Talk:Isa (name)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Regarding dropping of the ending/final ع 'ayn

This article already notes, in relation to what Alphonse Mingana discusses about documents related to the 'Isaniyya monastery being around in 571 CE in southern Syria in land then ruled by the Christian Ghassanids [1] at "A.D. 571" also Islamic writers/scholars challenge and response to some of the more involved/evolved theories of Mingana and company regarding the Qur'an [2], again from this wikipedia article it already says "Arabic often adds an initial ʿayn to words borrowed from Aramic and Syriac". Other sources say the dropping of the final ع ('ayn) is evidenced by the Turfan documents. I was also going over the general issue of the name Yeshu ישו obviously also minus ع ('ayn) both at the end and all together in the name; again Yeshu. Much debate exists with some people thinking Yeshu (ישו) might be a disguised acronym developed by Jews for "may his name and memory be blotted out" to insult Jesus and people who discuss this would cite things like the Toledot Yeshu and also Jewish Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 43a (Soncino Press) [3] however on this Talmudic passage Sanhedrin 43a the five disciples of this Yeshu (ישו) are listed as "Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah" (different then the New Testament accounts as the New Testament account, with twelve disciples, doesn't have Jesus with disciples named Nakai, Nezer, Buni or Todah) and some Jewish scholars state the timing doesn't add up and thus they state Sanhedrin 43a in the Jewish Talmud is not in reference to Jesus at all.

The article here on wikipedia about Yeshu is pretty well down and interesting; it notes for example citing an academic named David Flusser that "The name Yeshu has also been found in a fragment of the Jerusalem Talmud from the Cairo Genizah, a depository for holy texts which are not usable due to age, damage or errors. Flusser takes this as evidence of the term being a name" And also regarding the acronym theory about Yeshu (ישו) being a curse; some have responded back (in particular it seems Jewish scholars) with the following about the acronym theory of Yeshu "It is also the acronym of yishtabach shemo vezikhro meaning "may his name and memory be praised". And then lastly from Yeshu; "Bauckham (2008) notes that the spelling Yeshu is found on one ossuary, Rahmani 9, which supports that the name Yeshu was not invented as a way of avoiding pronouncing the name Yeshua or Yehoshua in relation to Jesus, but that it may still be that rabbinical use of Yeshu was intended to distinguish Jesus from rabbis bearing the biblical name 'Joshua,' Yehoshua. Foote and Wheeler considered that the name 'Yeshu' was simply a shortened form the name 'Yehoshua' or Joshua.".

Quite interesting, and just to close here with a quote from an Islamic writer [4]

"Now the only issue is why Ayn appears at the beginning of the name. That could be due to metathesis [5], which is fairly common in Semitic languages. For example, some people whose name is 'Ahmad' are called 'Hamada' in Arab countries. It is also possible that since the Ayn had been dropped, even during Jesus’ time, Syrians, who were the earliest Christians put it at the beginning out of respect or were instructed by God to do so. In the Bible, for example, God changed Abram’s name to Abraham (Genesis 17:5).

As you can see it’s difficult to prove what was the correct pronunciation (for example the sheen pronounced as seen in the north of historic Palestine according to the Bible in Judges 12:5-6 and shibboleth vs. sibboleth). Quran used the name that Arabs were familiar with and the Marcionite Gospel proves that Muslims certainly did not invent the name.

One more fact that you may not be familiar with: Hebrew had died as a spoken language and was reinvented only couple of hundred years ago by the founders of Zionism [6] [7] who had no choice but to borrow Arabic grammar. The Hebrew previous to that was limited to the study of Torah, which only had 500 root words, insufficient for a spoken language. So the Hebrew that you hear today is not what was spoken three thousand years ago."Historylover4 (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know where you're going with your argument. The conversion of the Hebrew/Aramaic Shin to Sin in Arabic and vice versa is a typical feature of Semitic language found in hundreds of words: ܫܠܡ/سلم, ܣܒܥ/شبع, ܡܫܚ/مسح... There are even tens of Biblical proper names that follow this rule ܫܠܝܡܘܢ/سليمان, ܐܫܡܥܝܠ/إسماعيل ܐܠܝܫܥ/اليسع. As a matter of fact you can take any random Arabic word and convert its س to ش and you'll probably end up with a Hebrew/Aramaic cognate. So there is no point in arguing that the Shin in ܝܫܘܥ should be pronounced [s].

The Hebrew ישו appears first hundreds of years after Jesus and it is only found in Jewish Polemics and writings. It may have influenced The Arabic Isa but it certainly wasn't known during Jesus' lifetime.

The assumtion that "Arabic often adds an initial ʿayn to words borrowed from Aramic and Syriac" is just bad OR and should be removed. If it is a common thing in Arabic why don't we have عسمائيل، عليسع، عسحاق، etc?

The Macrion Gospel was written in Greek and it uses the Greek name of Jesus found in the Canonical Gospels. We have zero evidence that it was ever translated to Aramaic and that this presumed translation used the Quranic name.--Rafy talk 20:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

With regards to Arabic adding an ayn, this is not OR as the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an clearly states: "Arabic often employs an initial ayn in words borrowed from Aramaic or Syriac". Please self revert. There may also have been a distinction between early loanwords and later ones, which, based on the time of borrowing, each word may have been subject to different integration/modification rules. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think that it happened "often" enough to provide a significant meaningful explanation for عيسى -- and if the "Encyclopedia of the Qur'an" was taking عيسى itself into account when making that statement, then of course the whole thing is somewhat circular... However, I have no objection to restoring the passage which Rafy deleted (as long as "Aramic"[sic] is corrected to "Aramaic"), in the context of merely reporting an assertion of the "Encyclopedia of the Qur'an". AnonMoos (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is one of the more plausible arguments, given that we assume Arabic terms to have developed from an 'ayn-less Semitic language related to Aramaic and Syriac, and that Arabic now more frequently employs the 'ayn. There are also numerous examples of the use of the initial 'ayn both across word and morpheme boundaries, e.g., Ismā-ʿ-īl. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As a native speaker of both I can comfortably say that this claim is unfounded. Semitic words retain their glottal stop when adopted by Arabic and there are hundreds of example to prove this: ܐܓܪܐ/أجر, ܐܣܝܐ/آسي, ܐܣܛܘܢܐ/إسطوان. I cannot think of a single example where an Aramaic or Hebrew word gained an 'Ayin in Arabic.

Since this claim is made by Arthur Jeffery in his The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an I find no reason why we shouldn't mention it even though it may not be correct. It should be also noted that Jeffery concludes with: "Till further information comes to hand we shall have to content ourselves with regarding it as some form of “konsonanten permutation” due, maybe, to Muhammad himself, and perhaps influenced by Nestorian pronunciation."--Rafy talk 16:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, which claim? Also, just above you rendered إسماعيل as إسمائيل!! I assume this is just an error, otherwise your competence in Arabic is limited. Now, I haven't thought about finding examples, but from the top of my head there is Ismā-ʿ-īl and probably Ezra, and Azrael too? Not sure if these examples are valid, so some confirmation would be nice. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 17:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

All of Ishmael, Ezra and Azrael contain 'Ayin in Hebrew. My Arabic is much better than an average Arab college graduate so don't worry about that.--Rafy talk 17:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But are they pronounced as إسماعيل or إسمائيل? Ezra or 'Izra? There is difference you know. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 17:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ishmael is pronounced Yišmaˁel "يشماعيل" in Hebrew. The Aleph in Arabic shows Syriac influence since Syriac isn't comfortable with two Y sounds and an Alap is then added to such loaned Hebrew words, ("Jesus" is an exception[8]). Ezra/עזרא contains an 'Ayin (ע) as well.--Rafy talk 18:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What you said about Hebrew pronunciation is not entirely true. Here is a reliable source that better explains it. (In p.223-4) Notice that there is tendency to pronounce the ayin like a glottal stop/alef in common Hebrew dialects. But Hebrew speakers in Arabic-influenced regions usually pronounce the ayin like the Arabs. Thus it does seem reasonable that a word with an ayin in ancient Hebrew was pronounced with a sound resembling an alef, contrary to Arabic. This, if true, also opens the way for many different conjectures regardless of spelling. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 02:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The book deals with modern Israeli Hebrew which have lost the Pharyngeals due to Ashkinazi influence. All Hebrew varieties of the ME including Tiberian, Babylonian, Mizrahi, etc. preserved those sounds.--Rafy talk 12:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This really doesn't make too much sense to me -- as explained previously, the reconstruction of the pronunciation of 1st century A.D. Hebrew is really not all that uncertain, while ca. 500 A.D. "Yeshu" was a kind of Jewish-internal word which Christians were unlikely to even hear, and they were doubly-unlikely to apply such a derogatory name to the central figure of their own religion. Furthermore, a completely random addition of ع to the beginning of Hebrew or ARAMAIC (not "Aramic"[sic]) words in Arabic isn't very common (what are some other examples???) -- and according to your theory, it's completely accidental that ע/ع was first subtracted from the end of Yēšūʕ and then later added at the beginning of ʕĪsā, so that the presence of ʕ in both Yēšūʕ and ʕĪsā is a pure random accident... AnonMoos (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

As for the reconstruction of "Biblical Hebrew" which even the wikipedia page notes has to be "reconstructed", the Jewish Study Bible from Oxford University Press contains on just about every second or third page one or two footnotes stating that "Meaning of Hebrew Uncertain" [9]. Also regarding all Hebrew pronunciation there is a debate with most people saying "Yemenite Hebrew pronunciation" is "probably closest" to what the again unquestionably "reconstructed" Biblical Hebrew sounded like in terms of phonology [10]. And also issues of the diacritical markings in the text, further affecting pronunciation come from the Masoretes Leningrad Codex. Not going into modern Hebrew and Eliezer Perlman's neologisms and further developments in the contemporary articles.

The article on Yeshu has most scholars saying it is a name of its own according to David Flusser, Foote and Wheeler, etc.

As for the name Jesus in Christian texts, the oldest New Testament texts are again in the Indo-European language of Greek; and the Greek name "Iesous" (Ιησούς); that is again in the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century CE in Greek (the NT Greek papyri's List of New Testament papyri oldest papyri scrap is usually dated to c. 125 CE). The Syriac Peshitta's oldest manuscripts are from the 5th century CE and thus are based on the Indo-European language of Greek of the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus from a century earlier. And again Josephus translates different "Biblical Hebrew" names (now "reconstructed", again I cited the Jewish Study Bible of Oxford University Press with its footnotes stating "Hebrew uncertain" very, very often every few pages) into the same Indo-European Greek name "Iesous" (Ιησούς) that was again Ishvi (יִשְׁוִ֖י) of Genesis 46:17, 1 Samuel 14:49, and 1 Chronicles 7:30. Scholars state that this shows the wide variety of "Biblical Hebrew" names that were all represented by the same Greek name Iesous. Also again academics like John P. Meier in his awarding winning work "A Marginal Jew" argued that Jesus would not have spoken or used any Hebrew and that the Targums, lack of literacy, and other factors further made "Biblical Hebrew" (that is again only "reconstructed" today, quite tenuously by the Jewish Study Bible of Oxford University Press) almost already a dead language by the 1st century CE [11].

As for Islamic sources; [12] and [13] -- 22:46, 14 July 2012‎ User:Historylover4

I didn't say anything about "Biblical Hebrew" in my remark of 20:33, 14 July 2012, so I really don't know what you think you're replying to. I don't want to be unnecessarily insulting, but you are not a linguist, you are not a Hebrew expert, and you are not an expert on ancient Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic bibles, and the result of your attempts to cobble together random selective sources which you find through Google searches is not very impressive, and is mostly not worth bothering to reply to in much detail. As I said previously above, you would certainly not be too impressed with any attempts of a non-Arabic-speaking non-Muslim to transform himself into an "instant Arabic expert" or "instant Qur'an" expert by means of Google searching -- so why should we be take too seriously your corresponding efforts to transform yourself into an "instant Hebrew expert" or "instant Bible expert"??? -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Again your rudeness on perfect display, I present academic sources you respond "I know better" and with claims that you are supposedly a "scholar" and allegedly "know better" than a acclaimed scholar from Notre Dame University John P. Meier or the whole entire Oxford University Press! You versus the Oxford University Press; [14] a "Jewish Study Bible" that documents every few pages "meaning of 'Hebrew' Uncertain" but you claim "they are blowing it out of proportion" again a layman you versus actual acclaimed scholars.Historylover4 (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said previously, the problem is not (necessarily) with your sources, it's with your attempts to selectively use such sources while knowing very little about the subject in question. If it's me vs. your attempts to transform yourself into an "instant Bible expert" or "instant Hebrew expert" by means of semi-random Google searching, then I win... AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not selectively using anything, I'm simply quoting academics and sources. Something we all should do.Historylover4 (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān

Wiqi55 -- I don't like to revert your edits, but you presented hypotheses which have been generally rejected by the scholarly consensus of Biblical linguistics as if they're mainstream, when they're not mainstream. It would be better to have the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān stuff in a separate paragraph to itself, as was done before... AnonMoos (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything to justify the revert.[15] The Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān is a scholarly and up-to-date source with an "Orientalist" or polemical take on Islam (see the review linked in our article). It makes little sense to confine claims by EQ to a "special" paragraph and give more precedence to sources written to "serve the Catholic Church". Also, contrary to what you wrote above, your edit did not remove all claims made by EQ but actually left the ones you seem to like (sorry to say :) ). In any case, I was only summarizing the conclusion of EQ which is written by a scholar with knowledge in Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic and which clearly states: "It is not certain that Jesus’ original name was Yēshūa'." This is a valid scholarly opinion as far as I'm concerned. You can qualify it with better more up-to-date sources, but you shouldn't selectively cite EQ's conclusion or try to hide it. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but among Biblical linguistic scholars, it is widely accepted that it is overwhelmingly probable that Jesus' original name was Yēšūʕ (or a very slight variant thereof which would be basically fully equivalent), and that's the position reflected on the "Jesus (name)" article and other related articles, so it's a little pointless to create an inconsistency between this article and the other articles. The Catholic Encyclopedia is something which I quickly pulled in from the "Jesus (name)" article in order to fulfill a "citation needed" request; it's obviously not the best possible source, but the best sources wouldn't say anything much different with respect to the main point at issue. AnonMoos (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiqi55 is completely correct, the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān is clearly a valid source that takes in many, what Wiqi55 correctly termed, "Orientalist" and skeptical approaches towards Islam. And they again note; "It is not certain that Jesus' original name was Yeshua"; that is completely relevant, provided by a valid source, and should thus be included in this article.Historylover4 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"Jesus" was a very popular name among Jews during Jesus' lifetime. This name is well accepted to have been the historical name of Jesus by Bible historians, Theologians, and sceptics alike.[16] According to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRNG, such minority views shouldn't be represented here.--Rafy talk 14:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Many Western academics don't even believe Jesus existed as a historical person much less what they think his actual name might have been. Also the topic of languages spoken in Palestine at that time would come up as well; and reputed scholars like Notre Dame University's John P. Meier have noted (Meier in his work "A Marginal Jew" [17]) that it is very likely a historical Jesus (in 1st century CE Palestine) would have only spoken and used Aramaic as a primary language with little use of either Hebrew or the Indo-European language of Greek (and not Latin at all, which sometimes comes up). John P. Meier for example wrote; "Jesus regularly and perhaps exclusively taught in Aramaic, his Greek being of a practical, business type, and perhaps rudimentary to boot." (page 268 of his work). And as for Hebrew (Biblical Hebrew had by that time significantly died out as a spoken language, today "Biblical Hebrew" has to be "reconstructed" as even wikipedia notes and which is also heavily apparent in the Oxford University Press "The Jewish Study Bible" [18] which includes nearly every few pages multiple footnotes about sentences or even more of the text having "meaning of Hebrew Uncertain". Also John P. Meier (in "A Marginal Jew") himself touches upon this by noting that the existence of the Aramaic translation Targums shows that; "Indeed, the very existence of Aramaic targums (translations) of the Hebrew Scriptures argues that a good number of ordinary Jews present in the synagogue could not understand Hebrew even when it was spoken, to say nothing of an ability to read or write it." Meier goes on to say also that a historical Jesus' ability to use the Hebrew language at all would have depended on whether he was literate and all the extrabiblical information argues against him (and by extension the vast bulk of commoners around him who would be saying his name) being literate due to the widespread illiteracy in that day (especially among peasants, again those saying his name most commonly) the work of historian William V. Harris "Ancient Literacy" comes up [19] showing that the general literacy rate in 1st century CE Roman Palestine was as low as 3%. And going by the Christian New Testament; while John P. Meier suggests their imagery of Jesus debating scripture in the synagogue could point to a possibly level of literacy he (Meier) admits this is an indirect argument that can be doubted because scriptural background "could have been conveyed by word-of-mouth catechesis and memorization." So Meier and many others hold to either Aramaic "primacy" or that a historical Jesus would have only known and used the Aramaic language; thus his name would have been pronounced in Aramaic (and thus if one is to go by the New Testament accounts those Aramaic speaking commoners around Jesus would not have spoken Hebrew much if at all as well again going by scholars like John P. Meier and others analysis).

As for the topic at hand here; the quote from the scholarly the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān that "It is not certain that Jesus' original name was Yeshua" should be included in this article as the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an is a reputable academic source and this quote is relevant especially from a largely unbiased secular academic source discussing Islam and this is even more so since this article has to do with Islam.Historylover4 (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic as his first language, but this still doesn't effect how his name was spelled. We have ample evidence showing that the Hebrew יהושע (YHWŠ‘) developed to ישוע (YŠW‘) in post-exilic literature under Aramaic influence as the Jews started to abandon Hebrew. [20] Now, the latter spelling (ישוע) is the one you will come across in every single Biblical dictionary, it is also the only form for Jesus in Aramaic. I would like to note that Jane Dammen McAuliffe doesn't have a degree neither in Biblical studies nor Hebrew/Aramaic, and her argument that "Jesus’ original name might not have been Yēshūaʿ" just because it is not attested before 80 A.D. and that his follower might have modified his name doesn't make much sense. Certainly early Christians didn't lack enemies and any attempt by them to change the name of their leader as suggested by McAuliffe wouldn't have gone unnoticed. The fact that not a single Biblical scholar supports this theory is more than enough to dismiss it as WP:FRINGE.--Rafy talk 21:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān and a fully accredited academic like Jane Dammen McAuliffe among the numerous other scholars and professionals who contributed to the Encyclopedia at hand; is certainly a source to be used over what you posted from "shadoworsubstance.org" which simply appears to be some random non-academic Christian website. So the statements of real academics like those in the EQ should be noted in this article, especially because this article is dealing with something in the Islamic religion (thus the complete valid academic source EQ makes perfect sense to quote; that is the sentence in question here should be included in an Islam related article). As for a historical Jesus speaking Aramaic (putting aside the debate among Western secular academics if he even existed at all) this (speaking of Aramaic as his primary or only language) is pretty much agreed upon (again putting aside the debate of many Western scholars about if Jesus even existed to start with). However all the Aramaic documents post date the Greek sources and thus rely on the Greek sources.

And on Greek I again noted that scholars even at EQ (while saying it wasn't directly related to the issue of عِيسَى in Arabic) discussed how Josephus provides evidence in particular for the "wide variety" of different names being represented in the Indo-European Greek language (being translated into Greek from Semitic languages) as the one same Greek name "Iesous" (Ιησούς). The main example being cited was again the name Ishvi (יִשְׁוִ֥י) again found in Genesis 46:17, 1 Samuel 14:49, and 1 Chronicles 7:30; which was again also translated into Greek as the same name "Iesous" (Ιησούς) by Josephus (according to scholars). This shows the difficulty (especially in translating Semitic words/names into an Indo-European language that was not directly related), variety, and adds more weight to scholarly source EQ's statement "It is not certain that Jesus' original name was Yeshua" (again EQ's is a mainstream academic source, not "fringe" at all). Also the main verse others were bringing up in the Old Testament Nehemiah 8:17 says in the Oxford University Press's "The Jewish Study Bible" [21] that on "Joshua (footnote b) son of Nun" in Nehemiah 8:17 (page 1700 of OUP's "The Jewish Study Bible") that (footnote b) "meaning of heb. (that is "Joshua") uncertain." Again EQ is a scholarly source (not "fringe" at all) and should be included, especially in an article on an Islamic topic (weight should be given to the valid source EQ in this article in particular).Historylover4 (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Give me one reason why should we prefer the opinion of someone with no degree in Hebrew/Bible studies over those who have dedicated tens of years of their lives studying the Bible within academia. It is very commonly accepted that the name of Jesus was Yeshua, which most likely developed from Yehoshua.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Any other theories made by non-experts belong to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.
2. Ishvi/Yishvi doesn't, never did, translate to Jesus in any known dictionary. see [30].
3. Nehemiah 8:17 shows exactly the point made by the reference you rejected. יהושע had already changed to ישוע in the post-exilic literature of Ezra and Nehemiah. What happens in European languages is the same word is translated differently according to the context. ישוע is usually translated to Joshua when referring to someone other than "Jesus Christ", the same can also be noted also for the translation of יעקב to James or Jacob. Anyway, how is this all related to the Quranic name?--Rafy talk 13:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiqi55 (and Historylover4) -- I'm sure that the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān has many fine qualities, but from its basic nature it cannot be the definitive word on matters of ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek Bibles and languages. Rather, we look to scholars and sources in the field of Biblical linguistics itself to determine what the established consensus in Biblical linguistics is. There's no problem in reporting what the Encyclopedia of the Qurʼān says, and that's what the purpose of the paragraph about the Encyclopedia of the Qurʼān in the article is. However, if you cite the Encyclopedia of the Qurʼān to present as undisputed fact something which contradicts the consensus of scholars in the field of Biblical linguistics, then that's a problem. AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The point you're missing is that EQ is the most reliable source we currently have in this section. The other two sources are either written to "serve the Church" or by a non-academics. We are free to cite a reliable source for facts without the need for an "according to" statement. That said, you can qualify or contradict such statements if you can find an equally reliable source claiming 100% certainty. But trying to confine the best source we have to a "special" paragraph is absurd. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 02:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My opinion remains the same as before. I could theoretically find sources which you would consider to be better at the local university library, but I don't particularly feel motivated to undertake strenuous research in this case. just to find "gold plated" sources, when it's already clear from the non-gold-plated sources that the consensus of scholarship in Biblical linguistics is that ישוע = Ιησους. However gold-plated the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān may be, it cannot be the final word in Biblical linguistics. By the way, one advantage of the Catholic Encyclopedia being written in 1911 is that you know that nothing is slanted to evade or get around Muslim objections, because at that time they just didn't care what Muslims thought or said about Christianity... AnonMoos (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not the final word, but EQ is still a mainstream scholarly source with a reputation for fact-checking. Hence, their conclusion is notable and should be summarized here. Having something like "However, ... " followed by a citation to EQ is perfectly reasonable per wiki policy. In any case, I don't hold a strong view on this, so I'll think of a compromise. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 07:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiqi55 is correct EQ is a completely acceptable, mainstream, scholarly source and on an article dealing with a topic related to Islam it most certainly should be quoted (i.e. the quote in question from EQ; "It is not certain that Jesus' original name was Yeshua"). Other posters here are giving non-academic Christian websites like "shadoworsubstance.org", etc. Also regarding the name of Jesus in Greek; EQ again points out that scholars have once again noted that Josephus in particular provides information on the "wide variety" of different Hebrew names represent by the one same Indo-European Greek name "Iesous" (Ιησούς); and again noting (for one) the name Ishvi (יִשְׁוִ֖י) found in Genesis 46:17, 1 Samuel 14:49, and 1 Chronicles 7:30. And this is noted as being important (even by EQ) because the Christian world first gets the name Jesus from the Indo-European Greek language and again the Greek name of "Iesous" (Ιησούς); which can be translated (as Josephus shows) from what (EQ again calls) a "wide variety" of different Hebrew names such as one again being Ishvi (יִשְׁוִ֖י) of Genesis 46:17, 1 Samuel 14:49, and 1 Chronicles 7:30 (this is putting aside the issue of Aramaic having been the language used in 1st century CE Palestine, with most scholars viewing what is now "reconstructed", "Biblical Hebrew", as by that time already being close to a dead language). And again I have quoted the Oxford Jewish Study Bible [31] multiple times noting that in a verse like Nehemiah 8:17 they place a footnote of "meaning of Hebrew uncertain" next to the name in the text. To conclude, as Wiqi55 has noted the quote from the respected, academic EQ that "It is not certain that Jesus' original name was Yeshua" should again certainly be included in this article in particular.Historylover4 (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Again while noting the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān itself mentioning the evidence of the wide variety of different Semitic names represented by the one Greek name Iesous (Ιησούς) the name were Christians again first get a name for Jesus (as the earliest Christian writings including eventually Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus were all in the Indo-European language of Greek), once again on the name Ishvi (יִשְׁוִ֖י) Genesis 46:17, 1 Samuel 14:49, and 1 Chronicles 7:30 [32].Historylover4 (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Dude do you realise that all you do is repeat yourself over and over... This doesn't make your argument more valid you know. I don't like to repeat myself but again, in case you didn't read what's written above... We have a clear consensus among experts on what the original name of Jesus was, as shown from the multitude of references I posted above. Your suggestion that his name might have been Ishvi or something similar is what we call in Wikipedia WP:Original Research. Just bring enough reliable references that support the claim that Jesus' original name is uncertain then we have something to talk.--Rafy talk 13:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It is you and "anonmoos" who have problems with actual academic sources like EQ itself, the Oxford University Press, now even Josephus apparently and on. EQ itself (not me, so it is not "original research" of mine) notes that the fact Josephus translates Ishvi into Greek as Ιησούς itself shows the wide variety of Semitic names that are represented by this one Greek name (the first place Christians get the name Jesus from, not Aramaic, Hebrew, or anything else but Greek) which itself is enough to include the respected academic source EQ's statement "It is not certain that Jesus' original name was Yeshua" that you guys are trying to claim shouldn't be included in the article for some reason even though it comes from the main source this article is using and which is yet again a respected academic source.

As discussed and explained above in detail ad nauseam, by its nature the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān, which covers a very different field than Biblical linguistics, cannot be the final word in Biblical linguistics, however respectable it may be. Furthermore, "Ishwi" is technically a phonologically possible Hebrew counterpart to Ιησους, but from every other point of view it's ridiculous and laughable -- who was Ishwi that people would be naming babies after him in the Hellenistic and Roman periods?? Furthermore, if you came up with the idea, then it's blatant "original research", in violation of Wikipedia policies... AnonMoos (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The EQ by default is the valid scholarship that this article has relied on (which Wiqi55 has noted); it is you and rafy who are acting as if "well they are scholarly" but then you add to this "they don't what they are talking about on this topic" (according to you)! An academic work being published by Brill Publishers is going to know what they are talking about on every subject; you guys are trying to claim they supposedly "don't know" about this subject! However they would certainly reference academics in Biblical studies and such people are included in their references and people who even worked on the Encyclopedia itself. And I'm again quoting EQ who once again mentions that Josephus' Greek translation of Ishvi provides evidence of the "wide variety" of Semitic names translated into this one same Greek name Ιησους; so this is in no way "original research" on my part, it is QUOTING the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an again published by Brill Publishers "Josephus furnishes important evidence for the wide variety of Hebrew names represented in Greek by Iesous".

After checking the EQ again, I found that the Ishvi connection is mentioned as one of the arguments presented by the Muslim apologist al-Assiouty to which the EQ at page 10 cocludes that: "None of al-Assiouty’s arguments is decisive and some of them are unsound."

As I said earlier, we have hundreds of very authoritative references contradicting these claims. I just looked up the Encyclopedia Judaica and writings of the Jesus Seminar , two non-Christian reputable references and both state clearly that Jesus'name was Yeshua/Joshua. Actually if you check the Jesus Seminar forums you'll notice Jesus' Aramaic name on the main page.--Rafy talk 15:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't quote what EQ said in full; "Although Josephus furnishes important evidence for the wide variety of Hebrew names represented in Greek by Iesous, it is noteworthy that none of these names begins with an 'ayin" that is all they said they still are pointing out that the Greek name Ιησούς (Iesous) can mean many different Semitic names (i.e. the Ishvi issue that they note from Josephus). What you are pointing to on them discussing al-Assiouty is the second part of the quote that this issue of Ishvi doesn't touch on the issue of the placement of 'ayin ع that EQ goes on to note (as this article already includes) "Arabic often employs an initial 'ayn in words borrowed from Aramaic or Syriac and the dropping of the final Hebrew 'ayin is evidenced in the form Yisho of the 'koktiirkish' Manichaean fragments from Turfan". So the Ishvi argument and the one same Greek name "Iesous" is still completely valid and EQ points this out themselves i.e. "wide variety", etc (all they, EQ, are saying that you picked up on is again noting that this issue of Ishvi and the wide variety of different Semitic names "Iesous" represents in Greek just doesn't touch on the separate side issue of the placement of the letter 'ayin in the beginning of a name and the dropping of this letter at the end of it that is it, both of which are again discussed further by them as I just quoted: "initial", "Turfan", etc). And again EQ's statement that "It is not certain that Jesus' original name was Yeshua" should be included in this article.

The sources you bring are either openly Christian oriented or Judeo-Christian oriented; as most Jewish sources will even call Jesus "the founder of Christianity" something that other religions that include Jesus in some form, capacity, or various interpretation of what they believe he taught, would not agree with. The Jewish sources are doing this because they are Western and have had the closest contact with Christians and the religion of Christianity (in Europe and America, i.e. "Judeo-Christian civilization", etc) meaning their template for anything to do with Jesus is going to again be Christians and Christianity to start with especially in sources written by mostly European Jews. For example the Jewish Encyclopedia (similar to the Encyclopedia Judaica you quoted) states on Jesus (putting aside the issue of how today a large bulk of secular Western academics debate and express skepticism about the very existence of Jesus period) that he is supposedly the "Founder of Christianity".[33] something that is debatable historically and one can even point to the Christian New Testament in Acts 11:26 saying the "Apostles" were "called Christians" by others in Antioch after the time of Jesus (even going by the Christian New Testament). And none of these modern Jewish sources (mostly made by European and American Jews) changes the fact that the first source of the name Jesus in Christianity is Iesous (Ιησούς) in Greek and thus the Ishvi (יִשְׁוִ֥י) point and EQ's point of the "wide variety of Hebrew names represented in Greek by Iesous" is immediately in play and cannot be swept aside. Historylover4 (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

1) The Jesus myth theory is completely and utterly irrelevant to this article, which is about the Arabic name of Jesus, and nothing whatever which is non-onomastic in nature. 2) Why don't you leave Jews and Christians to settle differences between themselves, without trying to encourage friction as an outsider? 3) If Ishwi is not taken very seriously by reputable sources outside Biblical linguistics, and not even mentioned at all by the vast majority of sources within Biblical linguistics, then it is a fringe theory, and therefore cannot be included in this article. 4) The fact that you don't know enough about Hebrew to know that the "v" in "Ishvi"[sic] is anachronistic, is part of the problem here... AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources supporting the Yeshua name belong to reputable Bible experts, again the writer of the EQ 1) Isn't a Bible expert. 2) Still, she doesn't use references from other experts to support her claim.

The mention of Josephus is restricted to the paragraph where McAuliffe dismisses al-Assiouty's claims. She mentions a number of his claims including the above mentioned one and elaborates on why she thinks they are "indecisive" and "unsound".

Regarding "Judeo-Christian" references, These belong some highly respectable scholars regardless of their background. I assume that if we have one view (from a non-expert) that is contradicted by hundreds of experts, then it is very understandable that definitely dismiss such claim. After all isn't that why we have UNDUE/FRINGE for.--Rafy talk 19:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Again for "anonmoos" and "rafy" (who quote websites like "shadoworsubstance.org" and think they know more than the Oxford University Press Jewish Study Bible, Notre Dame University, Professor John P. Meier, and the renowned Brill published EQ among tons of other sources I have continuously quoted.) "anonmoos"; I wrote "Isvhi" for the name יִשְׁוִ֥י simply because that is what many of the more well known English Bibles such as the New International Version use as their English translation. I am of course fully aware that in "Biblical Hebrew" (which actual scholars [34] admit has to be very tenuously "reconstructed", not to even get into the Masoretic tradition, Niqqud, the different "pronunciation" styles such as Yemenite, which scholars say "probably closet in phonology to reconstructed Biblical Hebrew", Sephardic, and Ashkenazi, modern day spoken Hebrew with Eliezer Ben-Yehuda and his neologisms often based on Arabic words and roots, etc etc) the name is pronounced Ishwi or Yiswi [35]. Again I was simply writing Ishvi because of its wide use in English Bible translations.

This Ishvi (Ishwi or Yiswi) is again admitted to be very important in regards to the Greek name Ιησούς as Brill Publishers' EQ again states (giving the full quote) "Although Josephus furnishes important evidence for the wide variety of Hebrew names represented in Greek by Iesous, it is noteworthy that none of these names begins with an 'ayin". And as I responded to "rafy" on this already, he ("rafy") is trying to mix two unrelated things in an attempt to apparently claim that the issue regarding Yiswi is supposedly "not important" or something. As anyone who reads this quote can tell Brill Publishers' EQ is noting that Josephus furnishes irrefutable evidence for again the wide variety of different and divergent Semitic names that are all translated into Greek as the one same identical Greek name Iesous (Ιησούς), which couldn't possibly be anymore important as this is the first name Christians have for Jesus as all the earliest Christian documents are in the Indo-European language of Greek and anything else be it Syriac, Coptic, etc. are merely later translations from these Greek language documents and sources. What EQ says in response to al-Assiouty (which is a completely different issue then Iswhi being translated into Greek as Iesous) is that this issue (while important) doesn't touch on the issue of the placement (at the beginning) and/or lack of an ending ع (again completely unrelated to the evidence they furnish from Josephus) and on this discussion about 'ayin EQ again states (as this article already notes):

"Arabic often employs an initial 'ayn in words borrowed from Aramaic or Syriac and the dropping of the final Hebrew 'ayin is evidenced in the form Yisho of the 'koktiirkish' Manichaean fragments from Turfan."

With all this said again this article here should most definitely include the prestigious academic source EQ (by Brill Publishers) statement; "It is not certain that Jesus' original name was Yeshua".Historylover4 (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, what evidence is there of any positive connection between the rare old name in Genesis 46:17, 1 Samuel 14:49, and 1 Chronicles 7:30 and Jesus (as opposed to the much more natural hypothesis of a connection with the very frequent name found many times in numerous passages in the Bible, יהושע / ישוע)?? And if the actual Bible and Hebrew scholars feel that the Ἰησοῦς / ישוע connection is pretty certain (or vastly more plausible than any competing hypothesis) while it's only Qur'an and Arabic scholars who think it's "uncertain", then Wikipedia policies would indicate that we should go with the scholars who are actually working in their own field (not excluding the possibility of presenting a minority opinion, as long as it's a respectable minority opinion)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Should Section "Etymology" be put ahead of Section "Non-Islamic uses"?

Everything Is Numbers (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense as long as that section is rather short. Not sure about your additions (which I've removed for now), since it didn't even make the claim that "Isa" was a significant figure in Thelemism, just that the name happened to occur in one passage in one work. Also removed the "why" tag, since in most cases it's not considered good style to bog down the lead section at the top of the article with too many references or fine details, and it's all discussed at length further down in the article... AnonMoos (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the section's placement, I'm sure you know better how to manage the article; regagarding the "why," I think that the content of the etymology section is sufficient, though it doesn't clearly state why such destiction between Arabic Muslims and Arabic Christians exists.

Now, about Thelema. I don't know how significant a figure has to be to meet the requirements, so I'll give you a summary of Isa's main position in Thelema and pass it to your judgement. Jesus is a Slain-and-Risen God of the past/passing Aeon of Osiris—usually equated with the Age of Pisces—allong with Osiris, Mithras, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis and many, many more. That aeon is contrasted with the new aeon the Aeon of Horus, “with Mohammed perhaps as its forerunner”—usually equated with the Age of Aquarius—whose advent is marked by the writing of the Book of the Law in 1904. The writer of the manuscript Aleister Crowley was both a Christian and a sharp critic of Christianity. Probably the best-known Thelemic treatise on Isa is Liber DCCCLXXXVIII, but it uses the anglicized name of Jesus and its title was chosen after the isopsephical value 888 of his original, Koine Greek name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've known who Crowley was since the 1970s, so I don't need a link on his name (though the only article I've had an interest in contributing to is Moonchild (novel), which has much more sense of fun than most of the rest). The theology appears to be mainly a warmed over rehash of a combination of Theosophy and the Golden Bough, and is also rather irrelevant in the current context -- where the important question is actually "Is Isa a significant figure in Thelemism under that name, or is Isa merely an alternative name of Jesus which happens to appear in one passage of one work?" Answer that, and whether or not it should be included in this article will become correspondingly clear... AnonMoos (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The reason why Muslims use Isa is because Muhammad used it in the Qur'an. The reason why Christians use Yasu is because it's a lot closer to the original Hebrew/Aramaic form of Jesus' name (with voiced pharyngeal ʕ consonant at the end). No one really knows with any certainty the reason why Muhammad used Isa in the Qur'an. Is this unclear in the article after you've read through the etymology discussion? AnonMoos (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Well, if you put it this way, the paragraph should probably stay abscent from the article. Glad to hear I'm talking to someone already acquianted with the subject.

The former yes; the latter no. That appears to be common in other cultures; e.g., Israeli Christians use ישוע whereas other Israelis use ישו. I think there might be no wrong or right in this because the New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew (yes, even Matthew, it seems). Everything Is Numbers (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

ישו is a whole topic in itself (see Yeshu), but there's little evidence that it was any kind of significant or common name in the 1st. century A.D. The default hypothesis is that Ιησους referring to Jesus of Nazareth was the same as Ιησους referring to Joshua son of Nun in the Greek of Acts 7:45 or Hebrews 4:8 in the New Testament, or the same as the vast majority of occurrences of Ιησους in the Greek of the Septuagint and Josephus -- all of which referred back to Hebrew/Aramaic יהושע / ישוע). Certainly nothing in ca. 600 A.D. Arabic can make this explanation any less likely. AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

1) The appeal to "Consensus" is disingenuous to say the least, as can be seen in this talk page above. 2) The wording "'the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān states that Western scholars have been puzzled by.." is quite awkward, and does not add anything of value. 3) By the very fact of its chosen subject matter, the "Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān" cannot be the definitive last word on things Biblical or ancient Hebrew/Aramaic. Rather, we must turn to sources in the specific fields of Biblical/Hebrew/Aramaic studies to know what the accepted scholarly consensus in those fields is... AnonMoos (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of these arguements have already been discussed, see [36] Since you did not discuss this matter further, and since there was no consensus for Rafy's bold edits to begin with, WP:NOCONSENSUS applies here (i.e. retain the old version before the bold edit). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Other sources also show that scholars were puzzled by the Quranic name, so this is not restricted to the EQ. This and this explain the puzzlement of scholars by the fact that Yasu' is the expected natural Arabic cognate to the Aramaic form. This should precede other paragraphs in the etymology section since it gives an introduction to the reason behind the presence of many diverse explanations of the Quranic etymology. I wonder here why Deedat, a preacher and polemicist who doesn't possess any scholarly credentials, is given preference over reputable scholars.

Also, with whom did you reach you consensus to retain that version?--Rafy talk 13:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The policy says retain the old version "prior to the bold edit". The policy did not say retain the 100% accepted version, just the "old" version, that is, until you start talking. Also, your edit misrepresents some of the cited sources, as explained here, and this seems to be a common problem with your edits on Islam-related articles. You need to be more careful. That said, I agree with you on the "puzzled" issue, but note that EQ gives a different reasoning for why they were puzzled, which should not be ignored. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This was no bold edit 1) We have several sources that show that "scholars were puzzled" so I replaced the wording "the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān states that western scholars have been..." with the simple "Western scholars have been...". 2) The EQ jumps from stating that scholars were puzzled to enumerating hypothesises provided by western scholars, without stating why were they puzzled by the name, those other sources provide more information not present in the EQ. There is no WP:Cherrypicking done here.--Rafy talk 19:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the complete statement by EQ that you're constantly trying to remove: The Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān states that Western scholars have been puzzled by the use of ʿĪsā in the Qur'an because they were convinced that his authentic name is Yēshūaʿ. Notice the "because". EQ clearly gave a reason here. You have also misrepresented another source as explained here These are bold edits that lack any justification whatsoever, hence retain the old version per WP:NOCONSENSUS. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

How can your personal edits favored by you alone be "consensus"[sic]?? That would appear to be a somewhat feeble attempt at "wikilawyering"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It was the long-standing version of EQ's paragraph before Raffy's edits (which misrepresented multiple sources). A non-biased editor wouldn't try to force his edits through edit warring despite various unanswered objections. So why don't try to gain consensus first and answer my objections directly? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The EQ says here and I quote "Western scholars, because of their conviction that Jesus’ authentic Hebrew name is Yēshūa, have been puzzled by the Qur<ān’s reference to him as Īsā." It doesn't mention, as other sources do, that another Arabic name was already widespread among Arab Christians, and that the exact reason behind their puzzlement is the Quranic employment of a completely different Arabic name. If you contest this fact then bring equally reliable sources (no Deedat and co please).--14:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So EQ clearly gave a reason for why scholars were puzzled, contrary to your claim above. You removed EQ's reasoning with no justification. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I just added more details to it. That's how articles get expanded.--Rafy talk 15:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually you completely removed EQ's reasoning. See also WP:SYNTH. BTW, I'm not the one who wrote the Deedat part, not sure if it's well cited, you can remove that sentence if you think it's not useful. Otherwise, I think you should stop making bold edits after being reverted, and stop removing well-cited material. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said I merely expanded that a short sentence from sources that provide more commentary on the subject. Where is the Synth exactly? Which facts mentioned you dispute?--Rafy talk 21:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You removed EQ's "because of their conviction" and replaced it with a Christian source that claims it was "natural" (lol). Completely removing an opinion of a scholar is not "adding more details". Also James A. Bellamy introduced two theories about the issue, withdrew one of them, but your version mistakenly renders two distinct and contradicting theories as just one (a position not supported by the source, hence wp:synth). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I reworded, added more sources and corrected Bellamy's theories. Beaumont's is an academic work that was noted with positive peer reviews. I don't really care whose theory comes first as long as non is emitted.--Rafy talk 00:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed Oneil McQuick

Removed the following, author fails WP:RS,

(c meaning `Ayin). Therefore, assuming the final Ya is silent (as in عيسى), the inscription would read Yasha`(y) and Y`ashā(y): يشعئ and يعشئ, respectively. The initial Ya was dropped and evolved into `īsā by the sixth century. The heavy 'ee' sound pronounced at the beginning of `īsā may be a remnant of the initial Ya in Y`ashā. What Is His Name? Oneil McQuick p35

This needs another source In ictu oculi (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-Islamic uses

The Hindu and Germanic part makes no sense whatsoever, it fails to understand of the usage of ʿ known in Arabic as ʿayn which is the Voiced pharyngeal fricative. That is crucial in understanding the word ʿĪsā .The part of Christians using it is good because the ʿayn is not removed, hence there is valid non-Islamic usage of the word, but Islam doesn't uses ISA, without ʿayn, that is not even a word in the Quran and steers the article away. This is equivalent of the Quran using the word ROBERT and then saying a non-Islamic usage that Hindus and Germanics use the word OBERT. Looking for people who understand what I mean. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has replied back I moved and deleted those who don't use ʿĪsā with the Voiced pharyngeal fricative. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated names

The article is almost exclusively about the semitic name Isa (corresponding to Jesus), but there is also some content about unrelated nordic and other names. This does not seem to belong to the same article. Should the article be moved to Isa (semitic name) and the other content be moved to a disambiguation page? St.nerol (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It's one particular version of the name "Jesus" in Arabic (and not the best version, according to some). It's not "Semitic" in general... AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Classification of Syriac

The section Etymology equates Aramaic and Classical Syriac. But the article Syriac language calls it a dialect of Aramaic. Also, the section states that "East Syriac" is ancestral to "West Syriac". The article on the Syriac language states that after the Nestorian Schism the Syriac language split into a western and an eastern variety.  --Lambiam 09:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)