" 

 == Jesus' name == 

 You wrote: 
 :that Judaic sources on Hebrew not claim authoritarian ownership of that language. I would love for you to present the sources you claim contradict the Yeshua transliteration. I for one am curious as to the nature of the so-called controversy you describe 
 *I am not sure what you mean about ""Judaic sources"" claiming ""authoritarian ownership of Hebrew.  Which sources?  Did you mean Alkalai and Chomski?  I think they are authorities because of their research as linguists, not because they are Jewish (and I can only assume they are from their names, but I have no idea whatsoever how they self-identify or what their beliefs are).  The textbook on Biblical Hebrew I used in college was definitely written by a Gentile, I do not have it on hand; the Hebrew-English Concordance we used, Brown-Drivers-Briggs, was not by Jews.  So when you refer to ""Judaic sources"" I really do not know what you are talking about and you have to spell it out for me. 
 * You want my sources contradicting your transliteration?  Please read my first comment on the talk page again.  Please read the second one.  Please read Andrew Card's.  I never claimed to have any sources contradicting your transliteration, indeed, I said - and I wrote this yesterday, it was in my first comment - I said your reconstruction was plausible.  our reason for reverting it is not because we have sources contradicting it.  It is because we know of no historical sources that provide Jesus' name in Hebrew or Aramaic (which by the way I never said were unrelated.  Never.)  Andre, Leadwind, and I are reverting your edit because we are supporting a consensus reached by many editors, who reached that conclusion because no historian has ever provided a historical source for Jesus' name in Hebrew or in Aramaic.  Will Durant speculated what Jesus' Hebrew or Aramaic name would have been but it is a speculation.  There is no mainstream view, because there are no historical sources.  I said this several times: N-O S-O-U-R-C-E-S.  Why do you ask me for my source when I gave as my reason the fact that there are n...o  s...o..u..r..c..e..s?  
 * You want to know the controversy I describe.  The Yeshu stories in the Talmud are considered by some modern scholars to be about Jesus (and by the way, those modern scholars do not see them as pejorative of Jesus but as reflecting through stories Jews' ambivalent feelings about Jesus and Christianity), but many modern scholars as well as medieval scholars argue that they are not about Jesus (in which case they cannot possibly be pejorative about Jesus and Christianity).  One reason why there is this controversy (is it Jesus?  is it not?) is because it is unclear what ""ha notzri"" means - many argue that it is a reference to a religious community described by Jerimiah (long before Jesus was born, and not ""Nazarene"").  And of course the other reason is that it is not at all clear that Yeshu or Yeshua was Jesus' name in Aramaic.  All of this controversy does not mean that Yeshu or Yeshua was not Jesus' name in Aramaic.  It does mean that we do not know.  My point was that the one case where we definitely have an Aramaic name, the earliest text with an Aramaic name one might think was Jesus's Aramaic name, there is lots of controversy as to whether this name has any connection to Jesus, and whether the name is proper Aramaic, and what the name means or who it refers to.  If there is all this controversy over the earliest texts we have with an Aramaic name, it seems to me that the most one could do today is say that Jesus' Aramaic name may have been Yeshu or Yeshua.  We just have no reliable historical documents relating to this question. 

 Without any reliable sources, any claim as to what Jesus' Hebrew or Aramaic name was would be original research, and that is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. 

 Get it?  I am not saying my sources about Jesus' are better than your and I never said my sources were better than yours (I simply pointed out what was false in some claims you made about Hebrew and Aramaic.  And that has nothing to do with someone being Jewish and someone being Christian, it was you who suggested and seem to continue to suggest that.  You are not wrong ""because"" you are Christian.  You are just wrong.  And Christian who is also a scholar of Biblical Hebrew and of Aramaic and of Ancient Near Eastern history would also tell you you were wrong about your claims about Hebrew and Aramaic).  I am saying that THERE ARE NO HISTORICAL SOURCES AS TO JESUS"" HEBREW OR ARAMAIC NAME so any Wikipedian making a reconstruction IS VIOLATING NOR. 

 Why do I have to repeat this?  Reread my first comment to you explaining my revert.  I continue to stand my it.  Every sentence of my first comment is true.    |   17:14, 21 January 200