual or individuals ". If Van Voorst must be added as a source, there is no issue with adding him to the first

2837:. I don't know what you mean by your new ritual phrase "Dalman 1922, Jeremias' 1935 view". Do you mean "Dalman (1922), Jeremias (1960), Meier (1991), Powell (1998), Beckwith (2005), Levine (2008) view"? And I ask again, "Why does Powell quote the Talmud using the name Yeshu, and write 'Yeshu ' "? 1928:

you not to view this as a contest to add sources. What we should be doing is identifying important sources and discussing what they say and how best to incorporate their views into the article. This is why I have been asking the questions you continually refuse to answer. But if you do not like

1840:

you started this section by claiming that "One of the modern academic sources which was deleted by Slrubenstein and Jayjg was that of Berger analyzing the original argument of Yechiel in 1240". I've asked several times what you are referring to, without response. It's time to put your money where

1610:

She simply say Neusner "treats them as late glosses" and does not include them in his translation of the Talmud. Why does he treat them as late glosses? Do you mean just the name "Yeshu" or the stories? Does he include the stories in his translation? If he does not translate "Yeshu" what name

1281:

I don't understand phrases like "you're banning dictionaries for being dictionaries", as they aren't really about article content, and don't conform with any reality with which I am familiar. If you want to have a meaningful dialog here, please use words that a) explain what sources you'd like to

570:

My second problem: who are these people? I just se a string of names, an strings of names are both poor style and poor academic writing. We should provide some background material about them. Did they live in different centuries or the same time? Jewish or Christian? Religious or secular? Or

564:

I have three problems with this sentence, and the one following it. First, are any of them expressing a view not expressed in the fifth sentence of the lead? Sentence five expresses two diferent views 9and maybe should be divided into two sentences) - what is the third (or fourth etc) view being

448:

See Slrubenstein's comment above. Also, you appear to be placing some special and unique meaning on the words "he is not mentioned by name" that is clearly not in accord with the author of the source you are citing, since that same source explicitly quotes passages from the Talmud using the name

3197:

Your previous attempts to edit the lede sentence have involved removing consensus NPOV text, and adding irrelevant refs. Given the controversy surrounding the lede sentence, and the fact that your view on it so strongly contradicts the consensus of the RFC above, I again encourage you to propose

1808:

Now, you started this section by claiming that "One of the modern academic sources which was deleted by Slrubenstein and Jayjg was that of Berger analyzing the original argument of Yechiel in 1240". I've asked several times what you are referring to, without response. It's time to put your money

1725:

In ictu oculi, in addition to Slrubenstein's comment above, I note that "Voorst, Horbury, Schafer, Berger, Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, Rubenstein, Boyarin, Teppler, Stanton & Stroumsa, Kessler, Sanders, Neusner" is not a proper citation. For example, you mentioned wanting to add Berger

719:

articles. Those articles have academic footnotes showing the earliest uses of both terms. Modern usage and the change between ts and z isn't greatly discussed in academic sources since these kind of ts and z changes over the centuries are so common. But there may be one source in the footnotes I

479:

Jayjg, the special and unique meaning I am placing on the words "he is not mentioned by name" is "he is not mentioned by name" = "he is not mentioned by name"; i.e. Powell per the school of Maier, Neusner, Meier, is taking the view that Yeshu "he is not mentioned by name" in the Talmud, but per

3244:

1. Powell quotes a late variant of one Talmud which includes the name Yeshu - we do not know if he writes "Yeshu " because he shares Jeremias 1935 thesis of Maiers 1978 thesis on this passage. But I think the real problem here is scraping the barrel in desperation to find sources to bolster the

661:

The lead says that some people claim the references to Yeshu are later than the Talmud. But the note is vague. It reads, in part: "Mostly found in the Babylonian Talmud, but also in the late Venice edition of the Jerusalem Talmud. Neusner treats them as late glosses and excludes them from his

3353:

In ictu oculi, I'm going to try to help you here, because I see you're still getting caught up in ritual incantations, e.g. "does e.g. Van Voorst say that Yeshu can refer to other individuals?" Now when you continually chant this phrase, I think what you're trying to say is "Van Voorst doesn't

2849:

Irrespective of how you and I might differ reading it, (1) your decision to prevent part of the reference being read by Knowledge readers is clearly in dispute. (2) Your reading of the reference is in dispute. (3) Your conclusion from Meier is in dispute. While these references are in dispute,

4337:

His opinion, whatever it was, would indicate this is NOT Jesus because Christian scripture (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ALL) say that Bet Din did not kill Jesus. That is why this article should contrast what Christian scripture says about Jesus next to every item suggesting that there is a

2908:

As for Jayjg's readings of sources bing in dispute, In icto, you need to understand that here at Knowledge, complaining that "I don't like it" is not what we refer to as disputes. if you have a different reading or interpretaion of a source, just provide the supporting quote and explain your

2531:

Evidently the effort in repeatedly having to enter the same sources and having you delete them takes its toll. Yes the Names on the Ossuaries essay in Quarles is indeed Bauckham in Quarles, which could have been covered by changing "Quarles" for "Bauckham" rather than more wholesale deletion.

686:

I see the pronounciaton of Nazareth is given as Notzrat. My understanding here in Israel (I have a Muslim co-worker who lives there) is that the city is Natzeret. The reason people use Notzrat is because they confuse it with Notzrat Ilit, the Jewish city of Upper Nazareth, which is pronounced

3178:

The current lede sentence is neutral; your assertion that a "neutral" lede would say something that is merely that, an assertion. Saying it again and again will not convince anyone, nor will it advance the discussion here. Arguments and properly cited reliable sources are what is needed, not

1473:

And in the same breath as this excuse above, you delete the bits of Powell's text you don't like below. I note you didn't have any problem allowing Jeremias 1935 when you finally found something that agreed with your own view? So this clearly been driven by POV, you have decided to represent

910:

It is not necessarily the case that the medieval Talmudic scholars were directly responding to Christian allegations. Nahmanidies and Yechiel of Paris were principal parties to these debates and documented their experiences. The glosses of the Tosafot HaRosh were written in the course of his

1380:

One of the modern academic sources which was deleted by Slrubenstein and Jayjg was that of Berger analyzing the original argument of Yechiel in 1240 that, per Berger, shows Yechiel defended Yeshu in his copy of B.Tal as 3x different Yeshus, one of the 3 being the Christian Yeshua. If those

3314:"we do not know if he writes "Yeshu "?? This is utter nonsense; he specifically writes this. I'm not going to bother discussing Powell with you any more, because you ignore what he actually says in favor of your theories about you think he means and inferences based on sentence fragments. 4338:

reference in Talmud to Jesus. Both scriptures need equal time, for one thing, and for another, it would show that they say different things about the character under discussion. It's not possible to assume that people interested in this topic have a copy of Christian scripture around.

4141:

In ictu, please provide us with a quote where Theissen says that "Yeshu is always Jesus." I have asked you several times before an you have not provided an answer. I have the book, I have read the book, I do not see where he says this. I also do not see where Meier says this either.

662:

translations. According to Schaefer pp 131-144. English translations from Schaefer ..." Is Schaefer claiming they are late glosses? Also, when do Neusner and Schaefer date them? It is not enough to say they are late, what exactly do Neusner and Schaefer say about their dating?

3662:

I have also added in Yechiel, and Berger's reference. It seems as the earliest source of what Berger calls the "two Jesuses theory" he should be mentioned. The only problem is I'm not sure whether the word "authority" applies to him? Is there a better word that "authorities"?

503:

It depends how widely read Powell is, but given that Powell says "he is not mentioned in the text" that implies he is familiar more with the minimalist school of Maier - and therefore that that "Yeshu " is dubious because the original text had, as Setzer/Maier/Theissen say an

313:

that discusses Jesus references in the Talmud, it seems to be inappropriate for the article discussing the name "Yeshu". Am I misunderstanding something? Is there a secondary source which makes a statement along the lines "Celsus is a proof that Yeshu = Christian Jesus" ? --

2099:

so let's leave that). Van Voorst, for example does not agree with you. Van Voorst does not think as your 1st sentence lede that "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" any more than Van Voorst thinks "Cleopatra is an individual or individuals", Van Voorst thinks Yeshu is

3050:

so, assuming he knows anything about the subject - since it's only a short para - he's saying that the name of may not be mentioned in the original text, which is Maier/Neusner/Meier's position. In any case it isn't a statement that you want him to make that the name

2371:"This is likely an inference from the Talmud and other Jewish usage, where Jesus is called Yeshu, and other Jews with the same name are called by the fuller name Yehoshua, "Joshua"" Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus outside the New Testament 2000 ISBN 13: 9780802843685 p124 1749:"This is likely an inference from the Talmud and other Jewish usage, where Jesus is called Yeshu, and other Jews with the same name are called by the fuller name Yehoshua, "Joshua"" Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus outside the New Testament 2000 ISBN 13: 9780802843685 p124 2057:

For the time being you have my word that I will not attempt to remove your view "or individuals" from the lede. If at some point in the future if other editors who can see that that is a POV not represented in modern scholarship arrive I will try to have it removed

199:

to suggest or assume that Celsus is engaged in understanding the Tosefta as we have it, Avi, and or commenting on the Talmud as we have it, Slr. The general date assigned to the composition of his work is ca.180 C.E, though we only have it as conserved in Origen's

3339:

If you want people to stop mentioning your ritual invocations, then you must stop using them. Constantly repeating a phrase doesn't give it magical power, and in particular (as is almost always the case here) when it doesn't convey your actual meaning, and defies

948:

I have just tried to add some chronological consistency to the lead. Avi, if you know of other medeival Jewish authorities who should be included, by all means please include them but please include the dates (as best possible) of their commentaries. Thanks

1492:

In ictu oculi, I've provided explicit links to the edits you made, were you added those "references". If you think this is "evidently incorrect", and there is something different in the "article history", then please provide your own links showing you adding

4293:

In ictu, in fact the lede says "Yeshu is the name of an individual or individuals...", which is without question the most NPOV of all the alternatives. Also, since the lede says neither of the alternatives you've proposed, why do you ask this hypothetical

1862:. In which case an apology, but it should say something that so many academic sources have been deleted I can't keep track. So, you have no objection to Berger Jewish history and Jewish memory: essays in honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, 1998 being added? 3382:

article, even though you don't seem to actually particularly disagree with any of my edits there. If you want to "fight" with me there, that's fine, but I won't do it in two places, so you must decide. If you restrict your dispute with me on this article

1497:- ideally showing you adding them without completely and simultaneously re-writing the lede. In addition, as has been explained before, you must move away from that clearly non-factual "Yehiel 1240" rhetoric, since I have not cited Yehiel at all, but 2708:

Wait, is Powell Maier Levin one source, as you now claim? I only know of three different sources. But why do you want to exclude the full context? Why do you want to censor Powell, Maier, or Levine? By tall means, please provide the full context

3022:

to the online page so that readers could read the entire page for themselves, so I could hardly have been trying to "prevent part of the reference being read by Knowledge readers". Again, please make comments that are more factual and conform to

2648:

ritually invoke the phrase "he is not mentioned by name", but I then use the counter-spell "Why does Powell quote the Talmud using the name Yeshu, and write 'Yeshu ' ", to which you have no response, so there's no dispute here. And then there's

1442:. In addition, regarding your statement that I "didn't realise that this view originated with Yechiel" - it's probably best not to refer to what you think other editors do or don't know or "realise". Now, is there a specific source you wish to 3559:

insists that multiple points of view be represented in an article, rather than just one. Thus sources used in an article do not necessarily agree with one another. By presenting multiple possibilities (for example, using a phrase like "X is A

581:

Some of these names are familiar to m, others are not: Isaac ibn Shaprut, Hasdai Crescas Profiat Duran, and Leone da Modena, Elias Soloweyczyk, Aharon Avraham Kabak, and Joseph Klausner. I am just asking for very basic contextual informaion:

2434:. "POVfork" is one of the ritual phrases you continually incant on this page; because it defies reality, it is an excuse to avoid meaningful discourse, rather than an attempt at achieving it. If you mean something else, which you likely do, 508:

sorcerer to which the name of Yeshu=Jesus? has been added. But the real issue here is scraping around desperately to find any modern source which supports the Dalman/Jeremias view, while modern studies follow either Maier or Klausner or

1409:

before that you didn't realise that this view originated with Yechiel and I think Avi or Slrubenstein said it was the view of the Ramban, which is later). Yes, what I'm asking is that Berger's analysis of Yechiel's view be undeleted.

3933:

Knowledge works as a collaborative and consensus-driven project; if the consensus is against a particular point (and that consensus is in and of itself not in violation of a core principle) then that is how the project works. --

3280:

Your previous attempts to edit the lede sentence have involved removing consensus NPOV text< Jayjg, you + Slrubenstein does not equal "consensus". And in any case the consensus should be of academic sources. I ask you again,

2587:

I stand corrected re POVfork, I was judging it on the state of the two articles now, rather than the history. And you are correct, the WP guide clearly says that the second is the fork even when it is the one that is neutral in

1587:

I am all for adding more content that is actually informative. Instead, In citu oculi cherry-picks quotes out of context to make her own point, while actually obscuring the points of the scholars she claims to be representing.

1626:

is usually translated into Hebrew as Yehoshuah, well, we don't really need any source for that. We all know that Iesous = Yehoshua. And since we do not have a Greek source for the braita, this is not relevant to the article.

4068:—whether readers can check that material in Knowledge has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." ......in this case the sources vary - we have Dalman 1922 and Jeremias 1935 saying 2689:

Jayjg Well the full context of Powell Maier Levine can be kept out of the article, but is still there in full in the books if not in the selective ref. Let's get back to focus on the main problem with your lede 1st sentence:

3988:

It is not verifiable that Jesus is several individuals any more than Hillel. The most glaring example of this is that the whole article lacks any single historical reference to anyone else ever called Yeshu in any text.

3765:, but with Yechiel having two versions thereof, in one where one of the Yeshu's refers to the Christian Jesus and the other where the Christian Jesus isn't written in the Talmud. Which reiterates why we cannot allow our 2159:

Does this ritual incantation of the phrase "ritual incantation" work in other fields of life? Enough said I think you all know what needs to be done to allow modern academic sources, you just have to stop deleting them.

2595:

were it not for the need to push a POV that is not supported by any scholar since Jeremias in 1935 following Dalman in 1922. I do not dispute Jeremias or Dalman, they are clear. But they are the 2 most recent sources.

2044:

In ictu oculi, do I have your word that you will present any sources you wish to add to the lede sentence here first for discussion, and not attempt to modify the lede sentence before a consensus to do so is reached?

932:

So the chronology is still: Christian interpretation of the passages; Ramban and Yehiel respond; HaRosh writes his commentary. This is an encyclopedia, we need to be scholarly in our approach to historical events.

3026:

My reading of the reference is clearly not in dispute; you acquiesced to that reading when you repeatedly did not respond to the question "Why does Powell quote the Talmud using the name Yeshu, and write 'Yeshu '

4225:. I see no point in responding to this silly question. We are discussing how to improve the article in the sections above and I will only respond in substance there; this :talk page is for improving the article. 2478:. For the longest time, the lede had the sentence "There are some modern scholars who understand these passages to be references to Christianity and the Christian figure of Jesus", with the citation <ref: --> 1754:...the question is whether you and Slrubenstein will allow a citation in the article which disagrees with the view of multiple Yeshus. Will you allow such views in the article? Start with Voorst, same as above. 2952:. No one can be that uncomprehending. It's more like topic domination at any cost. This editor has a pattern of propagating edit wars on multiple talk page sections, which then spread to related articles. 631:

from the 98% of uses that aren't related to b.Sot47a and b.Sanh.107b, as per above "the purpose was spreading the weight a little, not just always about the 2 disputed variants b.Sot47a and b.Sanh.107b in the

3354:

support the view that the Talmud uses Yeshu to refer to more than one individual, or an individual other than Jesus". You are therefore concerned, because you want to somehow emphasize in the lede that while

3512:" be cited as a fact in the lede which is causing the controversy on this page. So it really doesn't help when an editor involved in a dispute is asked a direct question about the disputed term "individual 2257:

Please provide just one source that says that "Yeshu is not the name of an individual or individuals in Rabbinic literature." You have failed to provide even one view. Just one. You can't even do that.

3321:

here; "individuals" represents the view of those who think there may be more than one Yeshu, or think Yeshu doesn't always or necessarily refer to Jesus. There is no claim, implication, or even hint that

3252:

is only ever used of Jesus, while Yehoshua/Yeshua is used of other individuals. Correct? So the issue for the lede sentence is, can you insert a cite from Van Voorst in the current slot where Jeremias is?

1025:

Yes, this article is on Yeshu stories in Rabinic Literature. It is not a dictionary. Unless these authors are specifically discussing the texts that this article is about, adding them is a violation of

3193:

The current lede sentence is filled with sources from the 1960s and later. "more modern than Jeremias 1935" is a ritual invocation that does not accord with reality. Please engage in meaningful dialogue

1330:. It isn't "original research" to put in sources relative to the title of an article, even if the article is owned by editors who want the article to be about something else. As if someone asserted that 403:

should also be removed, on the grounds, according to the school of Maier, Neusner, Meier, Powell etc. that "he is not mentioned by name". And then the article could spend time on the 98% of texts where

2517:, accurately citing the reliable sources you would like to use to support those edits. It is not fair to other editors to force them to continually clean up various policy violations and other messes. 742:

No, no. Ts, Tz, and z are equivalent, as there is no Tzade in English. I am referring to the vowels. The Nezereth article has both Natzeret and Notzrat. I do not see academic references for the Hebrew.

813:(I really don't want to get into other articles)< - Well unfortunately it's Knowledge policy that discussion about articles should happen on the relevant talk page, so if you don't want to discuss 3624:

on a Talk page probably will say similar things to people in real life. Whatever, the POV banner remains on this article while the medieval polemic remains as a fact in the first line of the lede.

3133:

applies to sitting here watching as modern academic, or even non-medieval material is deleted. I've certainly had more than enough. And your latest contribution has saved me hours to come. Thanks.

3898:" in the lede sentence. Do you see me restoring the deleted dictionaries, 16th to 20th Century uses of Yeshu? The fact remains, this article presents as a fact in the 1st line " is an individual 3248:

2. The current lede sentence "individuals" is evidently only neutral if everyone, eg. Van Voorst, agrees with it. Does Van Voorst agree that Jesus is "individual or individuals" - he says that

1110:, is that what you want? Or do you want to control all of Knowledge totally so that material from non-rabbinical sources, dictionaries, modern scholars is not available to the Knowledge user? 2559:, nor did I do "wholesale deletion". The Van Voorst citation is still in the lead (though, of course, I had to clean up your formatting a bit), and the other material you added from Bauckham 2351:

mentioned in Jewish literature" ? Do Voorst, Horbury, Schafer, Berger, Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, Rubenstein, Boyarin, Teppler, Stanton & Stroumsa, Kessler, Sanders, Neusner, etc.

2214:

mentioned in Jewish literature" ? Do Voorst, Horbury, Schafer, Berger, Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, Rubenstein, Boyarin, Teppler, Stanton & Stroumsa, Kessler, Sanders, Neusner, etc.

3259:

The current lede sentence is filled with sources from the 1960s and later.< The point is not that you have added in Powell and Meier, I see you have, the point is that they are disputed.

3255:

3. The RFC wasn't well worded. I should have known that the 3 outside comments it attracted would react in that way without knowledge of the sources. I will do a better worded RFC next time.

2739:

their views, to comply with WP's policy that we provide multiple significant views. But, uh, do you know anyone who holds a different view? Why have you been withholding that information?

3591:

Jayjg, the lede as it stand does not attempt to give a neutral view. If it did it would give a neutral view and wouldn't be loaded by you trying to find a source more modern than Jeremias.

3375:!!! Thus the lede perfectly captures NPOV on this subject - some scholars think the name Yeshu refers to an individual (typically Jesus), others think it may refer to multiple individuals. 2363:

so why is it so essential to get that provocative underlined bit up in the 1st lede line? Why can't we have a neutral 1st lede sentence?" ........ but show me where you have answered them?

911:

commentary of tens tractates of the Talmud. I don't know off-hand of a better way to form the sentence, and my RL work is going berserk and so I will have less time for the next few weeks

1631:

are they "reactions" to Jesus? Why are the names of the disciples wrong? Or how does Horbury explain the discrepancy between stoning and crucifixion? When jesus was alive, Rabbis had

1607:

of the Jewish community? None of these are arguments against using Berger - they are meant to draw out the content concerning Berber that would enable us to situate his views properly.

3362:

think it's Jesus. You think that somehow this first POV is not being represented, and that therefore NPOV is not being met. What you may fail to understand is that Van Voorst's view is

2303:

What you described as "deleting academic references" was actually your re-write of the lede, combined with the insertion of various last names of individuals, but few (if any) actual

480:

Voorst, Horbury only in "later interpolations" "added in the Middle ages". To give an example "God is not mentioned by name in the book of Esther..... but in Greek Esther it says..."

4246:

below with a choice selection of your best insults, adhominems and accusations from the past 4 weeks before the Talk scrolls quickly up into the archive... bon nuit, אַ גוטע נאַכט.

3984:, period, and then leaving the pushing of medieval polemics for later. But no, the medieval polemic had to be presented as a fact in line 1. That is a violation of a core principle: 3716:

an "authority." according to the view of the dominant editors of this Knowledge article? (Berger himself does not take seriously Yechiel's defence any more than any modern scholar).

2661:

and the opposite of what the authors actually say". This is obviously nonsense (see, for example, the Powell counter-spell), but I'd be interested in seeing you try to justify it.

3371:

sentence of the second paragraph, where the article states "understand these passages to be references to Christianity and the Christian figure of Jesus". But wait! Van Voorst is

2000:

How can I possibly keep up with the speed at which you delete academic sources? I am having to type in again and again and again the same titles before you come along and delete.

1782:"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" 3095:

of the RfC and the other editors working on the article. Consensus doesn't mean continuing to argue endlessly until you impose your will on the article. That is a violation of

3069:

of the lede sentence but I ask again, will you allow further academic sources, more modern than Jeremias 1935, which disagree with your lede sentence to be added to the article?

1611:

does he provide? Do you even have Neusner's translation of the Talmud? have you looked at it? Please share with us his interpretation of these passages. Then we can actually

2895:. In ictu oculi himself propvided the link to the copyright violation policy on 04:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC) so it is quite disingenuous for him not to ask where to check it. 2501:

I am doing my best still to assume good faith here; unfortunately, to do so, I am forced to come to the conclusion that the issue with your edits and comments here is one of

3743:

Slrubenstein, among the references that wasn't deleted - please read the article for Berger's footnote: "Whatever one thinks of the sincerity of the multiple Jesus theory"

3481:

I am quite certain that Van Voorst thinks Jesus is (or was) an individual, and since he also thinks Yeshu is Jesus, I believe he would definitely agree with that statement.

2247:

In fact, this article was written loooong before the Jesus in the Talmud Page. That page is a true POV fork because it exists to promote only one view, that Yeshu=Jesus.

3434:

In ictu oculi, I don't think Van Voorst has read this article, so it's hard to say whether or not he'd agree with its first sentence. To which sources are you referring?

435:

this one and that article is the POV fork. If anyone really thinks Yeshu refers to Jesus, those views certain should be included in this article, as I have always said.

3783:

Avi, Sorry, you misread what Berger is saying - but I'm not going to discuss it, please read the whole chapter. In any case the overriding issue here, as before is this:

159:

As an aside, I titled this section "dubious" solely to allow someone clicking on the dubious tag in line to come right to this section. It is not meant pejoratively. --

4114:

right. The lead allows for the possibility that Jeremias' view is right, and it also allows for the possibility that Van Voorst is right. that is what makes it NPOV.

3289:

Your comments are starting to be about me again, not about content.< Yes, but the problem is partly yourself. But you can redress this by answering the question

3190:

of the lede sentence", but rather that it reflects the consensus of the RFC. Again, please ensure your statements are more accurate and conform better with reality.

1556:

if any academic sources exist. Failing that a section on the views of the "rabbinical experts" mentioned by Amy-Jill Levine, which we presume will possibly include

1641:

This is not a test to see whether these sources agree with my view or not. It is an attempt to make sure that we present their views accurately and in context.

1054:. The next time you delete these sources I will take this to administrators list and bring into question whether you should have admistrator rights on Knowledge. 3186:

against you, with people indicating what you call "extra words" were valuable and helpful. This indicates that the phrase belongs and that I have not "taken up

2250:

Your agenda is clear: you aim to do whatever you can to disrupt this article, to violate NPOV and NOR, so then people will read it and reach the conclusion you

3030:

Yes, I understand that you dispute the plain reading of Meier; however, even if we were to ignore Meier, that would leave several other 20th century scholars.

2471:, in the very section in which I added the citation! If you do not read the article, then how can you comment on its contents, much less attempt to edit them? 254:

ps. I really must get off this page. I am very busy at the moment. I hope in ictu oculi does return, to save me from possible suspicions I am meatpuppeting!

3465:

2. By allowing sources that disagree with "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" to be added I would mean Schafer, Horbury, Herford, Klausner for example.

3221:

of the lede sentence" then your comment will be ignored in its entirety, and you will be referred to this and or other comments outlining this consequence.

1858:

Well with all the deletions it's difficult to know, maybe you and Slrubenstein didn't delete this one, maybe I only cited it here in the Talk as something

308:

If I understand the sources and you, Nishidani, correctly, we do not have anything saying that Celsus understands the name "Yeshu" to mean Jesus. What we

229:

in the two statements above, and all this obscure material, and the rabbinic commentary on it, has been thoroughly analysed by modern scholars like Maier.

3484:

I feel fairly certain that Schafer, Horbury, Herford, Klausner think Yeshu was an individual as well. Do you have examples of them saying otherwise?

1744:

deleted) or would like to, or have cited in Talk. The question is not whether I am capable of properly citing a citation - have I ever not done so? -

358:

My particular concern about Celsus is that he makes no reference to the name "Yeshu", and so without some verifiable source linking Celsus to Yeshu,

212:, (the wiki pages are very poor on both of these, and unreliable) and the assumption you are both making appears to credit the view associated with 3336:

It's reasonable to "dispute" a source, but not reasonable to pretend it doesn't exist. The phrase "more modern than Jeremias 1935" does the latter.

204:(Contra Celsum), dated 248 CE. As you both know, there is some considerable confusion in rabbinic tradition about the dating and authorship of the 2254:

people to reach, that it is a badly written and badly sourced duplication of the Jesus in the Talmud article. You are not editing in good faith.

4007:

I think I now understand why you seem so troubled by what is happening here, In ictu—you seem to be under a fundamental misconception as to what

2453:(albeit with completely idiosyncratic formatting), you still get it wrong. For example, you just now added what you describe as "Quarles (2008)". 1964:

I have no idea what material from Berger you are thinking of, and how you would like to use it, so it would make sense to actually (and finally)

1791:(albeit with completely idiosyncratic formatting), you still get it wrong. For example, you just now added what you describe as "Quarles (2008)". 4011:

means in the Knowledge context. I have wiki-linked the word for you to follow and review more carefully, but in a nutshell, verifiability means

2480:, which is obviously not a proper citation. Rather than replace it with Van Voorst, who makes the same point, and is a century newer, you oddly 98:

in specific as Jesus, since I.28 of Celsus itself makes reference to neither Talmud nor Tosefta, so our making that link, even if obvious, is a

3861:

in almost every thread in which you've commented, including the RFC you initiated, in which the consensus was that the phrase was appropriate.

3794:

in the 1st line of the article when you, I assume?, know that Van Voorst, Schafer etc., etc., etc., don't agree that "Hillel is an individual

4269:

agree that "is a name" is cleaner and more elegant than the second option. Do you have any ideas how to incorporate both in a better way? --

4017:—whether readers can check that material in Knowledge has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." 767:. It's generally recognised in the study of Classical Greek that the representation of consonants which Greek doesn't distinguish is not (a) 4095:

This of course is only one problem, but it's emblematic of the approach of putting medieval authorities ahead of modern scholarship. And of

3378:

Finally, I see you've carried your dispute with me here into other articles, where you have suddenly started to oppose me and refer back to

2591:

Re the editing, I have already said, under these circumstances where I have been subject to automatic deletion for 3 weeks, one gets tired.

2418:

is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Knowledge policies". In other words, WP:POVFORK is explicit that it is the

967:

There's the quote from Berger where he says Profiat Duran evidently didn't accept Yehiel's two Jesuses theory, and Berger on Leon Modena.

4092:

But they don't say that do they, far from it. So why can the NPOV and uncontroversial "Yeshu is a name" not be left in the lede sentence?

3099:. Avi, Jayjg, and Slrubenstein have been extraordinarily patient with you. I suggest you step back and reconsider your behavior here. 2226:

so why is it so essential to get that provocative underlined bit up in the 1st lede line? Why can't we have a neutral 1st lede sentence?

3462:"? --- or put another way, would you like to add Van Voorst's statement as a supporting ref alongside Jeremias and Dalman in ref box 1? 4342: 2340:

The RFC gained 3 outside voices, who I presume saw Slrubenstein's comments misrepresenting what was happening. And yes it was against.

1501:

20th and 21st century academics. Finally, please respond substantively to my previous comment: is there a specific source you wish to

783:

also 2010 a detailed survery of Semitic/Aramaic/Hebrew place/personal names into Greek. Happy to discuss on that article's Talk page.

549:

the purpose was spreading the weight a little, not just always about the 2 disputed variants b.Sot47a and b.Sanh.107b in the B.Talmud.

2095:

scholars to agree with you were Dalman 1922, Jeremias 1935 (yes I know that you think there have been others since, but they are not

1591:

If there are important scholars whose views should be included in the article, by all means, let's include them - but let us include

1282:

use, b) explicitly state what they say, and c) explain how you would like to modify the article's text to accommodate those sources.

3639:

you can't find an actual reason for tagging the article, then the tag will eventually be removed; persistent disruptive tagging and

2018:; until then, make more truthful Talk: page comments, stop blaming your failings on Slrubenstein and me, and start citing properly. 278: 4169:

Which is why I ask for a quote. If you had an appropriate quote, we could add it to the article and improve it. Same for Meier.

3217:. If further comments contain phrases like "you may not like it" or "you're seeking dispute and controversy" or "You have taken up 2567:. Please review the previous comment, where I explain exactly what I did, specifically going over these points. In general, please 1090:, or whatever article it is you are trying to build here (please decide) and then Knowledge users who aren't that concerned about 2502: 2735:. If it turns out that there are scholars who hold other views thn those of Dalman or Jeremias, that is great! We would just 1980:"Jeremias cited in Beckwith", "Meier; cf. Theissen", "Bauckham in Quarles", "Schafer; cf. Setzer", and "Schafer; cf. Horbury", 2446:, which would include book names, author, year, page number, and relevant quotations. You continually refuse or fail to do so. 2174:

In ictu, I have no idea if your ritual incantations help you in other fields of life, but they certainly aren't helping here.

1656:

do they attach the name Yeshu to the stories, or like Maier do they think the name is a later interpelation to an older story?

220:, or other traditions that conventionally assign the compilation to Judah ha-Nasi, a contemporary of Celsus. As we have them, 1423:

I think this is a pretty serious misrepresentation of what has been happening. You have been introducing these sources while

285:. I don't recall anything being mentioned about the Mishnah or other Jewish works, but this book is a good place to check. 3330:

do, and that NPOV demands their views be recognized. You have misread, misunderstood or misconstrued what the sentence says.

2030:

Do I have your word that I retype out in full, again, sources disagreeing with your lede sentence you will not delete them?

240:

confirmation of the material in the former two, which however is variously dated, often to periods long postdating Celsus.

3523:

The question is the same as ever: Are you certain that Schafer, Horbury, Herford, Klausner think "Yeshu was an individual

3130: 576:

Finally, can you tell us more about the sources - in what context were they published, and hat was their principal points?

190:

Census (=Celsus) is a primary source; moreover insofar as he is commenting on the Talmud he is arguably a secondary source

2728:

As to your question, whether anyone disputes Dalman or Jeremias, well that is of course a question you ar free to answer

763:

article has, it appears, had several editors do some OR backtracking from modern languages without academic sourcing re.

4044: 3730:"Berger himself does not take seriously Yechiel's defence any more than any modern scholar" where does Berger say this? 3114: 1153: 1465:

to add some of these mainstream refs so often now that I can even remember the page numbers and years. And every time,

1381:

deleting/shortening academic sources are interested in presenting Yechiel's view, why not let the full view be stated?

3836:

Something ironic about "ritual phrases" being repeated as a ritual answer. Do you agree that "Hillel is an individual

1241:

Jayjg, and how is that different from renaissance works, early-modern works, 19th-20th C works, modern Israeli usage?

2853:

This is a fairly serious allegation "violated copyright" - where is the Knowledge admin area where I can check this?

2206:

No.2, the need of the article to hit the reader with the Yechiel/Ramban/Dalman POV straight out of the gate: Do all

1622:

You do not answer any of my questions about Voorst, either. All we know is that Voorst reports that the Greek name

1323: 1146: 1091: 1083: 1047: 3894:

Well, I already have been stopped haven't I? It's been 2 weeks since I tried to change this POV " is an individual

3530:

If that is confusing, then are you certain that the Ramban, the Rambam, Rashi think that "Hillel was an individual

2609:

Citations I inserted in the lede 8 days ago to sources from 1966, 1991, 1998, 2005 and 2008 that support this view.

38: 2657:. These references all have a great deal of clarity. I see you are now trying out a new potential ritual phrase, " 1768:

Of course you have "ever not done so" (properly cited a citation). I've already shown you adding references like

1478:

in the first line of the article, and you will not let modern academic sources into the lede that counter that.

1335: 891:

This setnence provide information backwards, and incompletely. It says that the views of the rabbis named were

4076:, and we have the living sources Van Voorst, Scafer, Horbury, Maier, Theissen, Meier, Klausner, Herford saying 3693: 3358:

sources think "Yeshu" in the Talmud does not refer to Jesus (or does not always refer to Jesus), other sources

2296:

created an RFC on removing the "individual or individuals" language from the lede, and the consensus there was

1635:

authority to stone anyone, so either the story took place before Roman rule, or was altered - which one? Why?

1095: 1087: 839:

article. I'll be happy to copy what Nazaereth uses; I have no real problem with that. Is that OK from your end?

2079:

In ictu oculi, there are no "scholars that disagree with me", so I don't understand what you're saying here.

1534:

first we have to get past the concept of sources which contradict the POV of the lede sentence being allowed.

4346: 4251: 4211: 4160: 4104: 4040: 3994: 3907: 3849: 3803: 3748: 3721: 3668: 3629: 3596: 3546: 3537:

Same question - answer either one - but please answer the question per the question, not the question with "

3470: 3425: 3298: 3138: 3074: 2976: 2858: 2698: 2634: 2600: 2546: 2398: 2234: 2165: 2111: 2070: 2035: 2005: 1867: 1831: 1759: 1715: 1565: 1557: 1483: 1414: 1386: 1343: 1296: 1272: 1246: 1215: 1163: 1115: 1059: 1015: 972: 860: 826: 788: 725: 687:

differently because it is attached (davuk) to the following word. (By coincedence, the word appeared in the

644: 554: 520: 485: 416: 4230: 4174: 4147: 4119: 3735: 3640: 3612: 2914: 2900: 2806: 2744: 2718: 2263: 1934: 1690: 1538:(B) A substantial section with academic sources on (Sephardi, Andalusian etc.) texts from 1300-1800 where 1314: 1180: 1035: 954: 937: 901: 667: 616: 469: 440: 349: 123: 3285:

and please don't give me "ritual invocation" again since you have ignored this question 5 times already.

3238:

It's not greatly helpful as much as addressing the question about the neutrality of your lede sentence:

1700:

add." Let us start with one source and see if you will not delete it. Voorst, Voorst says that the name

1291:

The sources I would like to use for 20th modern Hebrew usage are the 3 dictionaries which were deleted.

611:

In ictu, you have the sources for these people, can you provide this basic information please? Thanks,

1206:, but renaissance works, early-modern works, 19th-20th C works, dictionaries, modern Israeli usage are 4099:

in that a couple of disputed references in a sixth Century Aramaic text take up 95% of article space.

3333:

The RFC may or may not have been well worded, but the statements of those responding were quite clear.

3182:

You started an RFC on removing the words "an individual or individuals" above, and the consensus was

2150: 1734: 1693: 1522:

Finally, please respond substantively to my previous comment: is there a specific source you wish to

1390: 1000: 84: 72: 67: 59: 4080:. No given that we all agree that Jeremias says YES, and we all agree that Van Voorst says NO, so = 399:

Then to be consistent all the overweight and duplicate info in this article which is a POVfork from

3218: 3187: 3092: 3066: 2658: 2622: 2423: 2330: 2282:

was created on 4 September 2010, and much of it was copied from the Yeshu article. It is therefore

2279: 2200: 2014:

Random last names are not "academic sources". Show me where I've deleted a citation compliant with

1227: 400: 259: 245: 213: 3100: 2953: 2713:

so we can provide fuller prepresentation of their views in the appropriate places in the article.

2196: 1099: 286: 4247: 4207: 4156: 4100: 3990: 3903: 3845: 3799: 3744: 3717: 3664: 3625: 3592: 3542: 3500:

We have been through this a dozen times with examples such as that "Churchill was an individual"

3466: 3421: 3418:

2. Will you allow sources that disagree with "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" to be added?

3294: 3134: 3070: 2972: 2971:

Yes I've been in the situation where I've talked to incumbent page owners on Talk pages before.

2854: 2694: 2630: 2596: 2542: 2394: 2230: 2161: 2107: 2066: 2031: 2001: 1863: 1827: 1755: 1711: 1685:

faith asking you if you can provide the following information about these views you wish to add.

1561: 1479: 1410: 1382: 1339: 1292: 1268: 1242: 1211: 1159: 1111: 1055: 1011: 968: 856: 822: 784: 721: 640: 601:

Knowing this will enable us to present this information more clarly and in a moe informative way.

550: 516: 481: 412: 3415:

1. Does Van Voorst agree with your 1st sentence wording "Yeshu is an individual or individuals"?

1255:

The difference would be in drawing conclusions from using the dictionaries as primary sources.

4274: 4226: 4170: 4143: 4115: 4052: 3939: 3882: 3774: 3731: 3701: 3683: 3608: 3104: 2957: 2910: 2896: 2802: 2740: 2714: 2493: 2411: 2326: 2287: 2259: 1930: 1686: 1659:

When, exactly, do they date the story itself, and if they think "Yeshu" was added later, when?

1310: 1176: 1031: 996: 950: 933: 922: 897: 663: 612: 512:

If you want to be sincere about this quote, please restore "he is not mentioned in the text".

465: 436: 371: 345: 333: 318: 290: 275: 268:

One more thing to add to these "meaty" comments (kidding). A helpful reference on Celsus is:

183:

we will need another source to support Celsus's understanding the Tosefta in specific as Jesus

164: 144: 119: 107: 4096: 3712: 217: 3692:

Never mind, Berger certainly is an authority on this. See his wiki entry for more details (

2343:

The above are not "old settled issues" - yes I have asked before questions such as "Do all

2329:

do not deliniate "which article started first" a the definition of a POVfork. As it stands

2244:

Why do you say this is a POV fork of the Jesus in the Talmud page? What is your evidence?

131:

Thank you, Slrubinstein, for the kind words! We have an on-line convenience version of the

3270:

This "ritual invocation" adhominem has to stop, all it says is that you are not listening.

2834: 2650: 1004: 99: 3816:"; rather, the lede presents the differing views of reliable sources, in compliance with 1787:

And, as pointed out, when you finally produce a citation that more-or-less complies with

1509:

is not a proper citation, particularly in an article that no-where else mentions Berger.

1450:

is not a proper citation, particularly in an article that no-where else mentions Berger.

464:"Maier, Neusner, Meier, Powell" do not constitute a "school." Do not misrepresent them. 4327: 4299: 4036: 3817: 3556: 3516:" for the editor involved to answer back about just "individual" without the disputed " 3458:

that he would agree with your 1st line lede statement that Yeshu refers to "individual

3318: 3126: 3118: 3096: 2450: 2333:

contains mainstream academic sources representing them accurately. Wheras this article

2015: 1985: 1842: 1810: 1788: 1396:

Sorry, I don't understand; who here is "interested in presenting Yechiel's view"? You?

844: 803: 747: 699: 255: 241: 3366:

captured in the lede sentence, because Van Voorst believes that Yeshu is a name of an

3059:

so it doesn't support your "individual or individuals" POV anyway. Jeremias 1935 does.

2758:

Slrubenstein. It was Jayjg who deleted the full text of Powell, not me, I inserted it.

606:

Moreover, it might turn out that our article shojuld include even more of their views!

3969:, in fact we have living scholars such as Van Voorst and Schafer clearly saying that 3214: 3088: 2654: 1306: 1207: 1203: 1190: 1125: 1107: 1027: 818: 681: 382: 1774:"see article refs for Johann Maier (talmudic scholar), Jacob Neusner, John P. Meier" 1728:"see article refs for Johann Maier (talmudic scholar), Jacob Neusner, John P. Meier" 1440:"see article refs for Johann Maier (talmudic scholar), Jacob Neusner, John P. Meier" 4270: 4222: 4048: 3935: 3878: 3770: 3758: 3697: 3679: 2949: 2892: 2344: 2207: 1224: 1082:

Or actually maybe not -- maybe that's the solution, you can have your article here

918: 545:

I have added in Ibn Shaprut, Hasdai Crescas, Leon Modena, and 3 1890-1930 authors.

431:

for this to be a POV fork from Jesus in the Talmud, since that article was written

367: 329: 314: 196: 160: 140: 103: 1305:

And you are adding these sources only so you can insert into the article your own

1230:

refer to b.Sot.47a b.Sanh.107b and Toledoth Yeshu, and their references to Yeshu.

1202:

Jayjg, can you explain to me how b.Sot.47a b.Sanh.107b and Toledoth Yeshu are not

2337:

maintains one view misrepresenting sources. Whichever was first isn't a criteria.

4008: 1988:. Stop blaming your failings on Slrubenstein and me, and start citing properly. 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3786:

Is it right for you, as an admin, to be defending the "Hillel is an individual

3387:

this article, then I will continue the discussion here. If you wish to dispute

2467:! Not only that, the material you added (about the ossuary, Sukenik, etc.) was 4303: 3866: 3825: 3644: 3566: 3485: 3435: 3404: 3226: 3175:"Why does Powell quote the Talmud using the name Yeshu, and write 'Yeshu ' "?" 3035: 2838: 2662: 2612: 2576: 2518: 2314: 2175: 2147: 2080: 2046: 2019: 1989: 1850: 1818: 1731: 1510: 1451: 1397: 1283: 1256: 1231: 1194: 1103: 772: 495: 450: 386: 47: 17: 995:

Slrubenstein, can you explain why you deleted "This was the spelling used by

136: 4323: 4295: 3902:" which the main living writers on the subject, Schafer etc, disagree with. 1662:

Do they say that the story (or name - whichever they say) is a reference to:

840: 799: 764: 743: 695: 2850:

therefore your wording "or individuals" in the lede sentence is in dispute.

1770:"Maier, Schafer, Voorst, Horbury, Setzer, references as deleted previously" 1436:"Maier, Schafer, Voorst, Horbury, Setzer, references as deleted previously" 3950:

not in itself comprise "consensus" it just is the rule of maximum reverts.

3957:

opening statement of this article is an a violation of a core principle:

814: 768: 760: 716: 712: 4350: 4331: 4306: 4278: 4255: 4233: 4215: 4177: 4164: 4150: 4122: 4108: 4056: 3998: 3943: 3911: 3886: 3869: 3853: 3828: 3807: 3778: 3752: 3738: 3725: 3705: 3687: 3672: 3647: 3633: 3615: 3600: 3569: 3550: 3488: 3474: 3438: 3429: 3407: 3302: 3229: 3142: 3108: 3078: 3038: 2980: 2961: 2917: 2903: 2862: 2841: 2809: 2747: 2721: 2702: 2665: 2638: 2615: 2604: 2579: 2550: 2521: 2402: 2317: 2266: 2238: 2178: 2169: 2115: 2083: 2074: 2049: 2039: 2022: 2009: 1992: 1937: 1896:"maybe you and Slrubenstein didn't delete this one" - you mean, you are 1871: 1853: 1835: 1821: 1763: 1719: 1569: 1513: 1487: 1454: 1418: 1400: 1347: 1317: 1300: 1286: 1276: 1259: 1250: 1234: 1219: 1197: 1183: 1167: 1152:

Where on Knowledge can the reference to deleted material which concerns

1137:

Dictionaries, encyclopedias, modern non-rabbinical authors are not "OR".

1119: 1063: 1038: 1019: 976: 957: 940: 926: 904: 864: 848: 830: 807: 792: 751: 729: 703: 670: 648: 619: 558: 524: 498: 489: 472: 453: 443: 420: 389: 375: 352: 337: 322: 294: 263: 249: 168: 148: 126: 111: 3844:

to the lede sentence, you should be willing to be questioned about it.

2625:

and the opposite of what the authors actually say. And again, they are

209: 205: 4082:

why is Jeremias' view presented as a fact in the 1st line of the lede?

2359:? obviously not, it could easily start with "Yeshu is a name" without 2222:? obviously not, it could easily start with "Yeshu is a name" without 2474:

I have kept your "Voorst" (actually Van Voorst) citation, and again,

1267:

propose instead that gives modern word usage but isn't a dictionary?

2822:

who left it in and even expanded it. A lengthy quote from Powell is

2449:

When you finally produce a citation that more-or-less complies with

913: 835:

Once again, I'm simply referring to the Hebrew spelling (vowels) in

3291:

does e.g. Van Voorst say that Yeshu can refer to other individuals?

3283:

does e.g. Van Voorst say that Yeshu can refer to other individuals?

3240:

does e.g. Van Voorst say that Yeshu can refer to other individuals?

1595:

views and not pick just those quotes that further In ictu's point.

4039:. If you still have issues with the concept, I suggest you review 3121:

maybe should be applied to constructive dialogue of Slrubenstein:

2431: 2334: 2275: 1331: 1327: 1051: 636: 2484:. There is no rational explanation for doing this that I can see. 2203:

with here extensive badly written and badly sourced duplication.

1669:

Jesus of Nazereth, who preached and healed in the first century?

1475: 594:

For the source being used, what is its primary point (argument)?

2794:

Jayjg deleted the extensive quote? What matters is that jayjg

2438:, rather than obsessively repeating obviously false statements. 272:

Celsus On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians

1071:

I see the dictionaries refs have been deleted too. ..........

25: 3391:

article in another article, then I will continue the dispute

3263:"more modern than Jeremias 1935" is a ritual invocation< 2801:. The view is still in the article; that is what matters. 1552:(D) We could also add sources to the claims for alternative 1098:

can have the content which has been deleted here related to

3769:

interpretations of sources to color wikipedia articles. --

3565:

represents the subject in a neutral, policy-compliant way.

2347:

sources agree with the lede sentence "Yeshu is the name of

2210:

sources agree with the lede sentence "Yeshu is the name of

2103:

Though honestly, if you think all scholars agree with you,

1929:

this approach, you can go back to fabricating accusations.

1189:

And you're quite correct that adding examples of usage is

591:

For the source being used, who was their primary audience?

2436:

then use words that are accurate and express your meaning

2422:

article that is the POVfork; in this case, that would be

2229:

No.3, deleting academic references and then adding etc.

1972:

inserting laughably absurd citations: for example, today

1652:

information. Can you provide the following information:

3643:

is typically rewarded with blocks of increasing length.

3446:

1. I'll rephrase it. Based on Van Voorst statement that

1924:

In ictu, in a final attempt at collaborative editing, I

1644:

In general, for any source we wish to introduce on this

1545:(C) A substantial section on modern Israeli usage where 4023:

mean, as you seem to understand, that the statement is

2610: 2533: 2481: 2461: 2454: 1977: 1799: 1792: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1727: 1506: 1447: 1439: 1435: 1427: 1043: 1008: 855:

Mzk1, you can try it and see if it's deleted/reverted.

691:

for today as Nitzrat, but my edition is not scholarly.

546: 1124:

I just want to make sure the article does not violate

1474:

Yechiel's 1240 "individual or individuals" view as a

3824:

section, please focus solely on Yechiel and Berger.

639:

it will take you to the person in each case. Cheers

216:

that the Mishnah was wholly composed by students of

3395:, but not here. I suspect you'd prefer to work out 2818:who added the Powell quote in the first place, and 1430:. I don't think anyone has objected to the sources 494:What does Powell mean by "Yeshu " in that context? 135:which I have no reason to believe is not accurate, 627:These people are representative users of the name 514:Please let the Knowledge reader see those 7 words. 3620:In my experience someone who says something like 779:2010 gives a good introduction and Jože Krašovec 1156:, 1870s, 1930s, modern academic dictionaries go? 541:Addition of renaissance and modern texts to lede 3508:" to illustrate that it is the insistence that 2775:In ictu oculi (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 2773:Is Dalman 1922, Jeremias' 1935 view undisputed? 2692:Is Dalman 1922, Jeremias' 1935 view undisputed? 2369: 1860:I'd like to add if things weren't being deleted 1845:-compliant reference to Berger have I deleted? 1813:-compliant reference to Berger have I deleted? 1778:"Berger, 1998, reference as deleted previously" 1747: 1549:is used to is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth. 1542:is used to is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth. 1507:"Berger, 1998, reference as deleted previously" 1448:"Berger, 1998, reference as deleted previously" 3980:The opportunity was there to have a NPOV lede 2384:of other Joshuas. Does Voorst then agree with 2366:Why can't we have a neutral 1st lede sentence? 1338:and all Hebrew Bible content must be deleted. 821:Talk page, then there's not much point here. 694:Are there any sources for this pronounciation? 4013:"The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge is 2891:In icto oculi is clearly nothing more than a 2191:Probably need a restate of the problem here: 1708:to other Joshuas. Will you allow this source? 987:Deletion of 19th/20th Century author uses of 8: 3018:As has been pointed out already, I actually 781:The transformation of biblical proper names 2392:Why can't we have a NPOV 1st lede sentence? 1376:Should Yechiel's full 1240 view be allowed? 195:Just a point of clarification. It would be 2711:as I have politely requested several times 1505:and add? Keeping in mind, of course, that 1446:and add? Keeping in mind, of course, that 1375: 4317:Does the Rambam (Maimonides) belong here? 4206:Which of these is more NPOV? Be honest. 4084:The lede says (by virtue of being a lede 4043:and possible ask for more elucidation on 3622:do you have an actual English dictionary? 2790:In icto, and will you now tell the class 777:A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language 3986:Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. 3959:Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. 3245:"individuals" POV in your lede sentence. 3123:On one oaccasion you confessed to lying. 2482:repeat the material in a second sentence 1322:Same thing again, you say this is about 4322:indicate? Or would one need more proof? 3205:Your comments are starting to be about 3125:sort. I would have to consider whether 1826:Well where is it in the footnotes now? 4202:Yeshu is an individual or individuals. 1145:You've said that the article concerns 896:the Church or the civil authorities?) 585:When and where did they live and work? 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3344:simply ignore what you say, which is 3117:includes Talking, maybe it does, but 1638:All the same questions about Setzer. 7: 3961:It is evidently not verifiable that 3953:And yes I believe that the 1st line 3658:Addition of Yechiel of Paris to lede 2442:You have been challenged to produce 2195:No.1, as it stands this isn't about 3202:. Can you explain why you will not? 3812:Nothing is being presented "as an 2569:read my comments before responding 1984:of which meet the requirements of 1154:Yeshu in non-rabbinical literature 1030:. We cannot violate that policy. 381:I agree. I should be removed, per 24: 3757:In ictu, now you are engaging in 2833:who violated copyright to make a 2355:agree that "Yeshu is the name of 2218:agree that "Yeshu is the name of 1142:Anyway back to the issue at hand. 3840:"? As the person who added this 3198:sources, with proper citations, 1326:but the article title is a name 912: 711:Mzk1, well that would under the 224:these works are generally dated 29: 3790:" line being represented as an 3348:what you are trying to achieve. 2376:Voorst (for example) says that 2062:Voorst, Schafer, Klausner etc. 4064:Thanks, but I'm well aware of 3504:"Churchill was and individual 3373:already used as a source there 3091:by repeatedly editing against 2469:already present in the article 2460:(2008): I know this because I 2386:"an individual or individuals" 2361:"an individual or individuals" 2278:was created on 30 March 2004. 2224:"an individual or individuals" 1968:here. And by the way, you are 1798:(2008): I know this because I 1560:as per Gil Student's webpage. 1529:Yes, the article needs to add: 1428:completely re-writing the lede 1324:Yeshu in rabbinical literature 1147:Yeshu in rabbinical literature 1128:. 11:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC) 1092:Yeshu in rabbinical literature 1084:Yeshu in rabbinical literature 1048:Yeshu in rabbinical literature 449:"Yeshu", and states "Yeshu "? 362:Jesus, it is out-of-scope for 1: 3326:thinks this way, merely that 3131:Knowledge:Tendentious editing 2064:Do you intend to delete them? 1678:something else? if so, what? 4351:14:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC) 4332:21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC) 4045:Knowledge talk:Verifiability 3115:Knowledge:Disruptive editing 2644:not dispute this. Well, you 2357:an individual or individuals 2349:an individual or individuals 2220:an individual or individuals 2212:an individual or individuals 1648:, we should provide all the 4307:03:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC) 4279:23:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 4256:11:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 4234:08:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 4216:07:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 4178:13:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 4165:11:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 4151:08:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 4123:08:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 4109:07:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 4057:03:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 3999:00:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 3944:23:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 3912:23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 3887:20:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 3870:04:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC) 3854:23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 3829:17:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 3808:16:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 3779:15:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 3753:04:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 3739:11:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC) 3726:06:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC) 3706:16:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC) 3688:16:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC) 3673:08:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 3648:04:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC) 3634:11:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 3616:08:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 3601:07:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 3570:17:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 3551:04:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 3489:02:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 3475:00:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 3439:22:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 3430:07:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 3408:05:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 3303:00:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 3230:00:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 3143:11:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 3109:00:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 2981:11:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 2479:Such as Dalman</ref: --> 2179:04:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC) 2170:11:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 2151:03:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 2116:03:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 2084:02:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 2075:00:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 2050:05:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 2040:00:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 1809:where your mouth is; which 1704:always refers to Jesus and 1495:actual and proper citations 1348:11:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 1318:08:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 1301:23:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 1287:17:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 1277:17:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 1260:16:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 1251:04:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 1235:03:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 1220:03:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 1198:02:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 1184:11:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC) 1168:11:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC) 1120:03:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC) 1064:03:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC) 1046:. The article title is not 1039:14:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC) 1020:00:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC) 977:11:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 958:17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC) 941:16:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC) 927:16:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC) 905:20:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 865:04:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 849:12:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC) 831:00:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC) 808:22:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 793:00:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 752:20:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 671:16:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC) 649:00:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 620:11:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 559:08:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 525:00:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 274:. Oxford University Press. 4366: 3079:22:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC) 3039:19:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC) 2962:18:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC) 2948:This is clearly a case of 2918:16:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC) 2904:16:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC) 2863:03:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC) 2842:00:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC) 2810:23:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 2748:23:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 2722:22:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 2703:22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 2666:22:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 2639:05:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 2616:05:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 2605:05:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 2580:04:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 2551:04:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 2540:Why did you delete Voorst? 2522:04:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 2456:In fact, the reference is 2403:21:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 2318:17:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 2267:16:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 2239:11:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 2105:why are you deleting them? 2023:23:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 2010:22:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 1993:22:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 1938:13:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 1872:05:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 1854:05:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 1836:05:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 1822:04:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 1794:In fact, the reference is 1764:21:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 1735:17:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 1720:21:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 1694:16:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 1570:10:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 1514:05:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 1488:04:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 1455:04:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 1419:04:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 1401:03:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 1391:03:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 1336:Moses in the New Testament 730:22:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC) 704:22:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC) 679: 499:20:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 490:12:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 473:13:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC) 454:03:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC) 444:13:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC) 421:02:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC) 390:22:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC) 376:19:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 353:18:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 338:14:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 323:14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 295:13:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 264:08:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 250:08:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 169:03:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 149:03:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 127:02:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 112:02:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 4298:question? Please review 4086:" Yeshu is an individual 4078:no, Yeshu is always Jesus 3865:section is about Yehiel. 3607:this non-existent point. 3454:refers to other Joshuas, 2507:very strongly encouraging 1096:Yeshu in medieval polemic 1088:Yeshu in medieval polemic 270:Hoffmann, Joseph (1987). 4066:verifiability, not truth 4015:verifiability, not truth 3694:David Berger (professor) 3450:always refers to Jesus, 3225:I hope that is helpful. 3129:is an issue and whether 3083:No In ictu oculi, it is 1175:WP is not a dictionary. 588:What was their training? 565:expressed by these guys? 4041:Knowledge:Verifiability 3317:You have misunderstood 2829:@In ictu oculi, it was 2476:put it where it belongs 2380:is used only of Jesus, 2286:for the former to be a 1558:Nosson Dovid Rabinovich 1050:, the article title is 3403:, but it's up to you. 3065:(3) You have taken up 2565:already in the article 2557:didn't delete "Voorst" 2373: 1751: 192: 185: 3055:can refer to another 2814:And, in fact, it was 1898:making this stuff up? 1841:your mouth is; which 1672:Christians in general 1468:you will delete them. 759:That may because the 188: 181: 42:of past discussions. 4027:. You are confusing 2824:still in the article 2771:Jayjg, I ask again: 2428:six and a half years 2426:, which was created 1001:Aharon Avraham Kabak 635:If you click on the 3710:Avi. No, I mean is 3541:" removed. Thanks 2424:Jesus in the Talmud 2331:Jesus in the Talmud 2280:Jesus in the Talmud 2201:Jesus in the Talmud 2199:but a POVfork from 1966:explicitly state it 887:the second sentence 775:. Egbert J. Bakker 624:Hello Slrubenstein, 401:Jesus in the Talmud 214:Yochanan bar Nafcha 3399:article's content 3262:incidentally : --> 3113:I don't know that 3087:who are guilty of 2893:tendentious editor 2571:, and then please 1780:. Here's another: 100:original synthesis 4223:disruptive editor 3759:original research 3209:again, not about 3167:Arbitrary break 1 2536:were unjustified. 2494:Jesus myth theory 1978:managed to insert 1307:original research 1228:secondary sources 997:Elias Soloweyczyk 90: 89: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4357: 4199:Yeshu is a name. 3713:Yechiel of Paris 3213:. Please review 2444:actual citations 2325:The criteria in 1974:in one paragraph 1847:Show me the diff 1815:Show me the diff 1675:minim in general 916: 284: 218:Akiva ben Joseph 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4365: 4364: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4319: 4196: 4155:No, you don't. 3982:Yeshu is a name 3814:undeniable fact 3792:undeniable fact 3660: 3641:WP:ICANTHEARYOU 3555:In ictu oculi, 3171:In ictu oculi, 3169: 3015:In ictu oculi, 2796:did not delete 2651:Amy-Jill Levine 2573:respond to them 2465:three weeks ago 2462:added it myself 2382:Yehoshua/Yeshua 2189: 1803:three weeks ago 1800:added it myself 1378: 1005:Joseph Klausner 993: 889: 684: 678: 659: 657:dating "Yeshu"` 543: 281: 269: 95: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4363: 4361: 4340: 4339: 4318: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4243: 4237: 4236: 4204: 4203: 4200: 4195: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4093: 4088:or individuals 4074:or individuals 4062: 4002: 4001: 3978: 3975:or individuals 3967:or individuals 3955:or individuals 3951: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3900:or individuals 3896:or individuals 3892: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3842:or individuals 3838:or individuals 3834: 3796:or individuals 3788:or individuals 3784: 3728: 3690: 3678:"Scholar"? -- 3659: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3539:or individuals 3535: 3532:or individuals 3528: 3525:or individuals 3521: 3518:or individuals 3514:or individuals 3510:or individuals 3506:or individuals 3498: 3492: 3491: 3482: 3463: 3460:or individuals 3444: 3419: 3416: 3413: 3376: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3341: 3337: 3334: 3331: 3315: 3311:In ictu oculi 3306: 3305: 3286: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3260: 3256: 3253: 3246: 3242: 3236: 3223: 3222: 3203: 3195: 3191: 3180: 3176: 3168: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3063: 3060: 3044: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3028: 3024: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2969: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2906: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2851: 2847: 2827: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2751: 2750: 2725: 2724: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2592: 2589: 2585: 2537: 2529: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2487:We absolutely 2485: 2472: 2447: 2439: 2416:second article 2407:In ictu oculi 2389: 2374: 2367: 2364: 2341: 2338: 2323: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2301: 2291: 2290:of the latter. 2272:In ictu oculi 2242: 2241: 2227: 2204: 2188: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2157: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2101: 2089: 2059: 2055: 2028: 1998: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1806: 1785: 1752: 1745: 1741: 1723: 1722: 1709: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1676: 1673: 1670: 1664: 1663: 1660: 1657: 1605:representative 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1550: 1543: 1536: 1530: 1527: 1519: 1471: 1462: 1425:simultaneously 1406: 1377: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1157: 1150: 1143: 1140: 1138: 1135: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 992: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 946: 945: 944: 943: 888: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 757: 735: 734: 733: 732: 677: 674: 658: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 633: 625: 608: 607: 603: 602: 598: 597: 596: 595: 592: 589: 586: 578: 577: 573: 572: 567: 566: 542: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 510: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 446: 397: 356: 355: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 279: 252: 230: 186: 174: 173: 172: 171: 154: 153: 152: 151: 102:violation. -- 94: 91: 88: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4362: 4353: 4352: 4348: 4344: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4329: 4325: 4316: 4308: 4305: 4301: 4297: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4280: 4276: 4272: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4257: 4253: 4249: 4248:In ictu oculi 4244: 4242:Slrubenstein. 4241: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4235: 4232: 4228: 4224: 4221:Stop being a 4220: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4213: 4209: 4208:In ictu oculi 4201: 4198: 4197: 4193: 4179: 4176: 4172: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4162: 4158: 4157:In ictu oculi 4154: 4153: 4152: 4149: 4145: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4124: 4121: 4117: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4106: 4102: 4101:In ictu oculi 4098: 4097:WP:Overweight 4094: 4091: 4089: 4083: 4079: 4075: 4071: 4067: 4063: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4034: 4033:verifiability 4030: 4026: 4022: 4018: 4016: 4010: 4009:verifiability 4006: 4005: 4004: 4003: 4000: 3996: 3992: 3991:In ictu oculi 3987: 3983: 3979: 3976: 3972: 3968: 3964: 3960: 3956: 3952: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3941: 3937: 3913: 3909: 3905: 3904:In ictu oculi 3901: 3897: 3893: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3884: 3880: 3875: 3871: 3868: 3864: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3851: 3847: 3846:In ictu oculi 3843: 3839: 3835: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3805: 3801: 3800:In ictu oculi 3797: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3745:In ictu oculi 3742: 3741: 3740: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3718:In ictu oculi 3715: 3714: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3665:In ictu oculi 3657: 3649: 3646: 3642: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3626:In ictu oculi 3623: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3614: 3610: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3593:In ictu oculi 3571: 3568: 3563: 3558: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3543:In ictu oculi 3540: 3536: 3533: 3529: 3526: 3522: 3519: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3490: 3487: 3483: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3472: 3468: 3467:In ictu oculi 3464: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3437: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3422:In ictu oculi 3420: 3417: 3414: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3381: 3377: 3374: 3369: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3352: 3347: 3342: 3338: 3335: 3332: 3329: 3325: 3320: 3316: 3313: 3312: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3295:In ictu oculi 3292: 3287: 3284: 3278: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3261: 3257: 3254: 3251: 3247: 3243: 3241: 3237: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3228: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3201: 3196: 3192: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3166: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3135:In ictu oculi 3132: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3071:In ictu oculi 3068: 3064: 3061: 3058: 3054: 3049: 3045: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3037: 3034: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3016: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2973:In ictu oculi 2970: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2919: 2916: 2912: 2907: 2905: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2855:In ictu oculi 2852: 2848: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2799: 2793: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2774: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2749: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2733: 2727: 2726: 2723: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2695:In ictu oculi 2693: 2667: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2655:John P. Meier 2652: 2647: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2631:In ictu oculi 2628: 2624: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2614: 2611: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2597:In ictu oculi 2593: 2590: 2586: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2543:In ictu oculi 2541: 2538: 2535: 2534:these deletes 2530: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2495: 2490: 2486: 2483: 2477: 2473: 2470: 2466: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2452: 2448: 2445: 2440: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2408: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2395:In ictu oculi 2393: 2390: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2372: 2368: 2365: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2339: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2316: 2311: 2306: 2302: 2299: 2295: 2292: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2274: 2273: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2265: 2261: 2255: 2253: 2248: 2245: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2231:In ictu oculi 2228: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2186: 2180: 2177: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2162:In ictu oculi 2158: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2149: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2108:In ictu oculi 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2082: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2067:In ictu oculi 2065: 2060: 2056: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2048: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2032:In ictu oculi 2029: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2007: 2003: 2002:In ictu oculi 1999: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1939: 1936: 1932: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1899: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1864:In ictu oculi 1861: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1828:In ictu oculi 1825: 1824: 1823: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1807: 1804: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1790: 1786: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1756:In ictu oculi 1753: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1733: 1729: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1712:In ictu oculi 1710: 1707: 1703: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1692: 1688: 1677: 1674: 1671: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1661: 1658: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1651: 1647: 1642: 1639: 1636: 1634: 1628: 1625: 1620: 1618: 1616: 1608: 1606: 1602: 1596: 1594: 1589: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1562:In ictu oculi 1559: 1555: 1551: 1548: 1544: 1541: 1537: 1535: 1531: 1528: 1526:and add? < 1525: 1524:properly cite 1520: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1503:properly cite 1500: 1496: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1480:In ictu oculi 1477: 1472: 1470: 1469: 1463: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1444:properly cite 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1426: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1411:In ictu oculi 1407: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1399: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1383:In ictu oculi 1349: 1345: 1341: 1340:In ictu oculi 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1293:In ictu oculi 1290: 1289: 1288: 1285: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1269:In ictu oculi 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1258: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1243:In ictu oculi 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1233: 1229: 1226: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1212:In ictu oculi 1209: 1205: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1182: 1178: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1160:In ictu oculi 1158: 1155: 1151: 1148: 1144: 1141: 1139: 1136: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1127: 1122: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1112:In ictu oculi 1109: 1108:Yeshua (name) 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1072: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1056:In ictu oculi 1053: 1049: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1012:In ictu oculi 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 990: 986: 978: 974: 970: 969:In ictu oculi 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 956: 952: 942: 939: 935: 930: 929: 928: 924: 920: 915: 909: 908: 907: 906: 903: 899: 894: 886: 866: 862: 858: 857:In ictu oculi 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 833: 832: 828: 824: 823:In ictu oculi 820: 819:Talk:Nazareth 816: 811: 810: 809: 805: 801: 796: 795: 794: 790: 786: 785:In ictu oculi 782: 778: 774: 770: 766: 762: 758: 755: 754: 753: 749: 745: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 731: 727: 723: 722:In ictu oculi 718: 714: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 701: 697: 692: 690: 683: 682:Talk:Nazareth 675: 673: 672: 669: 665: 656: 650: 646: 642: 641:In ictu oculi 638: 634: 630: 626: 623: 622: 621: 618: 614: 610: 609: 605: 604: 600: 599: 593: 590: 587: 584: 583: 580: 579: 575: 574: 569: 568: 563: 562: 561: 560: 556: 552: 551:In ictu oculi 548: 540: 526: 522: 518: 517:In ictu oculi 515: 511: 507: 502: 501: 500: 497: 493: 492: 491: 487: 483: 482:In ictu oculi 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 471: 467: 463: 455: 452: 447: 445: 442: 438: 434: 430: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 418: 414: 413:In ictu oculi 410: 407: 402: 398: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 388: 384: 380: 379: 378: 377: 373: 369: 365: 361: 354: 351: 347: 342: 341: 340: 339: 335: 331: 325: 324: 320: 316: 311: 296: 292: 288: 282: 280:0-19-504151-8 277: 273: 267: 266: 265: 261: 257: 253: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 215: 211: 207: 203: 198: 194: 193: 191: 187: 184: 180: 179: 178: 177: 176: 175: 170: 166: 162: 158: 157: 156: 155: 150: 146: 142: 138: 134: 133:Contra Celsum 130: 129: 128: 125: 121: 116: 115: 114: 113: 109: 105: 101: 92: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4343:4.248.222.74 4341: 4320: 4227:Slrubenstein 4205: 4194:1st sentence 4171:Slrubenstein 4144:Slrubenstein 4116:Slrubenstein 4087: 4085: 4081: 4077: 4073: 4069: 4065: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4014: 4012: 3985: 3981: 3974: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3932: 3899: 3895: 3862: 3841: 3837: 3821: 3813: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3766: 3762: 3732:Slrubenstein 3711: 3661: 3621: 3609:Slrubenstein 3590: 3561: 3538: 3531: 3524: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3459: 3456:do you think 3455: 3451: 3447: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3379: 3372: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3345: 3327: 3323: 3290: 3282: 3249: 3239: 3224: 3219:WP:Ownership 3210: 3206: 3199: 3188:WP:Ownership 3183: 3170: 3122: 3093:WP:CONSENSUS 3084: 3067:WP:Ownership 3056: 3052: 3047: 3019: 2911:Slrubenstein 2897:Slrubenstein 2830: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2803:Slrubenstein 2797: 2795: 2791: 2772: 2741:Slrubenstein 2736: 2731: 2729: 2715:Slrubenstein 2710: 2691: 2688: 2659:WP:Synthesis 2645: 2626: 2623:WP:Synthesis 2572: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2539: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2488: 2475: 2468: 2464: 2457: 2443: 2435: 2427: 2419: 2415: 2391: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2370: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2304: 2300:against you. 2297: 2293: 2283: 2260:Slrubenstein 2256: 2251: 2249: 2246: 2243: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2197:Yeshu (name) 2190: 2144: 2104: 2096: 2092: 2063: 1981: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1931:Slrubenstein 1925: 1897: 1859: 1846: 1814: 1802: 1795: 1748: 1724: 1705: 1701: 1687:Slrubenstein 1683: 1649: 1645: 1643: 1640: 1637: 1632: 1629: 1623: 1621: 1614: 1612: 1609: 1604: 1600: 1597: 1592: 1590: 1586: 1553: 1546: 1539: 1533: 1523: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1467: 1466: 1443: 1431: 1424: 1379: 1311:Slrubenstein 1177:Slrubenstein 1174: 1134:Slrubenstein 1123: 1100:Yeshu (name) 1081: 1070: 1032:Slrubenstein 994: 988: 951:Slrubenstein 947: 934:Slrubenstein 898:Slrubenstein 892: 890: 836: 780: 776: 693: 688: 685: 664:Slrubenstein 660: 628: 613:Slrubenstein 544: 513: 505: 466:Slrubenstein 437:Slrubenstein 432: 428: 409:is mentioned 408: 405: 366:article. -- 363: 359: 357: 346:Slrubenstein 326: 309: 307: 271: 237: 233: 225: 221: 201: 189: 182: 132: 120:Slrubenstein 96: 78: 43: 37: 3235:Hello Jayjg 3179:assertions. 2505:. I am now 2187:The problem 680:Main page: 238:independent 202:Κατά Κέλσου 36:This is an 3368:individual 3293:, thanks. 2503:competence 2412:WP:POVFORK 2327:WP:Povfork 2288:WP:POVFORK 2284:impossible 2097:UNDISPUTED 2093:UNDISPUTED 1104:Isa (name) 1102:just like 812:Mzk1 : --> 773:consistent 427:It is not 18:Talk:Yeshu 4296:straw man 2629:. Cheers 2305:citations 2091:The last 1615:Neusner's 1334:is about 991:from lede 893:responses 765:phonetics 632:B.Talmud" 506:anonymous 256:Nishidani 242:Nishidani 85:Archive 7 79:Archive 6 73:Archive 5 68:Archive 4 60:Archive 1 4019:It does 3973:is not " 3452:Yehoshua 3340:reality. 3324:everyone 3288:6. : --> 3279:5. : --> 3258:4. : --> 3194:instead. 3184:strongly 3023:reality. 2968:Ovadyah, 2835:WP:POINT 2798:the view 2627:disputed 2588:content. 2513:changes 2458:Bauckham 2410:Quoting 2298:strongly 1796:Bauckham 1650:relevant 1613:include 1225:Reliable 1044:Restored 815:Nazareth 769:accurate 761:Nazareth 717:Nazarene 713:Nazareth 676:Natzrat? 509:between. 429:possible 232:Celsus, 222:however, 4300:WP:TALK 4072:can be 4037:WP:NPOV 3818:WP:NPOV 3557:WP:NPOV 3364:already 3319:WP:NPOV 3211:content 3127:WP:HEAR 3119:WP:IDHT 3101:Ovadyah 3097:WP:IDHT 2954:Ovadyah 2730:if you 2511:propose 2509:you to 2451:WP:CITE 2016:WP:CITE 1986:WP:CITE 1843:WP:CITE 1811:WP:CITE 1789:WP:CITE 817:on the 771:or (b) 756:Hi Mzk1 720:think. 287:Ovadyah 210:Tosefta 206:Mishnah 93:Dubious 39:archive 4304:Jayjg 3867:Jayjg 3833:Jayjg, 3826:Jayjg 3763:per se 3696:). -- 3645:Jayjg 3567:Jayjg 3497:Jayjg, 3486:Jayjg 3436:Jayjg 3405:Jayjg 3227:Jayjg 3215:WP:NPA 3089:WP:OWN 3057:Yeshu. 3036:Jayjg 3020:linked 2839:Jayjg 2663:Jayjg 2613:Jayjg 2577:Jayjg 2519:Jayjg 2430:after 2420:second 2315:Jayjg 2176:Jayjg 2156:Jayjg, 2148:Jayjg 2100:Jesus. 2081:Jayjg 2047:Jayjg 2020:Jayjg 1990:Jayjg 1851:Jayjg 1819:Jayjg 1732:Jayjg 1730:kind. 1706:Yeshua 1624:Iesous 1601:acting 1554:Yeshus 1511:Jayjg 1499:solely 1452:Jayjg 1432:per se 1405:Jayjg, 1398:Jayjg 1284:Jayjg 1257:Jayjg 1232:Jayjg 1208:WP:NOR 1204:WP:NOR 1195:Jayjg 1191:WP:NOR 1126:WP:NOR 1028:WP:NOR 1003:, and 496:Jayjg 451:Jayjg 387:Jayjg 383:WP:NOR 4070:Yeshu 4047:. -- 4031:with 4029:truth 3971:Yeshu 3963:Yeshu 3448:Yeshu 3443:Jayjg 3412:Jayjg 3393:there 3250:Yeshu 3053:Yeshu 3043:Jayjg 2950:WP:TE 2846:Jayjg 2584:Jayjg 2561:et al 2528:Jayjg 2432:Yeshu 2378:Yeshu 2345:WP:RS 2335:Yeshu 2322:Jayjg 2276:Yeshu 2208:WP:RS 2088:Jayjg 2058:then. 2054:Jayjg 2027:Jayjg 1997:Jayjg 1970:still 1740:Jayjg 1702:Yeshu 1646:topic 1617:views 1603:as a 1593:their 1547:Yeshu 1540:Yeshu 1521:: --> 1518:Jayjg 1461:Jayjg 1332:Moses 1328:Yeshu 1052:Yeshu 989:Yeshu 689:kinot 637:links 629:Yeshu 433:after 406:Yeshu 396:Jayjg 226:after 197:WP:OR 16:< 4347:talk 4328:talk 4324:Mzk1 4275:talk 4252:talk 4231:Talk 4212:talk 4175:Talk 4161:talk 4148:Talk 4120:Talk 4105:talk 4053:talk 4025:true 3995:talk 3940:talk 3908:talk 3883:talk 3863:This 3850:talk 3822:this 3804:talk 3775:talk 3749:talk 3736:Talk 3722:talk 3702:talk 3684:talk 3669:talk 3630:talk 3613:Talk 3597:talk 3547:talk 3471:talk 3426:talk 3401:here 3397:this 3389:this 3380:this 3356:some 3328:some 3299:talk 3200:here 3139:talk 3105:talk 3075:talk 2977:talk 2958:talk 2915:Talk 2901:Talk 2859:talk 2807:Talk 2745:Talk 2719:Talk 2699:talk 2653:and 2635:talk 2601:talk 2563:was 2547:talk 2515:here 2399:talk 2264:Talk 2252:want 2235:talk 2166:talk 2112:talk 2071:talk 2036:talk 2006:talk 1982:none 1976:you 1935:Talk 1868:talk 1832:talk 1760:talk 1716:talk 1691:Talk 1566:talk 1484:talk 1476:fact 1415:talk 1387:talk 1344:talk 1315:Talk 1297:talk 1273:talk 1247:talk 1216:talk 1181:Talk 1164:talk 1116:talk 1106:and 1060:talk 1036:Talk 1016:talk 1009:here 973:talk 955:Talk 938:Talk 923:talk 902:Talk 861:talk 845:talk 841:Mzk1 837:this 827:talk 804:talk 800:Mzk1 789:talk 748:talk 744:Mzk1 726:talk 715:and 700:talk 696:Mzk1 668:Talk 645:talk 617:Talk 555:talk 547:here 521:talk 486:talk 470:Talk 441:Talk 417:talk 372:talk 364:this 350:Talk 334:talk 319:talk 291:talk 276:ISBN 260:talk 246:talk 234:bref 208:and 165:talk 145:talk 137:here 124:Talk 108:talk 4271:Avi 4229:| 4173:| 4146:| 4118:| 4061:Avi 4049:Avi 4021:not 3965:is 3936:Avi 3891:Avi 3879:Avi 3771:Avi 3767:own 3734:| 3698:Avi 3680:Avi 3611:| 3346:not 3085:you 2913:| 2899:| 2831:you 2805:| 2792:why 2743:| 2737:add 2732:can 2717:| 2353:all 2294:You 2262:| 2216:all 1933:| 1926:beg 1689:| 1438:or 1313:| 1210:? 1179:| 1034:| 1007:." 953:| 936:| 919:Avi 917:-- 900:| 666:| 615:| 468:| 439:| 368:Avi 360:not 348:| 330:Avi 315:Avi 161:Avi 141:Avi 122:| 104:Avi 4349:) 4330:) 4302:. 4277:) 4254:) 4214:) 4163:) 4107:) 4055:) 3997:) 3942:) 3910:) 3885:) 3852:) 3806:) 3798:" 3777:) 3751:) 3724:) 3704:) 3686:) 3671:) 3632:) 3599:) 3562:or 3549:) 3534:"? 3473:) 3428:) 3385:to 3360:do 3301:) 3207:me 3141:) 3107:) 3077:) 3027:"? 2979:) 2960:) 2861:) 2820:me 2816:me 2701:) 2646:do 2637:) 2603:) 2575:. 2555:I 2549:) 2489:do 2401:) 2237:) 2168:) 2114:) 2073:) 2038:) 2008:) 1870:) 1849:. 1834:) 1817:. 1776:, 1772:, 1762:) 1718:) 1633:no 1619:. 1568:) 1486:) 1417:) 1389:) 1346:) 1299:) 1275:) 1249:) 1218:) 1193:. 1166:) 1118:) 1094:, 1086:, 1062:) 1018:) 999:, 975:) 925:) 863:) 847:) 829:) 806:) 791:) 750:) 728:) 702:) 647:) 557:) 523:) 488:) 419:) 411:. 385:. 374:) 336:) 321:) 310:do 293:) 262:) 248:) 167:) 147:) 110:) 64:← 4345:( 4326:( 4273:( 4250:( 4210:( 4159:( 4103:( 4090:. 4051:( 3993:( 3977:" 3938:( 3906:( 3881:( 3848:( 3802:( 3773:( 3747:( 3720:( 3700:( 3682:( 3667:( 3628:( 3595:( 3545:( 3527:" 3520:" 3502:≠ 3469:( 3424:( 3297:( 3137:( 3103:( 3073:( 2975:( 2956:( 2857:( 2826:. 2709:' 2697:( 2633:( 2599:( 2545:( 2496:? 2397:( 2388:? 2307:. 2233:( 2164:( 2110:( 2069:( 2034:( 2004:( 1866:( 1830:( 1805:! 1784:. 1758:( 1714:( 1564:( 1482:( 1413:( 1385:( 1342:( 1295:( 1271:( 1245:( 1214:( 1162:( 1149:, 1114:( 1058:( 1014:( 971:( 921:( 859:( 843:( 825:( 802:( 787:( 746:( 724:( 698:( 643:( 553:( 519:( 484:( 415:( 370:( 332:( 317:( 289:( 283:. 258:( 244:( 163:( 143:( 106:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index