Talk:Yeshu/Archive 3

3548:

these deletions? Because I know that a view developed in Judaism that Yeshu does not refer to Jesus; being in the Talmud folio itself, it is in a RS, and it is a significant view. So the question of what Yeshu refers to is a matter of interpretation. Theissen and Mertz make this clear and it bothers me when someone quotes some lines from their book of context. Scholarly views need to be presented accurately. In this case, that means presenting the view that Yeshu = Jesus must b presented as a view. This is the explanation. I have reflected on the possibility that I am biased by I concluded that my own views about what Yeshu mean, in my opinion, have not infuenced my edits

2597:; they were composed by unrelated authors, writing in different languages, living at different times and in different places, practicing different religions, for different purposes etc. In addition, the lede is replete with "modern scholarship" on the subject. I don't think you are making your point clearly, because many of the things you are writing seem to me to be at odds with simple reality and logic, so I know I must still be misunderstanding you. Can you think of radically different ways of saying what you're trying to say, or making your point? 510:

a book about it when we're living in a predominantly Christian society. That's why I can't say it in the article. But I can say it here on the talk page. I've seen people write Jeezus, just to avoid writing his name. In the middle ages, he was referred to as "that man". Common usage among English speaking Orthodox Jews is "Yoshke" or "Yushky", and there are even Hebrew books where Yeshu is spelled with a mark that identifies it as an acronym (יש"ו as opposed to ישו). -

31: 629:

like Shmuely Boteach and Daniel Lapin who have a strange fascination with the Gentile world, the Jewish view of him is a very negative one. A bad guy, or a fictional bad guy, who inspired a world movement that's sort of like our Evil Twin, and which has been responsible for more massacres of Jews than the Germans in WWII could have dreamed of, albeit spread over some 17 centuries, rather than a handful of years. -

2623:. While it may appear "simple reality and logic" to have an article saying "the name X refers to an individual or individuals" we don't normally start an article about a specific name that is only used to refer to 1 individual with such a lede-line. "the name Hava refers to an individual or individuals" for example, doesn't, since Hava only refers to one individual (at least without a surname). In this case 1269:

was inserted only secondarily into the account of the execution of some magician and deviant teacher who by chance had been killed on the eve of Passover." The "Reaktion" (since this is English Knowledge and we are using English words, why not spell it "reaction") to the Christian provocation is to insert the name "jsus" onto an exiting passage about someone else. So Maier is NOT saying that

4759:

articulated in a particular place and time," may have (I don't know) intend to say that the view is not just Yechiel's but also Nachmanides (which may be correct), none of this is relevant for a Knowledge article. Whether it is Yechiel's view (which it is according to sources in the article) or Nachmanides, these are primary sources, medieval texts, and should not be the basis of the lede.

398:

sources are not to Jesus (Meier, Maier etc). I don't know why you interpret what they say so differently from what I see as the plain reading of their words, and I don't know how to overcome that impasse. Please don't remove the words "individual or individuals" from the lede sentence, as I think that's the only way of accurately representing the spectrum of views on Yeshu in an NPOV way.

1190:

to the Christian Jesus in the source already given at the page number given in the discussion of Maier and Klausner already given. This is now the 11th time I am asking. --- please find one modern scholarly published source with an ISBN to support your view in the lede sentence that any reference to Jesus in any Hebrew text is not related to the figure of Jesus in Christianity.

4628:

If you reject Nahmanides as a significant view concerning Yeshu, you are actually rejecting the view of many Jews. You keep insisting on "modern sources" when the real issue is not a difference between modern and medieval views. The issue is the difference between traditional Jewish views, traditional Christian views, and the views of critical (untraditional) scholars.

1213:"Theissen indicates that Yeshu in Sanhedrin etc is a reference to the Christian Jesus " I do not see Theissen saying that what are you referring to. In the meantime, stop repeating yourself I know what Maier and Klaussner say; they are expressing their interpretations of the texts which is great, we should include them, but they are interpretations, views. 2764:(Brill Academic Publishers, 2005, p. 294) he states regarding Sanhedrin 43a "... the rest of the baraita, which states he was first stoned, and that his execution was delayed for forty days while a herald went out inviting anyone to say a word in his favour, suggest that it may refer to a different Yeshu altogether. In 599:, and the reality gap between some of the wording in the text, for example before footnotes to Steinsaltz, Maier, others, and what the source texts actually say. Again the issue is effectively as the lede above, is "Yeshu" a reference to Christianity or not? The sources in the article say (B), the first line says (A). 4605:

criteria with an ISBN, date, and page number saying for example "the Yeshu references in the Talmud have no reference whatsoever to the Jesus of Christianity" then whether he is tenured academic, an orthodox rabbi or a reform rabbi, or anyone else would not make any difference to the availablity of a

3507:

I do not mind telling you my views on anything. But the only questions I ever asked you related to specific ways to improve the articles, specifically, which views are significant. Now you ask me a question that seems to go against policy, viz. what is my view. I want to know why you are asking me

3422:

In icto oculi, try opening your eyes and reading clearly. NOR states that our views on the topic are not relevant to the article, and I have NEVER asked your view on what you believe about "Yeshu." Never. That is the question you are asking ME< and when I ask you when have I ever asked you your

2845:

In icto wrote "Theissen indicates that Yeshu in Sanhedrin etc is a reference to the Christian Jesus" and I asked where Theissen says this. It has now been over a day and he has still not provided a page number or quote. So this means he has withdrawn the claim. Now that he has withdrawn the claim,

2520:

As I've pointed out below, we know of "Abraham" from English translations of the Bible, which are in turn based on older Latin and Greek translations of the Hebrew original (and often translated directly from the Hebrew itself). Each of these sources tells the identical stories about this individual,

2482:

In ictu oculi, this is an article about Yeshu, not Jesus in the Talmud, which is a different (albeit obviously related) topic. We've already discussed the fact that individuals mentioned in the Talmud are simply individuals mentioned in the Talmud. I don't think your question is really that relevant;

1919:

article, which (by title alone) presupposes that Jesus is, in fact, found in the Talmud. Some versions of the Talmud refer to one or more individuals named "Yeshu", and to various other individuals (ben Pandira etc.) which some claim are also references to Jesus. This article is really a better place

1481:

This is thoroughly painful. Why would you cling to the idea that Maier would consider Yeshu was another Yeshu when Maier says that San43a and 107b weren't even in the original Talmud? If they were references to Yeshu Smith, why would they be added in. Maier says in black and white repeatedly that the

509:

Yes, it does. Many Jews, even those who aren't aware that there's a prohibition involved, feel acutely uncomfortable saying the name of the Christian god. I doubt I'd be able to find you a reliable source for that widespread phenomenon, largely because it doesn't seem all that productive to publish

3547:

Well, it has nothing to do with my personal beliefs about the meaning of Yeshu. I am not like you, I do not go on rampages making sure my personal point of view is presented as facts in WP articles. In fact, I try to edit articles where I can bracket my personal views. You want to know why I made

1981:

then per Maier and to a lesser extent Meier, certainly there are modern scholars who say that Jesus is not in the earliest Talmud mss. (for what it's worth I'm more sympathetic personally to Maier's end of the spectrum than Klausner's, but that isn't the point, Maier and Klausner agree that the name

1556:

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient p108 - 2000 "While Herford was somewhat critical of their accuracy, he seems almost never to have met a possible reference to Jesus that he did not like!70 On the other end of the spectrum, Johann Maier in his Jesus

628:

Since all the mentions of Yeshu are negative, it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference to Jews which of these is the case. The bottom line is, we don't care about him. And except for assimilated Jews who want to minimize differences between us and Christians and certain high profile rabbis

298:

does not start "Hillel ha-zaqen is an individual (or individuals) mentioned in the Talmud" There's only one Hillel ha-zaqen, and his identity is not defined by mentions in the Talmud. Likewise it is not a simple fact that "Jesus is an individual (or individuals) mentioned in the Talmud." Jesus is an

4800:

However yes the plural "or individuals" is particularly egregious since it can only be informed directly or indirectly, by the "theory of the two Jesuses" (Berger 1998) originated by Yechiel of Paris in 1240, possibly (?) followed by Nachmanides at the Disputation of Barcelona, and developed in its

4627:

My point is that many Orthodox Jews consider texts written in the Middle Ages authoritative. That is, a text written by Nachmanides does not merely represent his own views, articulated in a particular place and time. They are views that are considered to have some current authority by many Jews.

4436:

There comes a point when both your good self or Slrubenstein need to accept what the sources in the article say. Maier has been made the pivot of this Talk, because (a) he was misrepresented by an earlier editor, (b) he I suppose represents the no-Jesus-in-the-original-Talmud view most convincingly

2649:

I think you need to try different words to make your points, because in your effort to avoid the fact that the Talmud is actually telling stories about an individual (or individuals), you've really painted yourself into a corner with that "refers to Christian traditions" phrase. Should Yeshu, then,

2216:

view). I am referting to a consensus lead that I did not write and that has existed for a long time. The article names people who have provided other views. KG also named a more recent source for you. FInally, as Theissen makes clear, Maier is proposing his own interpretation, there is no claim

1999:

You keep changing the words, though, to make a different point. Again, the question here is whether the individual spoken of in the Talmud stories is Jesus - only that. And Maier and Meier, for example, are modern scholars who say he is not. If you want to ask a different question, that's fine, but

1755:

material controversial? I have asked I think 4 times for a source for this. This sounds to me like a fringe view, in academic terms, the sort of thing we would expect in a church/synagogue Bible class pdf on a blog, not in a serious modern academic text, no matter how sincerely many believers today

1189:

Likewise I'll assume that "Boy do you react poorly to people saying they agree with you!" and "Sorry to tell you this, but the world just does not revolve around Jesus!" are further attempts to generate heat and avoid the sourcing issue. Theissen indicates that Yeshu in Sanhedrin etc is a reference

1142:

article, you might want to make them there. Yes the German edition only refers to 1 passage in the Talmud and only cites 2 scholars, Maier and Klausner who both acknowledge that the reference to Jesus is a reference to Jesus. Which again means that the lede of this article is misleading and at odds

1078:

Jesus and I do not object to the article saying that. But we have to rep0resent Maier accurately. He believes that that there was an original story that referred to some sorcerer, and that later editors of the Talmud added in the reference to Jesus. So Maier has a more nuanced view of the Talmud

937:

is unreasonable. It took a lot of hard work, like pulling teeth frankly, to get the two of you to accept that Maier was saying what should have been obvious from his own words, Theissen, Voorst, Schafer etc commentary on Maier. And having reached agreement on that (never mind "who agreed with who")

677:

Lisa, I fully understand your point that many Jews don't care (about him). But this is an article about Talmudic texts, and thus about the Talmud, and many Jews do care about the Talmud. I certainly want to make sure that the Talmud is represented accurately at Knowledge. When there are multiple

137:

claimed that critical scholars do not think the stories are about Christianity. If you look at the talk before, long before you came here, you will see I insisted on adding the views of critical scholars who say that these passages are reactions to Christianity (which still does not precisely mean

4904:

I see there are contradictory references to the opinion of Rav Steinzalts (Even-Yisrael) in two sections. Also ,would there be any objects to my adding the opinion of J. D. Eisenstein in Otzar Vikuchim? (I presume a lot of the contradiction is because of ambivalence; whether and when Jesus existed

4652:

are the basis of Knowledge as an encyclopedia. Otherwise the Christianity articles would all just contain the opinions of Augustine and Luther - even though Augustine and Luther are authoritative to many Catholics and Lutherans. But if you have a source that says "many Orthodox Jews consider texts

4294:

as above. Though my main impression here is that you haven't been reading before pressing reply. It's a characterstic of Talk-ers on Knowledge who don't provide references of their own but simply revert and argue that someone should say "So, now you write," as if you having realised what I've been

3652:

Hi Slrubenstein, a Talmud folio, Catholic communion instruction class notes, Quranic commentary from an unnamed Imam, mp3 of a Southern Baptist radio show, notes from a modern Hindu guru, whatever, these are all either primary sources or sources descriptive of a particularly religion. Knowledge is

3524:

Hello Slrubenstein. I wanted to know because I was seeking to understand why you had made somewhere between 15 to 20 deletes and edits removing sources, reversing text, etc. all in one direction - away from the unanimous academic view that the name Yeshu is a reference to Christianity, towards the

2170:

I should say I completely expect Slrubenstein to delete what he's just agree with above because his own fixed POV is that there was another individual called Yeshu and he will revert to this when he realises what he agreed above. We will then have a reversal to Slrubenstein's view, and then I will

1687:

This article is about a highly controversial figure in Rabbinic literature - it is not just about a name (only you are making it about a name, in part by unilaterally deciding that the article should open with a modern Hebrew dictionary transliteration of a non-Hebrew name). There are conflicting

1268:

As for Maier, you write, "he whole point of Maier's work, as illustrated in the quote from Theissen above, was to argue that the Yeshu passages were late Reaktion to Christian Provokationen" No, this is not hat Theissen and Merz say about Maier. "Naier comes to the conclusion that the name Jesus

4674:

You don't seem to get it. Orthodox Jewish men read the Talmud every Sabbath. Do Catholics read St. Augustine every Sunday? The Talmud is not a modern source if you are asking when it was composed. But it is a modern source if you are talking about when it is used. We are not talking about an

2121:

article is about Yeshu specifically, regardless of where he is mentioned - not just the name, but the stories/details attributed to him. Yeshua is just a proposed Hebrew/Aramaic name for Jesus, nothing more - the article on Yeshua discusses the name, because there are no unique stories or details

397:

In ictu oculi, Hillel's identity is indeed defined by the Talmud (and related Mishnaic literature) - without that, we would know nothing of him. Also, no-one disputes that Isa is simply an Arabic name for Jesus, but there are sources that clearly state that the references to Yeshu in early Jewish

4482:

is always a reference to the Christian figure. But you are an admin, you should not as an admin be participating in deleting academic references when no alternative view has been sourced, or editing into the lede sentence an unsourced view. Even at this point, we still don't know for a fact that

3322:

Inu ictu: once again you are fabricating lies. You write, "You've been asking my views, and I've been honest and open." Please show me where I have ever asked for your views? Please provide a time code or im possible an edit difference. I do not care what your views are. NOR policy says our

2759:

I believe you're trying to choose your words carefully, I just think you shouldn't get so stuck on particular phrases, particularly when they themselves are confusing (or at least confuse me). I don't think, for example, Roger T. Bekwith is "being threatened with death in 1240 Paris", yet in his

1057:

Jesus is my words, supported by what I just pasted in German. Incidentally do you have access to a paper copy of the English trans of Theissen and Merz? Only the German is on Google Books, but I presume you'll find the section heading on Sanhedrin leads you to the same content I pasted in German

4758:

It is not "rhetoric" it is a fact sourced and documented in the article. The view of the lede, that "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" is first documented with Yechiel of Paris. Although Slrubenstein in mentioning that "a text written by Nachmanides does not merely represent his own views,

618:

It's a matter of dispute. Look... the main thing is that most Jews simply don't care. Yeshu, smeshu. The whole JC thing just isn't on our radar 99% of the time. When the issue does come up, there are different views. Some views say that the Yeshu in the Talmud is the historical basis for a

3431:

of this page is to discus improvement so the article. A major way to improve the article is to add significant views from verifiable sources (not our own views, significant views). I asked you if you consier Orthodox views fringe. This is perfectly in keeping with our policies for improving

2677:". It isn't my terminology it's there in Klausner, Meier etc to prevent people misunderstanding. Rabsaris is a title, so that's not really comparable, but yes there are 2 Rabsaris in the HebBib. Just as there are 3 Herods in the NT. 20 Iesous in Josephus and so on. 198,234,200 men called Fred. 2506:"the lede currently makes it abundantly clear than many scholars identify Yeshu with Jesus." --- Again ALL scholars, not "many" scholars. NO scholar takes the view of the lede that the Yeshu name refers to "individual or individuals" ... hence my asking 24x for an academic source for the lede. 4934:, but references should quote in the ref enough of the Hebrew text that we can distinguish what is simply (a) primary source of a 1922 author recording a 13thC debate or (b) secondary source where Eisenstein is saying "and in my scholarly opinion the medieval debater's analysis was correct." 2207:

I deleted it because there are others who claim that Yeshu does not refer to Jesus. The meaning of the word is not certain. Our article should reflect the range of views, and the introduction should not take the position of any one viewpoint. This is not a reversal to my view (but you give

4505:

Slrubenstein is also an administrator, and possibly one for even longer than me. Anyway, I'm sure it won't happen again, so let's talk about content instead, and let's try to consolidate discussion into fewer sections, to avoid repetition. Did you see my comments above regarding Beckwith and

3720:

dafür, daß es keine einzige rabbinische Jesus-Stelle' au s tannaitischer Zeit (bis ca . 220 n.Chr.) gibt."35 Vielmehr sei der Name Jesu in dem jahrhundertelangen Entstehungsprozeß des Talmud erst sekundär worden, und zwar als Reaktion auf christliche Provokationen, weshalb die Stellen keinen

2899:

is in Talk above. If you had looked at either the German or English edition of what is merely a chapter in a school textbook on historical Jesus sources you would see that Sanh43a is being dealt with, after Josephus, exactly because the name Jesus is a reference to Jesus. The whole point of

231:

This is very simple. You edited the 1st sentence in the article to say that "Yeshu... individuals.. in Jewish literature" from "Yeshu" is the Hebrew spelling of Jesus. Now, for the 12th time, please provide a source for your statement in the lede. Provide one modern scholarly academic

3225:

NOR policy states: "The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles." We are not allowed to put our own views into articles. Therefore, our own views are irrelevant. Why do you want to know what I think?

2879:

Während Josephus ein von Sympathie getragenes populäres Jesusbild wiedergibt, ist uns bei den Rabbinen ein von Ablehnung Jesu zeugendes Jesusbild erhalten. German edition p.83 "On the sabbath of the Passover festival Jesus (Yeshu) the Nazarene was hanged" Theissen English translation

4383:

If you are satisfied that my comment "when Maier refers to the name Yeshu, he is referring to the name" = your comment "when invoking Jesus Maier is referring only to the word "Yeshu" and not to the passage." then we agree. I will now revert the article to reflect our consensus that

4020:

that Maier is refering to the word Yshu, claiming it is a name for Jesus (it is silly to "argue" that a name = a name; the whole point of interpretation is to take a text and suggest what it actually means). But don't lie about having "always" said maier is talking about the name,

449:

Yes, could you please do that? The would be very helpful, because I currently cannot get your understanding of these authors from my own reading of their words. Also, again, please don't change/remove the "individual or individuals" from the lede sentence until we resolve this.

3169:

You are not a text, you are a Knowledge editor, you should be able to say what Slrubenstein thinks. In view of your deletion of academic sources and your statements on what "many Orthodox Jews" (unsourced) believe, it is reasonable to ask a straight question and get a straight

3483:"By the way, do you consider the views of contemporary Orthodox Jews concerning the Talmud and other Rabbinic texts mainstream or fringe?" ... "If you reject Nahmanides as a significant view concerning Yeshu, you are actually rejecting the view of many Jews.".< unquote. 2344:

As the article (in its reverted state) has text-miswrites misreprsenting Maier, John P. Meier, Klausner, Neusner (and 100% of modern tenured scholars) who present POV B in the footnote refs we have an additional clash between bits of the texts skewed to the same POV A in

2672:

Please believe me that I'm doing my best to chose my words as carefully and distinctly as possible. The choice of the wording "Yeshu is a reference to Jesus" is a necessity since if I say "Yeshu is a reference to Jesus" it may be misread as "Yeshu is a reference to the

1276:

are the "reaction." He is saying the passages are really about someone else. It is only adding Jesus' name that maier says is the "reaction." You keep preaching about sources, but you misquote and distort them. Show a little respect for real scholarship, will you?

3692:

referring to the passage itself. I have asked In ictu to provide substantiation for his claim that Maier is referring to the passage. So far he has not so I interpret this to mean that he withdraws his claim about Maier. I am glad that we can put this behind us.

4477:

Yes I am frustrated, but to be honest more with your good self than with Slrubenstein. It became fairly obvious after the 3rd or 4th delete/revert that Slrubenstein will not accept a lede sentence of the article, nor refs, which present the academic consensus that

3360:

e.g. "By the way, do you consider the views of contemporary Orthodox Jews concerning the Talmud and other Rabbinic texts mainstream or fringe?" ... "If you reject Nahmanides as a significant view concerning Yeshu, you are actually rejecting the view of many Jews."

1601:

Maier maintains that the Pantera stories in Jewish sources were originally about some anonymous second-century figure and tradition attached them to Jesus only much later Jewish responses to early Christians: history and polemics, 30-150 p217 Claudia Setzer -

318:(3) You say "It is the identification of Yeshu with Jesus that is more speculative." but do you have a source for this? Slrubenstein has failed to provide one despite repeated requests. This again is the problem. We have no doubt sincere religious beliefs (= 4295:

saying for the last 2 weeks is somehow a change. Let me repeat again: when Maier refers to passages San43a San107b he is referring to the passages (and his conclusion is that they were not originally references to Jesus, as I have said before repeatedly,

2798:

refers to a different Yehoshua, then we have our lede sentence, we can say that at least "some scholars", ie. one, consider that Yeshu can be a reference to someone else called Yeshu. Now we need to verify this. Then we can focus the article on his view.

493:

in one of the Knowledge articles earlier and I believe may even have marked it or , however appears there is something. Does the explanation by User:Lisa explain why Jesus ben Ananias is "ישוע בן חנניה" in modern Hebrew but Jesus of Nazareth is Yeshu?

3068:

Jesus is not an Aramaic word. The Talmud is written in Aramaic. When you refer to the Talmud, tell me what Aramaic word you refer to, please. I am a scholar and scholars cannot work unless the terms are as precise as possible. Please be precise.

1828:

Make up your mind. Are you saying that the topic does not merit an article, or that it does? You said it doesn't merit an article and I explained why it does - to which you respond with arguments as to why it merits an article. i am confused.

663:

him from saying that "Yeshu" in the Talmud is a name for Jesus of Nazareth. Like most POV-pushers, ho do not think they have a POV but only "the truth," they think that anyone who insists on identifying their POV as a ... POV are actually the

1023:

POV of the lede. Historically anyone can understand the significance of the "another individual" idea, it's a defence that presumably saved the lives of a few like Yehiel in 1204 Paris, but the place to document history of persecution is on

992:

Following on from the presumably good faith, but still wrong, misrepresentation of Theissen & Merz and P. Meier in the article I unfortunately have to note that the words "the historical", which I thought I added in (?) have gone from

1079:

and of the Rabbis, that this is a composite text that changed over time. To represent Maier then as saying that the Talmud refers to (a non-historical) Jesus is a misrepresentation. He is not saying that "the Yeshu passages were late

1747:(2) "a highly controversial figure in Rabbinic literature" I'm sorry but I have to press for a source on this. Yes the identity of "Yeshu" was controversial to Rabbi Yechiel being tortured in 13th Century Paris, etc. but where is the 326:

scholars unanimous on the other hand that the identification of Yeshu with Jesus is not speculative, that Yeshu is in all cases a reference to (Klausner) / reaction to (Maier) Christian traditions. The place for religious convictions,

1250:

No, I have the book right in front of me. Do you have the book? Where do Theissen and Merz say this? Yes, I have read their account of Maier, and of Klausner, so I know what maier and Klausner say. But you are making claims about

364:

please ignore the above interjection from Slrubenstein, he evidently has not got access to Theissen's Lehrbuch and has not read the section. The opposite is true - Theissen reports where Maier and Klausner are agreed - that the name

2298:

the way the Maier ref is slanted in the current article is correct, but it isn't correct as restoring the original full quote and context deleted by Slrubenstein will show. In any case, I have now demonstrated this on the article

3938:

As above I have always said that Maier says that the Name Jesus was inserted into the Talmud as a reaction on p83 in the German edition of Theissen, in the quote already given above which refers to pp219-237 of Maier's German

4818:

That's what I mean about using different words; it would have been much more clear from the start if you had been specific that by "Yechiel's view" you were referring to the idea that Yeshu might be more than one individual.

619:

fiction created in the Christian Bible. Since Yeshu is identified as living 200 years too early to be the Christian JC, there are views that either the Christians have it wrong, or there were multiple people with that name.

369:

is a reference to Jesus - in a section dealing with Josephus etc references to Jesus. I ask you, are you aware of any modern academic source that says identification of Yeshu with Jesus is speculative, as you wrote above?

1688:

significant views about the meaning of this figure and the stories about him, and there are reliable sources about the meaning of these stories. I think this is enough to justify an article. If we can have an article on

3687:

In ictu Oculi wrote, "The whole point of Maier's work, as illustrated in the quote from Theissen above, was to argue that the Yeshu passages were late Reaktion to Christian Provokationen" According to Theissen, Maier is

1949:

You're moving the goalposts - the question here is whether the individual spoken of in the Talmud stories is Jesus, which is a different question. And Maier and Meier, for example, are modern scholars who say he is not.

2994:

in 1240 was the first to claim (as per the lede sentence "individual") that the Jesus in the Talmud is a different Jesus, that the Jesus in the Talmud was not Jesus of Nazareth, that there were two or more Jesuses. cf.

1102:

By the way, my copy of Theissen and Merz cite only Sanh 43a, and only Maier. According to your volume, do they say any other passages refer to Jesus? And do they say any other scholars believe they refer to Jesus?

2430:

The current lede "Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew and Aramaic) is an individual or individuals mentioned in Jewish literature." is taking the "two Jesuses" explanation of Yechiel of Paris in the 1240 Disputation of Paris as a

1468:

Maier and Meier, for example. In icto oculi, I know you understand Maier and Meier than others here do, but I don't think it's helpful to pretend that they haven't been raised again and again as counter-examples.

4409:, not the opposite. Changing the lede wording, when I've asked you not to until we work this out, and in particular when all know that neither Slrubenstein nor I have agreed to the change, is not reasonable. 3082:

You write, "You said earlier that Jesus in the Talmud is not a reference to Jesus of Nazareth." I do not recall ever saying this. Please remind me where I wrote this. Please do try to top fabricating claims.

2561:. I have asked 25x for a single source saying that the name Yeshu in any Aramaic or Hebrew text is anything other than a reference to Christianity. I am still waiting. While I am waiting, you cannot say : --> 3423:

views, I am actually following the line of the conversation, which is, asked you for your views on Yeshu, the question you are asking me, which I think violates NOR. Now, you bring us an example that does

3266:

2. You justified your edits thrice with "many Orthodox Jews believe" "Jewish authorities" and so on, leading me to understand that "many Orthodox Jews believe" "Jewish authorities" was your starting point.

2354:

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

4461:

You and Slrubenstein didn't "agree" at all, as you well know, and certainly not to change the lede in the way you did. I understand you're frustrated, I think we all are, but I am disappointed now too.

3275:

5. Because it would help to know what you think to understand your opposition to edits opposing the consensus view of all modern scholars that the name Yeshu in the late BTal mss refers to Christianity.

1354:

however did write that, according to Theissen, "the Yeshu passages were late Reaktion to Christian Provokationen." But this is not what Theissen wrote. Do you now agree with me, that you were wrong?

430:

Jayjg. "but there are sources that clearly state that the references to Yeshu in early Jewish sources are not to Jesus (Meier, Maier etc)." - This is not correct, there are, so far, no such sources. '

4675:

esoteric source here - we are talking about something all observant Jews refer to regularly. When they get to the passages on Yeshu, most Jews do not interpret these passages as being about Jesus.

3893:

Maier says that the Name Jesus was inserted into Talmud as a reaction on p83 in the German edition of Theissen, in the quote already given above which refers to pp219-237 of Maier's German edition.

3441:

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

3877:" is a reaction to Christianity? I am quoting you, you made the claim, I want to see you substantiate it - your repeated refusal means that you cannot. I trust that you hav withdrawn the claim. 4653:

written in the Middle Ages authoritative and therefore accept that the Yeshu references in the Talmud have no reference whatsoever to the Jesus of Christianity." then by all means include it.

142:

think the stories are about Jesus or Christianity. Their views are also significant. NPOV says we must represent all significant views. V also says we represent views, not truth, so I have

698:

This article is about a name which occurs in hundreds of Aramaic and Hebrew texts, medieval Sephardi, early modern, Israeli, etc., among which are two variant late readings from B.Sanhedrin.

3603:

The Talmud, Bible, Quran are not RS. Neusner, Maier, Meier, Herford, Horbury, Seltzer, Schafer, Steinsaltz, Theissen, Klausner, Hoffmann, Evans, Nickesburg, Charlesworth, Berger, etc. are

655:"When the issue does come up, there are different views" - well said, Lisa (and exemplary of the WP spirit). The problem, Lisa, is that In icto oculi demands a reliable source for this - 4474:

Slrubenstein says we agreed on Maier. Since Maier was the disputed source, that should have allowed Maier's view that the name Yeshu is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth go into the lede.

3455:? Obviously, NOT views on how to improve the article. I mean the views you are asking me. You are asking me if I think Yeshu refers to Jesus or not. Now I ask you AGAIN: When have I 2226:

important to you to misrepresent htis view as a fact? I take no position on what is a fact. I think all views belong in the article. I am neutral. But you really are a zealot. Why?

3444:

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

183:

and state that the Jesus traditions in Jewish literature are reactions to Jesus traditions in Christianity. Therefore the lede should reflect the verifiable sources used in the article.

3916:

So you are saying his claim is about the name? So you are now saying that he was not referring to the passage? So you now admit that Maie is not talking about the passage? Finally?

4835:"It is not "rhetoric" it is a fact sourced and documented in the article. The view of the lede, that "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" is first documented with Yechiel of Paris. 4837:

wasn't clear that the view of the lede, that "Yeshu is an individual or individuals" is first documented with Yechiel of Paris. But it is clear now. So why is a 13thC view which all

2252:

is a reference to Christian traditions, that should represented as fact in the lede. That has nothing to do with being a "zealot" or the various other insults you substitute for a

4804:

It would still be ridiculous to start the article with "Hava is an individual in Bereshith," but slightly less ridiculous than "Hava is an individual or individuals in Bereshith"

2654:? Clearly not, since Yeshu isn't actually a "Christian tradition"; rather, it's the name give of an individual (or individuals) who is often associated with Jesus. By the way the 2503:

said that Yeshu in San43a and 107b is not related to Jesus of Nazareth - which no scholar accepts, yet this article is skewed to presenting this view in the 1st line of lede. Why?

1298:

Obviously Maier says it's an insertion, I have said that 3 times on this Talk page. But finally now you're agreeing with what Maier and Klausner and Theissen say - that the name

179:"Neutral point of view" is one of Knowledge's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". All the sources cited in the article are 863:

for an academic source to support the "name for an individual or individuals" nonsense, and not a single source has been forthcoming. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

1668:

Thinking more broadly, what is this article about that is not covered in other articles? And why does a name in Hebrew need an article in English wikipedia? Likewise why does

291:. Why should 13th-17th century disputations of thse 3 or 4 passages (about which there is no modern dispute) wag the dog about the other 99% of uses in Hebrew and Aramaic? 4244:

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

1557:

von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung has concluded that no genuine Tannaitic or Amoraic references are present, even in the Talmuds when first issued, but

583:- which represents a view "held by many Orthodox Jews" according to Slrubenstein (although no source has been supplied to prove that many Orthodox Jews believe this) 4433:

when I've asked you not to until we work this out, and in particular when all know that neither Slrubenstein nor I have agreed to the change, is not reasonable.<

3153:

Do you believe that texts can mean only one of two things? Do you believe that hermeneutic questions have yes/no answers? have you ever read the work of Gadamer?

2742:

rather, it's the name give of an individual (or individuals) < if one is threatened with death in 1240 Paris, yes. But if one is a Knowledge editor in 2011, no.

1415:

And, uh, no, just because two scholars interpret Yeshu to mean Jesus does not mean we can change the lead. You continue to ignore the views of Jewish authorities.

2525:

Hebrew/Aramaic sources, and the sources tell radically different stories about these individuals. These are fundamental differences which invalidate your analogy.

4204:

So again, please have the civility to answer the question. Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth?

965:

I am done here, I have presented somewhere between 15 to 20 modern sources, some have been deleted, there comes a point where enough is enough. Either provide a

4746:

What Slrubenstein means is that the lede doesn't "reflect the POV of Yeheil of Paris rather than modern sources", so using that kind of rhetoric isn't helpful.

4779:

Wait, is your objection here specifically to the words "or individuals"? Is this what you have been trying to say is "first documented with Yechiel of Paris"?

1716:. Elrond only exists in Tolkein, it is immediately evident what the context is. Jesus is mentioned in hundreds of Hebrew texts from the 5thC through Andalusia 1970:, and all the scholarly sources in the article say that the name "Yeshu" is a reference to Christianity (I say Christianity so that no one will misunderstand 2417:

It is important to represent modern scholarly views as "fact" because that is what encyclopedias do. If we have 70 or so modern scholars who have written on

2244:

It is important to represent modern scholarly views as "fact" because that is what encyclopedias do. If we have 70 or so modern scholars who have written on

1043:

I went back to Theissen and Merz, and did not where in reference to Maier they wrote "the historical" Jesus but i can check again. 10:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

4715:

Whether Orthodox Jewish men read the Talmud every Sabbath and Catholics every Sunday is beside the point, the point is that neither is a modern scholarly

2546:

Hebrew/Aramaic sources< ALL academic sources from Maier and Neusner through to Peter Schafer agree that the name Yeshu in Rabbinical literature is not

2465:

you destroyed 4k worth of supporting refs for modern academic views, and de-corrected misleading representation of Maier, Meier and other modern scholars.

2158:

of Christian traditions, although in the opinion of many scholars ref see article refs for Maier, Neusner, Meier /ref some of the earliest references to

705:

only reliable published views are notable. Which means that Knowledge is secular, it does not reflect religious views, except in description of religions.

345:

PS ... imagine if we had an article "Isa is an individual or individuals mentioned in the Quran" Would that be NPOV? How is the lede here any different.

4517:

Yes let's talk about content. I've just seen them as you've just added them. Or rather him, since the source is Jeremias and Beckwith is based on this.

1440:

Jewish/Catholic/Hindu primary source authorities are irrelvant. This is an encyclopedia not a synagogue/church/temple pulpit. Provide a modern academic

933:

is a reference to Christianity, but you both evidently (a) cannot accept this, (b) cannot provide academic sources to justify an alternative view. This

1302:

inserted into the text (per Maier) is a reference to Jesus. Why did it take this long for you to recognise what the passage is saying, that the name

1985:

As the article stands the first line of lede is POV - Yeshu is no more "an individual or individuals mentioned in the Talmud" than Hava or Avraham.

1160:

Boy do you react poorly to people saying they agree with you! In the meantime, where does Theeissen say that Yeshu = jesus? In any event, this is

723:. This article is about a genre of stories in Rabbinic literature. Since this is a "religious" text, religious points of view are highly relevant. 2468:

I will now ask for the 22nd time: where is your modern scholarly source for the view that Jesus in the Talmud is not a reference to Christianity?

742:

I don't consider religious points of view should be relevant unless they are describing a notable individual or movement and are properly sourced.

1744:

then fine, but if it's simply the Hebrew spelling of the name.... this is English Knowledge, why does a non-English spelling justify an article?

186:

And "No original research" requires that the lede should not be tilted to take as its starting point a view that is not sourced in the article.

4801:

most mature form by Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillas in the 14thC. (and yes possibly still supported in 1984 by Nosson Dovid Rabinowich, maybe.

4447:

I must press you for a source if you intend to remove the academic view from the lede line of article and replace it with an unsourced view.

4192:

When he refers to passages San43a San107b he is referring to the passages (and his conclusion is that they were not originally references to

2681:

All uses of the spelling Yeshu (as opposed to Yeshua ben Sira etc) are always, without exception references to Jesus of Nazareth. As all the

813:

It is also the common spelling for the Christian Jesus in medieval and Sephardi texts, early modern Hebrew, and modern Israeli secular usage.

3721:

unabhängigen historischen Wert besäßen. Im Gegensatz dazu glauben andere Autoren, zB J. Klausner,36 zumindest einige alte und historisch ...

2631:

in 100% of cases refers to Christian traditions. Please do not unilaterally amend the lede to reflect "simple reality and logic" if it is un

4358:"when Maier refers to the name Yeshu, he is referring to the name" = "when invoking Jesus Maier is referring only to the word "Yeshu" and 299:

individual mentioned in Christian, Jewish and Muslim traditions. ....which illustrates the problem with this article, it's a dicdef like

4585:

By the way, do you consider the views of contemporary Orthodox Jews concerning the Talmud and other Rabbinic texts mainstream or fringe?

877:

What do you mean "two Jesuses?" Which of the sources that you mention uses the words "two Jesuses?" Whwere does this phrase come from?

1508:

the identification of the condemned man as Jesus has nothing to do with that context, and should probably be ascribed, in Maier's view,

4551: 1001:..... the whole point of Maier's work, as illustrated in the quote from Theissen above, was to argue that the Yeshu passages were late 2708: 859:

then I am going to be calling in every admin I can find, have a lock down on this page and a dispute resolution process. I have asked

261:

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Yeshu is an individual (or individuals) mentioned in the Talmud. This is a simple fact, just as

2499:

is an individual or individuals .... the only difference between Avraham/Hava/Hillel/Yeshu is that in the case of one of these names

855:

Alternatively, if anyone reverts it to the "two Jesuses" view because of their own prejudices, opinions, religious convictions, etc.

2846:

I think we can agree that major scholars are diverse enough in their views, that we can move one from this argument about the lead.

2117:

references to Jesus in various Jewish sources, not just the Talmud - the article is either exceeding its scope, or is mis-named.

3901:

please provide one scholarly secular reference that the name Yeshu in any Aramaic or Hebrew text is not related to Christianity.

3565:

I know that a view developed in Judaism that Yeshu does not refer to Jesus; being in the Talmud folio itself, it is in a RS <

3525:

view that it is not. If I could understand why you are deleting sources, then that might, eventually, help improve the article.

3385:

Explain yourself: Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth? yes/no?

3717: 2300: 829: 2794:

that everyone has been waiting for to justify the POV in the lede first sentence. If Joachim Jeremias considers that the name

942:(though some have been twisted in the text) be reflected not just in the article but in the lede. I present two options here. 3031:

You said earlier that the Jesus in the Talmud is not a reference to Jesus of Nazareth. = 2 Jesuses. But by all means clarify.

169:

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias,

4247:

So, I repeat my question: Do you now agree with me that when invoking Jesus Maier is referring only to the word "Yeshu" and

4199:

However when he refers to the name Yeshu, he is referring to the name and concludes it was not part of the original texts.

1388:

say you are wrong. I have asked you to show me where Theissen says this. You have yet to answer. Apparently you cannot.

1025: 1850: 1846: 1775: 149:

You either do not understand my point, or are misrepresenting it. If you do not get it, please consult our core policy,

3173:

For the record, my answer, based on Maier, Meier, Klausner, Neusner and every other academic source I have ever seen is

590:

OWTTE - i.e. the view which is supported by ALL the modern academic references in the article, including those deleted.

384:

Theissen makes it clear this is speculation, I have the book right in front of me. Apparently Blinky hasn't read it.

2571:

Hebrew/Aramaic sources< in which case fine, but then the lede still has to change to reflect modern scholarship.

1164:. You cannot represent a view as a fact. Sorry to tell you this, but the world just does not revolve around Jesus! 2904:. Theissen does not even give mention space to the Yehiel of Paris/Slrubenstein theory that there were two Jesuses. 4905:

does not particularly affect Judaism, which tends to be more concerned with what he was not than with what he was.)

638: 519: 176:

You have provided no source for other views, therefore other views are NOT significant, UNTIL you provide a source.

38: 4429:

If Slrubenstein needs to believe "I" am agreeing with "him" fine, the more important point is that we have agreed.

1019:

makes it appear that J. Maier believed that the Yeshu fragments refer to "another individual" in support of the un

3257:

NOR policy above means you can't edit your POV into articles, not that I can't ask you in Talk what your POV is.

1842:

Slrubenstein, Jayjg asked "Where do you think this material would be better covered?" to which I answered that:

273:

are individuals mentioned in the Talmud. It is the identification of Yeshu with Jesus that is more speculative.

2455:

purposes and should not be part of the lede, but mentioned in body of article in secondarys sources as history.

2312:

purposes and should not be part of the lede, but mentioned in body of article in secondarys sources as history.

1428:

My understanding is that more than just Jewish authorities say Yeshu in early Jewish literature is not Jesus.

1384:

however did write, "Theissen indicates that Yeshu in Sanhedrin etc is a reference to the Christian Jesus " I

726:

In octo, Sanhdrin 43a is in the Talmud. By the way, is B.Sanhedrin a typo? Why do you write, "B.Sanhedrin?"

437:

The way to overcome the impasse would be to reproduce the full paragraphs I guess. Is that what I have to do?

840:

This should be the end of this needless dispute. If, however ,anyone can produce a modern academic published

4939: 4846: 4809: 4768: 4724: 4658: 4615: 4522: 4496: 4484: 4452: 4392: 4328: 4214: 3969: 3907: 3824: 3738: 3661: 3530: 3495: 3391: 3300: 3199: 3113: 3043: 3004: 2909: 2804: 2750: 2732: 2694: 2686: 2640: 2576: 2511: 2473: 2461:

In addition to restoring a view from a medieval disputation as the first sentence in the lede, in your bulk

2381: 2261: 2184: 2100: 1990: 1940: 1935:

please? Which modern scholars say any use of the name "Yeshu" is other than as a reference to Christianity?

1906: 1819: 1677: 1639: 1459: 1315: 1236: 1195: 1148: 1063: 1033: 974: 910: 868: 757: 710: 604: 539: 499: 464: 442: 375: 336: 252: 200: 123: 745:

B.Sanhedrin (or b.Sanh.) etc. is the common academic abbreviation to distinguish from t.Sanh., j.Sanh. etc.

118:

contradicting the unanimous view of Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, Neusner etc etc etc etc etc is found

4738: 4680: 4633: 4590: 4371: 4256: 4111: 4030: 3921: 3882: 3767: 3698: 3644: 3615: 3553: 3513: 3464: 3328: 3278:

6. Because after 24x requests for a source it is time to ask if the source for your edits is your own POV.

3231: 3158: 3088: 3074: 3020: 2980: 2931: 2851: 2400: 2231: 2199: 1834: 1697: 1482:

name Jesus in the Sanh43a 107b late texts refers to Jesus. Meier follows Maier. I provided these as helps:

1420: 1393: 1359: 1329: 1282: 1260: 1218: 1169: 1108: 882: 731: 683: 389: 353: 322:) on one hand saying that the identification of Yeshu with Jesus is speculative, but we have all credible 218: 158: 4440:

I have provided sources, some have been deleted, but we now have agreement that Maier says that the name

2900:

Theissen's "historical Jesus" textbook is to examine passages with the name Jesus, as a reference to the

2403: 2188: 2081: 348:

Do we have a source that it is speculative? Yes, Theissen and Merz make clear that this is speculative.

213:

You are misrepresenting or misunderstanding my comment. I have never added unsourced views to Knowledge.

2776:(c. 100 B.C.) and who fled from his master to Alexandria from the persecution of Alexander Jannaeus..." 1874: 1870: 1799: 1795: 1729: 1725: 4313:

Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth?

2521:

but uses a different language. On the other hand, we know of Jesus from Greek texts, and of Yeshu from

4041:

Do you consider that the name Yeshu found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth?

1308:

Now that you have accepted that the name Yeshu is a reference to Jesus can you please restore the lede

1127:

Talkpage is a misrepresentation. Maier and Theissen believe that the subject of the article the name

89: 81: 76: 64: 59: 2447:

and should not be the opening lede sentence in an encyclopedia article. I will repeat myself again:

2256:, that has to do with Knowledge policy that only published views from reliable sources are notable. 929:

Jayjg, Slrubenstein We seem to have reached an intractable situation. The academic sources say that

588:"Yeshu is a name used with reference to the Christian Jesus in rabbinical and secular Hebrew texts." 4401:

In ictu oculi, I don't think this is fair. It's pretty obvious that Slrubenstein is asserting that

4193: 3860: 3801: 3797: 2773: 2651: 2440: 2334: 2110: 2092: 2067: 2063: 1978: 1916: 1854: 1779: 1771: 1752: 1737: 1632:

Evidently Horbury, Voorst, Seztzer and Theissen have no problem understanding what Maier is saying.

1139: 312: 308: 247:

of Christianity but is a reference to another individual. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

4097:

Do you now agree with me that when invoking Jesus Maier is referring only to the word "Yeshu" and

2720: 2422: 2418: 2325: 2249: 2245: 2088: 2074: 2045: 1889: 1885: 1807: 4935: 4842: 4805: 4764: 4720: 4654: 4611: 4518: 4492: 4448: 4388: 4324: 4210: 3965: 3903: 3820: 3734: 3657: 3571: 3526: 3491: 3486:

You do not have to answer on your view. But you do have to justify your edits and deletions with

3387: 3296: 3195: 3109: 3039: 3000: 2905: 2800: 2746: 2728: 2690: 2636: 2572: 2507: 2469: 2377: 2257: 2180: 2096: 1986: 1936: 1902: 1815: 1673: 1635: 1455: 1311: 1232: 1191: 1144: 1059: 1049:

Sorry maybe I have confused things - I meant deleted my comment "the historical" from the text, '

1029: 970: 906: 864: 753: 706: 600: 535: 495: 460: 438: 371: 332: 248: 196: 119: 4719:

for Knowledge. Currently the lede is POV reflecting Yehiel of Paris rather than modern sources.

1091:" He is saying that the passage originally was not about jesus, and it was later altered as a " 4606:

modern secondary source. At this point I have no objection to you providing a published modern

3762:" is a reaction to Christianity? This is only about the name. So you don't have any evidence? 2314:

If my view of Knowledge policy on this matter is incorrect, please redirect me to WP guideline.

2306:

Re. "The article names people who have provided other views." - you know my view on this, that

1143:

with sources. As indeed the comment before this ref is misleading and at odds with the source.

1074:

Yes I do. I happen to agree with you, that Maier does not believe that Sanh 43a refers to the

287:(1) The B.Talmud variant readings are, what, 1% of total Hebrew/Aramaic references to Jesus as 4923: 4734: 4676: 4629: 4586: 4571: 4367: 4252: 4107: 4026: 3917: 3878: 3763: 3694: 3640: 3611: 3549: 3509: 3487: 3460: 3324: 3227: 3154: 3084: 3070: 3016: 2976: 2927: 2847: 2567:

and of Yeshu (which is completely related) from contexts which Maier considers were orginally

2558: 2396: 2227: 2195: 1866: 1830: 1791: 1721: 1693: 1416: 1389: 1355: 1325: 1278: 1256: 1214: 1165: 1104: 878: 807: 727: 679: 385: 349: 270: 214: 154: 4841:

in the article reject being represented as fact in the lede sentence of a Knowledge article?

4491:

for the modern continuance of Nahmanides' view, though I think Avi is right that he will be.

3427:

answer my question. Of course I asked you whether you think Orthodox views are fringe! The

2658:

article starts "Rabsaris... is the name or title of two individuals mentioned in the Bible."

1982:

Yeshu is a reference to Christianity (legends in Maier's view, some fact in Klausner's view).

4760: 4716: 4649: 4607: 4602: 4320: 4025:

you clearly say he is talking about the passage. Fortunately for you I have corrected you.

3377: 2991: 2901: 2888: 2765: 2716: 2674: 2632: 2620: 2610: 2538: 2500: 2452: 2444: 2436: 2376:

and replaced with a sentence compatible with the academic secular sources in the footnotes.

2373: 2365: 2338: 2309: 2253: 2176: 2172: 1971: 1932: 1451: 1441: 1088: 1020: 1010: 966: 951: 849: 841: 787: 749: 570:

in any Aramaic or Hebrew mss being anything other than a reference to Christian traditions:

563: 531: 323: 266: 236: 192: 115: 2483:

the lede currently makes it abundantly clear than many scholars identify Yeshu with Jesus.

2147: 799: 786:

a reference to Christianity, and (b) a late gloss. I have amended the lede to reflect the

3432:

articles, we ought to be discussing what views are fringe and what views are mainstream.

3610:

My whole position is premised on the view that the Talmud does not "speak for itself."

678:

views about the meaning of a Talmudic text, our articles should not favor any one view.

4910: 4555: 3932:

Yes, I have always said Maier is talking about the name in some mss of San43a and 107b.

2277: 1966:

therefore the "goalposts" of the article follow the title. The "goalposts" are what is

1862: 1858: 1787: 1783: 1741: 1717: 1255:

Where does Theissen say that Yeshu in Sanhedrin is a reference to the Christian Jesus?

634: 515: 150: 110:

occuring in any Hebrew text refers to anything else than the traditions of Christendom?

4302:

and concludes (i) it relates to Jesus, but (ii) it was not part of the original texts.

3653:

not a religious blog, it is a secular encyclopedia, deferring to academic sources and

1231:

Slrubenstein, Do you not see it because you do not have access to a copy of the book?

432:

Maier and Meier both clearly state that the name Yeshu in early Jewish sources are to

4855:

Because that's not what the lede does, and it's not just Yehiel who holds this view.

4733:

Where in the lead does it say that Yehiel is right? You are fabricating lies again.

2594: 2432: 2049: 833: 702: 304: 3272:

4. Because you have been deleting academic references and provided none of your own.

2425:

is a reference to Christian traditions, that should represented as fact in the lede.

958:

in any Aramaic or Hebrew text is ever anything else but a reference to Christianity.

4931: 4838: 4794: 4567: 4488: 3604: 2791: 2682: 2057: 490: 319: 146:

been insisting that we identify the views of critical scholars as views, not truth.

3034:

Do you consider that the Jesus in the Talmud is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth,

2166:

was attached in reaction to Christian provocations. ref Theissen Lehrbuch p88 /ref

3438:

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

459:

I have produced full sentences in quotation boxes. Sorry that Maier is in German.

4559: 2712: 1878: 1803: 1733: 1534: 806:) is understood by modern scholars as a reference to Christian traditions about 46:

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

2435:

and presenting it in the lede despite the fact that it has no modern scholarly

1324:

Where did I ever write anything disagreeing about what Maier and Klausen said?

4856: 4820: 4780: 4747: 4694: 4507: 4463: 4410: 3731:

Does Maier indicate that the name Jesus refers to Christianity or not? yes/no?

3364:

This (plus the reasons I gave above) makes it reasonable to ask for your view.

2777: 2659: 2598: 2526: 2484: 2395:

Where does the Lede say that the Yeshu "is not a reference to Christianity?"?

2281: 2123: 2053: 2005: 1951: 1921: 1893: 1811: 1762: 1470: 1429: 451: 399: 300: 274: 262: 47: 17: 4182:

I do not agree with you that Maier is referring only to the word "Yeshu" and

844:

to contradict the view of Maier, Neusner, Klausner, Meier, Schafer etc. that

574:

1. The figurehead issue here is the wording of the lede whether it should be:

530:

Lisa, thank you for your comments. Please support all edits of articles with

114:

Every single other comment on this talk page is redundant until one academic

4906: 1849:, if it requires a separate article, would be better in an umbrella article 1486: 630: 511: 2303:

which hopefully will not be attacked as Maier's refs have been on this one.

995:"Johann Maier argued that neither the Mishnah nor the two Talmuds refer to 900:

Jewish history and Jewish memory: essays in honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi

3856:

is about a genre of Rabbinic stories involving a figure referd to as Yeshu

2887:

The page numbers, German p83-84, English p75-76, were among the scholarly

2727:

includes both the Jesus of Christian traditions and the historical Jesus.

1625:

be "reaction ..to Christian provocation" (Maier, in Theissen) if the name

1582:

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

4690: 2655: 2627:

is even more narrow, since modern scholarship is unanimous that the name

4943: 4914: 4859: 4850: 4823: 4813: 4783: 4772: 4763:

indicates that content must be from modern reliable secondary sources.

4750: 4741: 4728: 4697: 4683: 4662: 4636: 4619: 4593: 4575: 4526: 4510: 4500: 4466: 4456: 4413: 4396: 4374: 4332: 4259: 4218: 4114: 4033: 3973: 3924: 3911: 3885: 3828: 3770: 3742: 3701: 3665: 3647: 3618: 3556: 3534: 3516: 3499: 3467: 3395: 3331: 3304: 3234: 3203: 3161: 3117: 3091: 3077: 3047: 3023: 3008: 2983: 2934: 2913: 2854: 2808: 2780: 2754: 2736: 2698: 2662: 2644: 2601: 2580: 2529: 2515: 2487: 2477: 2385: 2284: 2265: 2234: 2202: 2126: 2104: 2008: 1994: 1954: 1944: 1924: 1910: 1837: 1823: 1765: 1700: 1681: 1643: 1473: 1463: 1432: 1423: 1396: 1362: 1332: 1319: 1285: 1263: 1240: 1221: 1199: 1172: 1152: 1111: 1067: 1037: 978: 914: 885: 872: 761: 734: 714: 686: 642: 608: 543: 523: 503: 468: 454: 402: 392: 379: 356: 340: 277: 256: 221: 204: 161: 127: 106:

is there any modern scholarly secondary source with views that the word

3269:

3. Because you have provided no source for "many Orthodox Jews believe"

2586: 2151: 821: 803: 659:

in order to justify adding what you just said into the article, but to

102:

There's a lot of Talk happening here but it mainly hinges on 1 issue.

3945:

Does Maier indicate that the name Jesus refers to Christianity or not?

3814:

Does Maier indicate that the name Jesus refers to Christianity or not?

1533:

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

2590: 1774:

material is already duplicated there. If this is an umbrella article

1713: 1689: 1669: 825: 295: 2679:

But there is only one Yeshu in all of Aramaic and Hebrew literature.

2685:

sources after 1900 in the article agree. Plus we now have 1 source

2217:

that this is a fact. It should be presented as a view, not a fact.

3867: 3853: 3808: 3790: 3786: 3290:

found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth?

3191:

found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth?

3103:

found in some late Talmud mss is a reference to Jesus of Nazareth?

2704: 2155: 2154:) is a name used in Hebrew and Aramaic literature to refer to the 2041: 1967: 1963: 1709: 1128: 486: 2194:

Where did I say I accepted Maier's argument? Can you even read?

2162:

are in fact traditions about other individuals to which the name

2087:

It seems to me that your argument is that this page is not about

1920:

for much of this material, since it's more neutral and accurate.

898:

It came from the reference you deleted to the D. Berger essay in

307:, but it has loaded into it a giant stack of material related to 4300:

when Maier refers to the name Yeshu, he is referring to the name

2997:

Jewish history and Jewish memory: essays in honor of Yosef Hayim

2926:

Yes, I have the book in front of me. Please stop misquoting it.

2891:

you deleted, and the quote of Maier in Theisen p83 continues as

2439:

support. So the lede is saying, per Yechiel of Paris, 1240 that

2135:

New lede following Slrubenstein's acceptance of Maier's argument

2975:

Who is Yehiel of Paris? Where do I say there are two Jesuses?

1888:(if Knowledge really has to an article which is a DICDEF) then 597:

deletions of scholarly sources from liberal/secular scholarship

3508:

a question that has nothing to do with improving the article.

3263:

1. You've been asking my views, and I've been honest and open.

905:

Do you have a reference for the lede sentence of the article?

25: 4689:

Many Orthodox Jewish men learn Talmud every single day - see

3963:

in any Aramaic or Hebrew text is not related to Christianity.

3639:

I think you misread my, I wrote "Talmud folio" not "Talmud."

1028:, not puff it up as a credible scholarly view in the 21st C. 138:

they are "about Jesus."). I have said that Orthodox Jews do

3873:

I repeat my question, Where does Maier say that "the Yeshu

2772:, p. 19) it refers to the Yeshu who was a disciple of Rabbi 2451:

primary source medieval texts are not "views" for Knowledge

2308:

primary source medieval texts are not "views" for Knowledge

1563:

71 Most scholarly opinion falls between these two extremes."

2550:, no more than references to Isa in Islamic literature are 1119:

Either way the way that the Theissen quote is presented in

778:

Lede changed following agreement with Slrubenstein on Maier

485:

I have no particular opinion. I had encountered this about

2320:

we still have the problem that the article has a conflict:

1915:

The issue here is actually more with the (relatively new)

1761:

Where do you think this material would be better covered?

3870:

and is meant for discussing improvements to the article.

2276:

In ictu oculi, I see your proposal as incompatible with

4022: 3593: 3586: 3579: 2462: 1736:, to modern Israel. If we have a text specific article 934: 596: 482: 329:

when no reliable modern published sources support them,

4558:, with its use of "many". Now they just need to learn 2711:

because, at least in the opinion of Berger 1998, from

3260:

Why would I want to know what you think? Six reasons:

2615:

the name Yeshu is a reference to Christian traditions

782:

Following agreement, above, that Maier (a) considers

581:"Yeshu is an individual or individuals in the Talmud" 3959:

please provide one scholarly secular reference that

2865:

Have you seen a physical copy of Theissen and Merz'

2495:

Same again - why doesn't the article Abraham start:

2557:Again this article's lede is POV contradicting the 2421:in the Talmud and 70 modern scholars conclude that 2248:in the Talmud and 70 modern scholars conclude that 481:Any ideas about the original historical source for 4793:Well my primary objection is to failure to follow 848:is a reference to Christian traditions, then that 2566:Hebrew/Aramaic sources< unless you mean : --> 4310:please have the civility to answer the question. 2709:Jewish name for Christian traditions about Jesus 1778:, then it would only require a main-link out to 153:. If you get it, then stop misrepresenting it. 4444:is a late addition, a reaction to Christianity. 4366:agree with me. Finally! Thank you very much. 3714: 2877: 2372:sentence, which therefore I have removed under 2352: 2208:yourself away - obviously you acknowledge that 1599: 1554: 1514:; Jews and Christians p105 William Horbury 2006 1506: 1131:is a reference to Jesus. Therefore the lede of 4601:If a modern author has published according to 4386:the name Yeshu is a reference to Christianity. 4047:In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3951:In ictu oculi (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3367:I've been answering your questions, now please 2134: 1621:Question iv, how can the addition of the name 2954:Please answer the question - Have you seen a 2762:Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian 1138:The other comments seem more relevant to the 239:that any Hebrew or Aramaic text reference to 173:that have been published by reliable sources. 8: 3478:You have not asked for my views on the name 3177:and I know of no academic source which says 2593:are works that are not related to the Greek 2443:is not a reference to Christianity. This is 1485:Question i: How do you understand the word " 857:without providing a modern academic source, 752:for the edit in the article lede sentence. 3957:I am going to ask you for the 25th time - 3899:I am going to ask you for the 24th time - 1692:, surely we can have an article on Yeshu. 1629:is not a reference to the Christian Jesus? 950:I am asking - provide one single academic 940:which are already in the article footnotes 816:The oldest texts in which use of the name 2715:onwards there is also an approach to the 2613:lede sentence I wrote which you deleted. 3935:No, Maier is talking about the passages. 3655:encyclopedic content must be verifiable. 3015:Where do I say there are "two Jesuses?" 2744:Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. 284:Hi Jayjg. I suppose I'm saying 3 things. 4833:Well I apologise if my first statement 3758:. Where does Maier say that "the Yshu 2080:If you want to have a discussion about 2073:If you want to have a discussion about 3728:Just read that - and then answer this: 1962:With respect, the article is entitled 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3459:asked you for your views on "Yeshu?" 988:" from my text above Maier reference? 938:now it is time to let academic views 696:this article is not about the Talmud. 7: 4012:I corrected you a long time ago and 2619:2. "simple reality and logic" are un 1756:hold to a view of centuries earlier. 1560:were added later in the Middle Ages. 558:Just to keep track, this is now the 4610:for this view from anyone. Cheers. 2328:is not a reference to Christianity. 1851:Jesus in Hebrew language literature 1847:Jesus in Hebrew language literature 1776:Jesus in Hebrew language literature 595:2. The secondary issue regards the 2000:that doesn't mean you've answered 1708:(1) There is a difference between 828:, although some scholars, such as 562:I am asking for a single academic 331:is not in the lede of an article. 191:Will you let the lede reflect the 24: 4564:Are hacked voicemails "reliable"? 4562:and they'll be doing just dandy. 2707:should not be a redirect to e.g. 2414:As I said, I will repeat myself: 1749:mainstream modern academic source 434:Christian traditions about Jesus. 3811:. So please answer the question: 1806:, etc..... Or if the subject is 1751:that finds the reference of the 969:or we go to dispute resolution. 820:occur are some anecdotes in the 29: 4922:Hi Mzk1, no objection from me, 3750:You have provided a qote about 3718:Johann Maier (talmudic scholar) 3323:views do not go into articles. 2301:Johann Maier (talmudic scholar) 1123:current Knowledge article, per 3184:So please answer the question: 2841:Theissen on Maier and Klausner 2034:Sorry, but please look at the 984:Has there been a deletion of " 836:, consider these late glosses. 1: 3453:asked you what your views are 2790:Thank you. This could be the 1026:Christian persecution of Jews 961:(B) go to dispute resolution. 4319:Or alternatively, provide a 2171:ask for the 18th time for a 1977:If the article was entitled 925:Time for dispute resolution? 2958:copy of Theissen and Merz' 2946:copy of Theissen and Merz' 4962: 4581:Views, sources for article 3866:This is the talk page for 3569: 2723:. Certainly Klausner 1925 2554:to Christianit traditions. 2113:article is actually about 1511:to post-Talmudic redaction 1135:article should be changed. 243:is not a reference to the 4944:13:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 4915:12:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 4860:01:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 4851:02:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 4824:02:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 4814:11:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 4784:23:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 4773:02:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 4751:01:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 4742:00:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 4729:00:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 4698:00:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4684:19:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 4663:00:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 4637:12:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 4620:02:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 4594:10:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC) 4576:12:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 4527:03:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 4511:02:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 4501:03:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 4467:01:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 4457:00:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 4414:23:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 4397:23:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 4375:16:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 4362:to the passage." So you 4333:00:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 4260:00:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 4219:00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 4115:23:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 4034:23:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3974:23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3942:Did you see this question 3925:23:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3912:22:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3886:22:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3829:21:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3771:21:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3743:21:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3702:17:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3666:01:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 3648:12:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 3619:12:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 3557:09:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 3535:11:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 3517:10:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 3500:03:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 3468:16:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 3396:00:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 3332:00:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 3305:00:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 3235:00:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 3204:00:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 3162:23:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3118:23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3092:23:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3078:23:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3048:22:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3024:22:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 3009:22:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 2984:21:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 2935:21:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 2914:20:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 2855:17:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 2809:03:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 2781:02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 2755:10:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 2737:05:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 2699:05:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 2663:00:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 2645:00:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 2602:22:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 2581:03:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 2530:01:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 2516:23:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 2488:03:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 2478:00:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 2404:20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC) 2386:04:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC) 2285:00:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC) 2266:04:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC) 2235:22:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 2203:22:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 2189:21:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 2127:02:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 2105:11:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 2095:. Is that your position? 2009:22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 1995:02:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 1955:01:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 1945:00:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 1925:00:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 1911:22:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 1838:19:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 1824:00:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 1766:18:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 1701:11:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 1682:00:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC) 1644:05:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 1474:01:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 1464:00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 1433:00:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC) 1424:22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 1397:22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 1363:22:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 1333:22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 1320:21:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 1306:is a reference to Jesus. 1286:17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 1264:17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 1241:01:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 1222:22:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 1200:20:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 1173:18:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 1153:13:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 1112:11:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 1068:10:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 1038:10:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 979:00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 915:11:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 886:10:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 873:23:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 762:11:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 748:Can you please provide a 735:10:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 715:23:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 687:16:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 643:16:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 609:03:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 544:23:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 524:16:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 504:05:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 469:00:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 455:03:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC) 403:00:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC) 393:22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 380:21:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 357:10:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 341:00:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 278:23:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 257:20:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 222:18:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 205:12:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 162:11:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 128:11:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4648:Hi Slrubenstein, modern 2942:I asked Have you seen a 2650:simply be a redirect to 2364:We still have no single 2122:attributed to "Yeshua". 4485:Nosson Dovid Rabinowich 2687:Nosson Dovid Rabinowich 2179:article ripe for AdD. 195:in the article or not? 133:You slow down. I have 4437:in modern scholarship. 3723: 2882: 2541:do you have for: : --> 2357: 1604: 1565: 1516: 1013:. To remove the words 691:Lisa, just two points: 477:Name Yeshu as idolatry 171:all significant views 4188:Maier refers to both: 3286:Do you consider that 3187:Do you consider that 3099:Do you consider that 2770:The Eucharistic Words 2294:Well yes it would be 1875:Sefer Joseph Hamekane 1871:Sefer Nizzahon Yashan 1800:Sefer Joseph Hamekane 1796:Sefer Nizzahon Yashan 1730:Sefer Joseph Hamekane 1726:Sefer Nizzahon Yashan 566:arguing for the name 42:of past discussions. 4712:Slrubenstein, Jayjg. 2569:completely unrelated 2564:completely unrelated 2552:completely unrelated 2548:completely unrelated 2544:completely unrelated 2523:completely unrelated 2337:has no trace of the 2175:. And all this in a 2109:No, not really. The 1087:, not evidence of a 1009:, not evidence of a 294:(2) The article for 4928:Treasury of Debates 4552:Even The Daily Mail 4194:Jesus in the Talmud 3861:Jesus in the Talmud 3802:Jesus in the Talmud 3798:Jesus in the Talmud 3150:Dear Inu ict oculi: 2774:Joshua ben Perahiah 2652:Christian tradition 2585:The Hebrew/Aramaic 2441:Jesus in the Talmud 2335:Jesus in the Talmud 2317:Back to the article 2111:Jesus in the Talmud 2093:Jesus in the Talmud 2082:Yeshu in the Talmud 2068:Jesus in the Talmud 2064:Jesus in the Talmud 1979:Jesus in the Talmud 1917:Jesus in the Talmud 1855:Jesus in the Talmud 1780:Jesus in the Talmud 1772:Jesus in the Talmud 1753:Jesus in the Talmud 1738:Jesus in the Talmud 1537:" in the following: 1489:" in the following: 1140:Jesus in the Talmud 895:Hello Slrubenstein, 739:Hello Slrubenstein. 313:Jesus in the Talmud 311:, which belongs in 309:Jesus in the Talmud 4405:are agreeing with 4094:Dear In ictu oculi 3789:is about the name 3680:Maier on the name 3447:I ask you again: 2689:who may disagree. 2562:and of Yeshu from 2542:and of Yeshu from 2333:(POV B) SOURCES = 166:Dear Slrubenstein, 4924:Julius Eisenstein 4565: 4287:Dear Slrubenstein 4168:Dear Slrubenstein 4038:Dear Slrubenstein 3929:Dear Slrubenstein 3357:Dear Slrubenstein 3283:Dear Slrubenstein 3166:Dear Slrubenstein 3096:Dear Slrubenstein 2212:edits are merely 1867:Milhamoth ha-Shem 1853:with linkouts to 1792:Milhamoth ha-Shem 1722:Milhamoth ha-Shem 1672:need an article? 808:Jesus of Nazareth 701:ii. according to 271:Elisha ben Abuyah 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4953: 4563: 4251:to the passage? 4186:to the passage. 3596: 3589: 3582: 2992:Yechiel of Paris 2960:Historical Jesus 2948:Historical Jesus 2902:historical Jesus 2867:Historical Jesus 2717:historical Jesus 2675:historical Jesus 2501:Yechiel of Paris 2339:historical Jesus 2038:of the articles: 1972:historical Jesus 1884:the material on 1845:the material on 1705:Hi Slrubenstein, 1089:historical Jesus 1011:historical Jesus 946:(A) this is the 790:in the article: 267:Hillel the Elder 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4961: 4960: 4956: 4955: 4954: 4952: 4951: 4950: 4902: 4583: 4549: 4101:to the passage? 3685: 3600: 3599: 3592: 3585: 3578: 3574: 3482:you asked : --> 2843: 2725:Yeshu ha Notzri 2537:Sorry but what 2324:(POV A) LEDE = 2137: 1666: 1053:the Maier ref. 990: 927: 780: 556: 479: 361:Hi again Jayjg, 100: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4959: 4957: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4901: 4898: 4897: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4889: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4881: 4880: 4879: 4878: 4877: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4865: 4864: 4863: 4862: 4831: 4798: 4791: 4756: 4744: 4713: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4582: 4579: 4548: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4475: 4472: 4445: 4438: 4434: 4430: 4427: 4419: 4418: 4417: 4416: 4381: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4335: 4317: 4311: 4308: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4288: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4205: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4197: 4190: 4177: 4174: 4169: 4142: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4102: 4095: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4042: 4039: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3961:the name Yeshu 3955: 3952: 3946: 3943: 3940: 3936: 3933: 3930: 3897: 3894: 3891: 3871: 3864: 3857: 3850: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3815: 3812: 3805: 3794: 3783: 3754:but not about 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3732: 3729: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3684: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3601: 3598: 3597: 3590: 3583: 3575: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3484: 3476: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3383: 3380: 3371: 3368: 3365: 3362: 3358: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3291: 3288:the name Yeshu 3284: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3276: 3273: 3270: 3267: 3264: 3261: 3258: 3255: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3192: 3189:the name Yeshu 3185: 3182: 3171: 3167: 3151: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3104: 3101:the name Yeshu 3097: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3032: 3029: 3013: 3012: 3011: 2989: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2966: 2940: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2863: 2842: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2788: 2739: 2701: 2670: 2617: 2607: 2555: 2535: 2504: 2493: 2466: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2412: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2342: 2330: 2321: 2318: 2315: 2304: 2292: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2242: 2219: 2218: 2205: 2168: 2167: 2136: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2085: 2084:have it there. 2078: 2071: 2061: 2039: 2032: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 1983: 1975: 1960: 1930: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1882: 1863:Hasdai Crescas 1859:Toledoth Yeshu 1788:Hasdai Crescas 1784:Toledoth Yeshu 1770:Hi Jayjg, the 1759: 1758: 1757: 1745: 1742:Toledoth Yeshu 1718:Hasdai Crescas 1706: 1665: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1633: 1630: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1483: 1479: 1448: 1445: 1438: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1296: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1187: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1136: 1117: 1100: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1047: 1016:the historical 997:the historical 989: 986:the historical 982: 963: 962: 959: 954:that the name 926: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 903: 896: 852:may be added. 846:the name Yeshu 838: 837: 814: 811: 779: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 746: 743: 740: 724: 699: 692: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 648: 647: 646: 645: 623: 622: 621: 620: 617:<shrug: --> 612: 611: 592: 591: 584: 576: 575: 555: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 478: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 362: 316: 292: 285: 229: 208: 207: 189: 188: 187: 184: 177: 167: 147: 112: 111: 99: 96: 93: 92: 87: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4958: 4945: 4941: 4937: 4936:In ictu oculi 4933: 4929: 4925: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4912: 4908: 4900:Contradiction 4899: 4861: 4858: 4854: 4853: 4852: 4848: 4844: 4843:In ictu oculi 4840: 4836: 4832: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4822: 4817: 4816: 4815: 4811: 4807: 4806:In ictu oculi 4803: 4802: 4799: 4796: 4792: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4782: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4770: 4766: 4765:In ictu oculi 4762: 4757: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4749: 4745: 4743: 4740: 4736: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4726: 4722: 4721:In ictu oculi 4718: 4714: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4702: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4696: 4692: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4682: 4678: 4664: 4660: 4656: 4655:In ictu oculi 4651: 4647: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4635: 4631: 4621: 4617: 4613: 4612:In ictu oculi 4609: 4604: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4592: 4588: 4580: 4578: 4577: 4573: 4569: 4561: 4557: 4553: 4546: 4528: 4524: 4520: 4519:In ictu oculi 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4509: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4498: 4494: 4493:In ictu oculi 4490: 4486: 4481: 4476: 4473: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4465: 4460: 4459: 4458: 4454: 4450: 4449:In ictu oculi 4446: 4443: 4439: 4435: 4431: 4428: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4415: 4412: 4408: 4404: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4394: 4390: 4389:In ictu oculi 4387: 4382: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4373: 4369: 4365: 4361: 4334: 4330: 4326: 4325:In ictu oculi 4322: 4318: 4316: 4312: 4309: 4306: 4301: 4298: 4293: 4289: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4245: 4220: 4216: 4212: 4211:In ictu oculi 4209: 4206: 4203: 4198: 4195: 4191: 4189: 4185: 4181: 4178: 4175: 4173: 4170: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4116: 4113: 4109: 4106: 4103: 4100: 4096: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4046: 4043: 4040: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 4003: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3975: 3971: 3967: 3966:In ictu oculi 3964: 3962: 3956: 3953: 3950: 3947: 3944: 3941: 3937: 3934: 3931: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3909: 3905: 3904:In ictu oculi 3902: 3898: 3895: 3892: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3884: 3880: 3876: 3872: 3869: 3865: 3863:is a POV fork 3862: 3858: 3855: 3851: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3830: 3826: 3822: 3821:In ictu oculi 3819: 3816: 3813: 3810: 3807:This is Talk: 3806: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3792: 3788: 3784: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3735:In ictu oculi 3733: 3730: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3722: 3719: 3709:Slrubenstein, 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3700: 3696: 3691: 3683: 3679: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3658:In ictu oculi 3656: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3646: 3642: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3620: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3608: 3606: 3602: 3595: 3591: 3588: 3584: 3581: 3577: 3576: 3573: 3567: 3563: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3555: 3551: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3527:In ictu oculi 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3515: 3511: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3492:In ictu oculi 3489: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3452: 3445: 3442: 3439: 3437: 3433: 3430: 3426: 3398: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3388:In ictu oculi 3384: 3381: 3379: 3375: 3374:Now 25th time 3372: 3369: 3366: 3363: 3359: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3330: 3326: 3306: 3302: 3298: 3297:In ictu oculi 3295: 3292: 3289: 3285: 3282: 3277: 3274: 3271: 3268: 3265: 3262: 3259: 3256: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3233: 3229: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3196:In ictu oculi 3193: 3190: 3186: 3183: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3110:In ictu oculi 3108: 3105: 3102: 3098: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3090: 3086: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3076: 3072: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3040:In ictu oculi 3037: 3033: 3030: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3002: 3001:In ictu oculi 2998: 2993: 2990: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2967: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2906:In ictu oculi 2903: 2898: 2895:to Christian 2894: 2890: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2881: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2862:Slrubenstein, 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2853: 2849: 2840: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2801:In ictu oculi 2797: 2793: 2789: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2747:In ictu oculi 2745: 2740: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2729:In ictu oculi 2726: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2691:In ictu oculi 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2671: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2637:In ictu oculi 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2616: 2612: 2609:1. Sure, the 2608: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2600: 2596: 2595:New Testament 2592: 2588: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2573:In ictu oculi 2570: 2565: 2560: 2556: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2540: 2536: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2528: 2524: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2508:In ictu oculi 2505: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2486: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2470:In ictu oculi 2467: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2454: 2449: 2448: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2429: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2415: 2413: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2402: 2398: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2378:In ictu oculi 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2356: 2343: 2341: 2340: 2336: 2331: 2329: 2327: 2322: 2319: 2316: 2313: 2311: 2305: 2302: 2297: 2293: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2274: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2258:In ictu oculi 2255: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2220: 2215: 2211: 2206: 2204: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2181:In ictu oculi 2178: 2174: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2128: 2125: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2097:In ictu oculi 2094: 2090: 2086: 2083: 2079: 2077:have it here. 2076: 2072: 2069: 2065: 2062: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2050:Yeshua (name) 2047: 2043: 2040: 2037: 2033: 2030: 2029: 2010: 2007: 2003: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1987:In ictu oculi 1984: 1980: 1976: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1953: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1937:In ictu oculi 1934: 1931: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1923: 1918: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1903:In ictu oculi 1900: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1843: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1836: 1832: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1816:In ictu oculi 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1764: 1760: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1674:In ictu oculi 1671: 1663: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1636:In ictu oculi 1634: 1631: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1603: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1564: 1562: 1561: 1536: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1515: 1513: 1512: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1472: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1456:In ictu oculi 1453: 1449: 1446: 1443: 1439: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1431: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1398: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1364: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1334: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1312:In ictu oculi 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1295:Slrubenstein, 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1284: 1280: 1275: 1274: 1266: 1265: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1233:In ictu oculi 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1220: 1216: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1192:In ictu oculi 1188: 1186:Slrubenstein, 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1145:In ictu oculi 1141: 1137: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1116:Slrubenstein. 1115: 1114: 1113: 1110: 1106: 1101: 1098: 1097:Provokationen 1095:to Christian 1094: 1090: 1086: 1085:Provokationen 1083:to Christian 1082: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1060:In ictu oculi 1056: 1052: 1048: 1046:Slrubenstein, 1045: 1044: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1030:In ictu oculi 1027: 1022: 1018: 1017: 1012: 1008: 1007:Provokationen 1005:to Christian 1004: 1000: 998: 987: 983: 981: 980: 976: 972: 971:In ictu oculi 968: 960: 957: 953: 949: 945: 944: 943: 941: 936: 932: 924: 916: 912: 908: 907:In ictu oculi 904: 901: 897: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 884: 880: 875: 874: 870: 866: 865:In ictu oculi 862: 858: 853: 851: 847: 843: 835: 834:Jacob Neusner 831: 827: 823: 819: 815: 812: 809: 805: 801: 797: 793: 792: 791: 789: 785: 777: 763: 759: 755: 754:In ictu oculi 751: 747: 744: 741: 738: 737: 736: 733: 729: 725: 722: 718: 717: 716: 712: 708: 707:In ictu oculi 704: 700: 697: 693: 690: 689: 688: 685: 681: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 662: 658: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 644: 640: 636: 632: 627: 626: 625: 624: 616: 615: 614: 613: 610: 606: 602: 601:In ictu oculi 598: 594: 593: 589: 585: 582: 578: 577: 573: 572: 571: 569: 565: 561: 553: 545: 541: 537: 536:In ictu oculi 533: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 521: 517: 513: 508: 507: 506: 505: 501: 497: 496:In ictu oculi 492: 488: 484: 476: 470: 466: 462: 461:In ictu oculi 458: 457: 456: 453: 448: 447: 446: 444: 440: 439:In ictu oculi 436: 435: 404: 401: 396: 395: 394: 391: 387: 383: 382: 381: 377: 373: 372:In ictu oculi 368: 363: 360: 359: 358: 355: 351: 347: 346: 344: 343: 342: 338: 334: 333:In ictu oculi 330: 325: 321: 317: 314: 310: 306: 305:Yeshua (name) 302: 297: 293: 290: 286: 283: 282: 281: 280: 279: 276: 272: 268: 264: 260: 259: 258: 254: 250: 249:In ictu oculi 246: 242: 238: 235: 230: 228:Slrubenstein, 227: 226: 225: 224: 223: 220: 216: 212: 211: 210: 209: 206: 202: 198: 197:In ictu oculi 194: 190: 185: 182: 178: 175: 174: 168: 165: 164: 163: 160: 156: 152: 148: 145: 141: 136: 132: 131: 130: 129: 125: 121: 120:In ictu oculi 117: 109: 105: 104: 103: 97: 91: 88: 85: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4927: 4903: 4834: 4735:Slrubenstein 4677:Slrubenstein 4673: 4630:Slrubenstein 4626: 4587:Slrubenstein 4584: 4554:understands 4550: 4547:Lighter note 4479: 4441: 4406: 4402: 4385: 4380:Slrubenstein 4368:Slrubenstein 4363: 4359: 4357: 4314: 4299: 4296: 4291: 4253:Slrubenstein 4248: 4246: 4243: 4207: 4187: 4183: 4179: 4171: 4141: 4108:Slrubenstein 4104: 4098: 4044: 4027:Slrubenstein 4017: 4013: 3960: 3958: 3948: 3918:Slrubenstein 3900: 3890:Slrubenstein 3879:Slrubenstein 3874: 3817: 3782:Slrubenstein 3764:Slrubenstein 3759: 3755: 3751: 3749: 3716:Theissen on 3715: 3695:Slrubenstein 3689: 3686: 3681: 3654: 3641:Slrubenstein 3612:Slrubenstein 3594:WP:SECONDARY 3561:Slrubenstein 3550:Slrubenstein 3510:Slrubenstein 3506: 3479: 3475:Slrubenstein 3461:Slrubenstein 3456: 3450: 3449:when have I 3448: 3446: 3443: 3440: 3435: 3434: 3428: 3424: 3421: 3386: 3376:- provide a 3373: 3325:Slrubenstein 3321: 3293: 3287: 3254:Slrubenstein 3228:Slrubenstein 3224: 3188: 3178: 3174: 3155:Slrubenstein 3106: 3100: 3085:Slrubenstein 3071:Slrubenstein 3035: 3028:Slrubenstein 3017:Slrubenstein 2996: 2988:Slrubenstein 2977:Slrubenstein 2968: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939:Slrubenstein 2928:Slrubenstein 2896: 2892: 2878: 2870: 2866: 2848:Slrubenstein 2844: 2795: 2769: 2761: 2743: 2724: 2721:Yeshu (name) 2678: 2628: 2624: 2614: 2568: 2563: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2522: 2496: 2450: 2423:Yeshu (name) 2419:Yeshu (name) 2411:Slrubenstein 2397:Slrubenstein 2394: 2369: 2353: 2332: 2326:Yeshu (name) 2323: 2307: 2295: 2250:Yeshu (name) 2246:Yeshu (name) 2241:Slrubenstein 2228:Slrubenstein 2223: 2213: 2209: 2196:Slrubenstein 2169: 2163: 2159: 2143: 2138: 2118: 2114: 2091:it is about 2089:Yeshu (name) 2075:Yeshu (name) 2058:Jesus (name) 2046:Yeshu (name) 2035: 2001: 1890:Yeshu (name) 1886:Yeshu (name) 1831:Slrubenstein 1808:Yeshu (name) 1748: 1694:Slrubenstein 1667: 1626: 1622: 1600: 1559: 1558: 1555: 1510: 1509: 1507: 1450:Same point: 1437:Slrubenstein 1417:Slrubenstein 1390:Slrubenstein 1385: 1381: 1356:Slrubenstein 1351: 1326:Slrubenstein 1307: 1303: 1299: 1279:Slrubenstein 1272: 1270: 1267: 1257:Slrubenstein 1252: 1249: 1215:Slrubenstein 1212: 1166:Slrubenstein 1161: 1159: 1132: 1124: 1120: 1105:Slrubenstein 1096: 1092: 1084: 1080: 1075: 1054: 1050: 1015: 1014: 1006: 1002: 996: 994: 991: 985: 964: 955: 947: 939: 930: 928: 899: 879:Slrubenstein 876: 860: 856: 854: 845: 839: 817: 795: 783: 781: 728:Slrubenstein 720: 719:In icto, be 695: 680:Slrubenstein 664:POV-pushers. 660: 656: 587: 580: 567: 559: 557: 491:yimach shemo 480: 433: 431: 429: 386:Slrubenstein 366: 350:Slrubenstein 328: 288: 244: 240: 233: 215:Slrubenstein 180: 172: 170: 155:Slrubenstein 143: 139: 134: 113: 107: 101: 70: 43: 37: 4506:Jeremias? 3756:the passage 3568:Please see 2897:Provokation 2713:Leon Modena 1879:Ibn Shaprut 1804:Ibn Shaprut 1734:Ibn Shaprut 1535:Middle Ages 832:(1978) and 36:This is an 4650:WP:sources 4290:As before 3587:WP:PRIMARY 3488:WP:sources 2964:yes or no? 2962:textbook, 2952:yes or no? 2950:textbook, 2889:WP:sources 2871:yes or no? 2869:textbook, 2719:under the 2633:WP:sourced 2621:WP:sourced 2611:WP:sourced 2559:WP:sources 2370:POV A lede 2222:Why is it 2054:Isa (name) 2004:question. 1894:Isa (name) 1881:, etc..... 1812:Isa (name) 1271:the Yeshu 1076:historical 1055:historical 1021:WP:sourced 788:WP:sources 532:WP:sources 301:Isa (name) 193:WP:sources 181:verifiable 18:Talk:Yeshu 4790:Hi Jayjg, 4761:WP:source 4717:WP:source 4608:WP:source 4603:WP:source 4321:WP:source 3800:is about 3572:Shortcuts 3378:WP:source 2766:Jermias's 2539:WP:source 2453:WP:source 2445:WP:fringe 2437:WP:source 2374:WP:source 2366:WP:source 2310:WP:source 2254:WP:source 2177:WP:Dicdef 2173:WP:source 1933:WP:Source 1892:then per 1810:then per 1487:redaction 1452:WP:source 1442:WP:source 1253:Theissen. 967:WP:source 952:WP:source 948:27th time 902:1998 p33. 850:WP:source 842:WP:source 794:The name 750:WP:source 564:WP:source 560:26th time 324:WP:source 237:WP:source 234:published 116:WP:source 98:Slow down 90:Archive 7 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 4691:Daf Yomi 3939:edition. 3859:Article 3852:Article 3796:Article 3785:Article 3752:the name 3194:yes/no? 2956:physical 2944:physical 2893:Reaktion 2741:PS : --> 2656:Rabsaris 2589:and the 2368:for the 2146:(ישו in 2115:possible 1901:Cheers. 1454:please. 1273:passages 1093:Reaktion 1081:Reaktion 1003:Reaktion 861:26 times 824:and the 798:(ישו in 639:contribs 520:contribs 489:and the 4568:Dweller 4556:WP:NPOV 4315:yes/no? 4307:So now, 4208:yes/no? 4176:Repeat: 4045:yes/no? 3949:yes/no? 3875:passage 3818:yes/no? 3760:passage 3580:WP:PSTS 3429:purpose 3294:yes/no? 3170:answer. 3107:yes/no? 3036:yes/no? 2703:And no 2587:Tosefta 2497:Avraham 2278:WP:NPOV 2152:Aramaic 2139:Added: 1444:please. 1058:above. 822:Tosefta 804:Aramaic 661:prevent 554:Summary 151:WP:NPOV 39:archive 4857:Jayjg 4830:Jayjg, 4821:Jayjg 4781:Jayjg 4755:Jayjg, 4748:Jayjg 4695:Jayjg 4508:Jayjg 4471:Jayjg, 4464:Jayjg 4426:Jayjg, 4411:Jayjg 4105:yes/no 3849:In ict 3370:EITHER 2999:1998. 2778:Jayjg 2768:view ( 2660:Jayjg 2599:Jayjg 2591:Talmud 2534:Jayjg, 2527:Jayjg 2485:Jayjg 2463:revert 2433:WP:POV 2291:Jayjg, 2282:Jayjg 2148:Hebrew 2124:Jayjg 2048:, per 2036:titles 2006:Jayjg 1959:Jayjg, 1952:Jayjg 1922:Jayjg 1763:Jayjg 1714:Elrond 1690:Elrond 1670:Yeshua 1478:Jayjg, 1471:Jayjg 1447:Jayjg, 1430:Jayjg 1162:a view 1051:before 999:Jesus" 935:revert 826:Talmud 800:Hebrew 721:honest 703:WP:POV 452:Jayjg 400:Jayjg 296:Hillel 275:Jayjg 4932:WP:RS 4930:is a 4839:WP:RS 4795:WP:RS 4489:WP:RS 4487:is a 4480:Yeshu 4442:Yeshu 4432:: --> 4016:told 3868:Yeshu 3854:Yeshu 3809:Yeshu 3791:Yeshu 3787:Yeshu 3682:Yeshu 3605:WP:RS 3564:: --> 3480:Yeshu 2796:Yeshu 2792:WP:RS 2787:Jayjg 2705:Yeshu 2683:WP:RS 2669:Jayjg 2629:Yeshu 2625:Yeshu 2606:Jayjg 2492:Jayjg 2224:soooo 2164:Yeshu 2160:Yeshu 2156:Jesus 2144:Yeshu 2042:Yeshu 2031:Jayjg 1968:Yeshu 1964:Yeshu 1929:Jayjg 1710:Jesus 1627:Yeshu 1623:Yeshu 1386:still 1304:Yeshu 1300:Yeshu 1129:Yeshu 956:Yeshu 931:Yeshu 830:Maier 818:Yeshu 796:Yeshu 784:Yeshu 568:Yeshu 487:Yeshu 367:Yeshu 320:WP:OR 289:Yeshu 245:Yeshu 241:Yeshu 135:never 108:Yeshu 16:< 4940:talk 4911:talk 4907:Mzk1 4847:talk 4810:talk 4769:talk 4739:Talk 4725:talk 4681:Talk 4659:talk 4634:Talk 4616:talk 4591:Talk 4572:talk 4560:WP:V 4523:talk 4497:talk 4453:talk 4393:talk 4372:Talk 4329:talk 4257:Talk 4215:talk 4112:Talk 4031:Talk 4023:here 3970:talk 3954:Now, 3922:Talk 3908:talk 3896:Now, 3883:Talk 3825:talk 3768:Talk 3739:talk 3699:Talk 3662:talk 3645:Talk 3616:Talk 3554:Talk 3531:talk 3514:Talk 3496:talk 3465:Talk 3457:ever 3451:ever 3436:That 3392:talk 3361:etc. 3329:Talk 3301:talk 3232:Talk 3200:talk 3159:Talk 3114:talk 3089:Talk 3075:Talk 3044:talk 3021:Talk 3005:talk 2981:Talk 2932:Talk 2910:talk 2852:Talk 2805:talk 2751:talk 2733:talk 2695:talk 2641:talk 2577:talk 2512:talk 2474:talk 2401:Talk 2382:talk 2355:2006 2345:lede 2262:talk 2232:Talk 2214:your 2210:your 2200:Talk 2185:talk 2150:and 2119:This 2101:talk 1991:talk 1941:talk 1907:talk 1835:Talk 1820:talk 1712:and 1698:Talk 1678:talk 1640:talk 1602:1994 1460:talk 1421:Talk 1394:Talk 1360:Talk 1330:Talk 1316:talk 1283:Talk 1261:Talk 1237:talk 1219:Talk 1196:talk 1170:Talk 1149:talk 1133:this 1125:this 1121:this 1109:Talk 1064:talk 1034:talk 975:talk 911:talk 883:Talk 869:talk 802:and 758:talk 732:Talk 711:talk 684:Talk 635:talk 631:Lisa 605:talk 586:(B) 579:(A) 540:talk 516:talk 512:Lisa 500:talk 483:this 465:talk 443:talk 390:Talk 376:talk 354:Talk 337:talk 253:talk 219:Talk 201:talk 159:Talk 144:only 124:talk 4926:'s 4737:| 4679:| 4632:| 4589:| 4407:him 4403:you 4370:| 4360:not 4297:AND 4292:No. 4255:| 4249:not 4184:not 4180:No. 4172:No. 4110:| 4099:not 4029:| 4018:you 3920:| 3881:| 3766:| 3697:| 3690:not 3643:| 3614:| 3552:| 3512:| 3463:| 3425:not 3327:| 3230:| 3175:yes 3157:| 3087:| 3073:| 3019:| 2979:| 2969:Yes 2930:| 2880:p75 2850:| 2399:| 2230:| 2198:| 1833:| 1696:| 1664:AfD 1419:| 1392:| 1382:You 1358:| 1352:You 1328:| 1281:| 1259:| 1217:| 1168:| 1107:| 881:| 730:| 694:i. 682:| 657:not 388:| 352:| 303:or 269:or 265:or 263:Rav 217:| 157:| 140:not 4942:) 4913:) 4849:) 4812:) 4771:) 4727:) 4693:. 4661:) 4618:) 4574:) 4566:-- 4525:) 4499:) 4455:) 4395:) 4364:do 4331:) 4323:. 4217:) 3972:) 3910:) 3827:) 3741:) 3664:) 3607:. 3533:) 3498:) 3490:. 3394:) 3382:OR 3303:) 3202:) 3179:no 3116:) 3046:) 3038:. 3007:) 2912:) 2807:) 2753:) 2735:) 2697:) 2643:) 2579:) 2514:) 2476:) 2384:) 2296:if 2280:. 2264:) 2187:) 2103:) 2066:= 2056:, 2052:, 2044:= 2002:my 1993:) 1974:). 1943:) 1909:) 1877:, 1873:, 1869:, 1865:, 1861:, 1857:, 1822:) 1814:. 1802:, 1798:, 1794:, 1790:, 1786:, 1782:, 1740:, 1732:, 1728:, 1724:, 1720:, 1680:) 1642:) 1462:) 1318:) 1310:? 1239:) 1198:) 1151:) 1099:," 1066:) 1036:) 977:) 913:) 871:) 810:. 760:) 713:) 641:) 637:- 607:) 542:) 534:. 522:) 518:- 502:) 467:) 445:) 378:) 339:) 255:) 203:) 126:) 86:→ 4938:( 4909:( 4845:( 4808:( 4797:. 4767:( 4723:( 4657:( 4614:( 4570:( 4521:( 4495:( 4451:( 4391:( 4327:( 4213:( 4196:. 4014:I 3968:( 3906:( 3823:( 3804:. 3793:. 3737:( 3660:( 3529:( 3494:( 3390:( 3299:( 3198:( 3181:. 3112:( 3042:( 3003:( 2908:( 2803:( 2749:( 2731:( 2693:( 2639:( 2635:. 2575:( 2510:( 2472:( 2380:( 2260:( 2183:( 2099:( 2070:. 2060:. 1989:( 1939:( 1905:( 1896:. 1818:( 1676:( 1638:( 1458:( 1314:( 1235:( 1194:( 1147:( 1062:( 1032:( 973:( 909:( 867:( 756:( 709:( 633:( 603:( 538:( 514:( 498:( 463:( 441:( 374:( 335:( 315:. 251:( 199:( 122:( 50:.

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

Index