Vikingsfan8

I'm not going to revert your edits right at the moment. However:

1) By its very nature, the Encyclopedia of the Quran cannot be the authoritative last word on Biblical and Hebrew topics. Rather, writings in those fields of study will be given most weight.

2) Ishwi is a ridiculous non-issue, because that name is quite obscure in the Old Testament, and no one who has any knowledge of the matter seriously thinks that people in 1st century Judea were naming their sons after Ishwi.

3) Some individual villages (not the Galilee as a whole, just a few villages) had a reputation in the Mishnaic period for mispronunciations of Hebrew, but it's an extreme stretch to extrapolate from that to the name of Jesus. It's not clear that the statements even refer to the same century that Jesus lived, and if Jesus had a defective pronunciation of Hebrew, it's quite unlikely that he would have been called up to read an Isaiah scroll in a synagogue. This purely hypothetical speculation really does not deserve great prominence in the article. AnonMoos (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Everything I put is fully sourced, and should be included in some form. Most of the text is from Brill's Encyclopedia of the Qur'an which is the main source for the whole article.Vikingsfan8 (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC) [1]Reply

1) The article is about an Islamic topic, and the core source of the entire article is the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an.

2) The core source of the entire article, the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an once again, mentions the fact about the wide variety of different names that are all represented by the Greek name Iesous (citing Josephus in fact). While specifically mentioning that it doesn't touch on the placement of 'ayin however.

3) David Flusser and other scholars are very clear about their theory, involving the name Yeshu which also lacks a final 'ayin, and it should thus be mentioned as it is relevant and mentioned in the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an itself (which is the core source of the whole article once again).Vikingsfan8 (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

On that last point in fact regarding Yeshu, the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an responds back to Anis al-Assiouty by saying "The Talmudic Yeshu may be a deliberate deformation of Jesus' name to ensure that his memory would be blotted out"; however other scholars like Flusser again strongly disagree with this theory that Yeshu is supposedly meant to be an acronym for "Y'mach Sh'mo V'Zichro" ("may his name and memory be blotted out") in relation to works like the Toledot Yeshu and in response they present arguments that it is again a name (or possibly a Galilean pronunciation dropping the 'ayin, etc) itself. Again David Flusser, Adolf Neubauer, Hugh J. Schonfield, and Joachim Jeremias are all mentioned on this general topic once again [2].Vikingsfan8 (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is not an exclusively Islamic topic, since the Hebrew and Greek forms of the name of Jesus are highly relevant to the article. And no matter how excellent the Encyclopedia of the Quran is, by its very nature, it cannot be the authoritative last word on Biblical and Hebrew topics. To find out what the scholarly consensus is on Biblical and ancient Hebrew topics, we go to appropriate writings on the Bible and on ancient Hebrew -- not to writings on the Quran. If somebody was proposing to insert controversial assertions about the Quran in the Quran article based on an Encyclopedia of the Bible, you would be one of the loudest to complain. Turnabout is fair play.

In any case, based on past discussions on the Talk:Isa (name) page, Ishwi seems to be mentioned without enthusiasm in the Encyclopedia of the Quran, so implying support there would be inaccurate. And no one who actually knows anything about the subject of ancient Jewish names would take the Ishwi thing seriously, so it's basically a fringe hypothesis.

And those scholars mentioned in the last half of paragraph of your message are discussing the origin of Talmudic Yeshu -- they're not saying that Jesus' name in its original 1st century AD form lacked a final `ayin (such a hypothesis would appear to be not very mainstream)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

On the issue of Ishwi and the variety of names all translated into Greek as the same name Iesous, the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an notes that Josephus (in this regard again) "furnishes important evidence for the wide variety of Hebrew names represented in Greek by Iesous" their only real lack of "enthusiasm" seems to merely come from the fact that "none of these names begins with an 'ayin." Which would be going into a whole different topic regarding the placement of 'ayin in a name (which I think is already covered pretty well in the article as is).

As for your other point, this section [3] of the article (with the people I noted such as Flusser in mind again) also notes such things as:

"Clement of Alexandria and St. Cyril of Jerusalem claimed that the Greek form itself was his original name and that it was not a transliteration of a Hebrew form" the Greek form being Iesous to start with. And then Flusser and company debating with others about Yeshu possibly being a name/possibly a Galilean variant, rather than a deliberate acronym to attack Jesus. Something that of course comes up in the issue of the Toledot Yeshu again which is said to be from/dated to around the 4th century CE originally (thus pre-Islam and of interest for the overall general topic) although the oldest manuscript copy of the Toledot Yeshu in existence today is dated to the 11th century CE.Vikingsfan8 (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

In relation to Yeshu, this topic is definitely important. The Encyclopedia of the Qur'an itself only responds to Anis al-Assiouty's point (regarding the Aramaic and al-Assiouty saying the Aramaic should have retained the final 'ayin if it was indeed there) "In the Talmud, however, he (Jesus) is called Yeshu." by the Encyclopedia responding back to al-Assiouty by declaring "The Talmudic Yeshu may be a deliberate deformation of Jesus' name to ensure that his memory would be blotted out." Which is the whole entire argument between Flusser (and those with him) and others again detailed here [4].Vikingsfan8 (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

  This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Isa (name), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have reverted edits without any valid reasons. This shows you have personal interest in the article. Jayarathina (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Vikingsfan8, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. I've just blocked Vikingsfan0 because it seemed like you were using more than one account. Please stick to one account in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jon Entine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply