Talk:Iaso

Iesous in Greek Mythology

Some fundamentalist Christians may be displeased that the name Iesous is found in ancient Greek Mythology, but the remarkably same spelling and meaning healer should not be pooh-poohed.

POV problems?

Some lines of this article seem to carry a strong POV. Specifically, lines such as "[w]hether this is true or not is doubtful, but it is certainly worth mentioning" as well as "[t]hat Jesus (as a name) really comes from Ieso is highly unlikely, but the Greek spelling may have been influenced by the goddess' name."

Should these perhaps be removed, or reworded?

Iesous is from Iaso

It is on page 816 of the Lexicon of the Ancient Greek Language by Liddell and Scott, their entry for Iaso, that Iesous means of Iaso, the healer. 72.186.213.96 13:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have commented on this interpretation of Liddell and Scott at Talk:Jesus. EALacey 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot revert half of an article because you don't like the information. Liddell and Scott and the Catholic encyclopedia are hard sources. Madame Blavatsky is a famous writer. 72.186.213.96 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither Liddell and Scott nor the Catholic Encyclopedia argues that there is any connection between the names Iaso and Iesous. Being famous does not make Blavatsky reliable. EALacey 13:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot throw out an entire half page because you don't like something that is in it. Also, Blavatsky is a famous and often cited writer. 72.186.213.96 14:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Any editor can and should remove any content from a page if it violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including in this case WP:RS, WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE). You say that Blavatsky is "famous", but that does not make her views notable on every topic she wrote about. As for "often cited", could you indicate some scholarly discussion of the goddess Iaso which cites Blavatsky's ideas? EALacey 14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are removing an entire half page because something there you don't like. That is violating Wikipedia policies ! And, Blavatsky has been cited even in Time Magazine, she is well known and often cited. Do you want to erase her name everywhere she has been cited ? 72.186.213.96 14:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 72.186.213.96 14:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not removing this section because I dislike it. I am removing it because it violates policy. The fact that it occupies "an entire half page" is not a reason to keep it – it merely makes it a worse violation of WP:UNDUE. And I don't doubt that magazine articles have been written about Blavatsky, but can you point to a reliable source that discusses Blavatsky's views on Iaso? EALacey 14:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blavatsky's own source talks about Iaso, nothing wrong with citing her at all. And that half page is about much more than just her, you cannot cut it all off. You are doing Vandalism to Wikipedia. 72.186.213.96 14:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Even in Latin it is done, Iovis is actually a genitive form of a name. 72.186.213.96 15:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

EALacey's points above and as summarized here are utterly reasonable, and 72.186.213.96 is trying to fill this article with views that are based on a misunderstanding of the Greek lexicon, a misunderstanding of the Catholic Encyclopedia article, and a very superficial understanding (at best) of the Greek and Latin languages. (I'm tempted to try to re-explain it—the basic linguistic quackery of the genitive theory, etc.—but I can see that reason and facts aren't going to work with this single-issue editor.) These views have only gained traction here because it's an obscure article. The charges of vandalism, etc., against EALacey are absurd. Wareh 16:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Wareh. At the moment, we still have a brief mention of Blavatsky's view in the article, though the undue weight policy implies to me that this should probably be omitted: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." (I think that a single long-deceased author qualifies as a "tiny minority".) The Iaso-Iesous idea could be mentioned in an article on, say, "Theosophist views on Christianity" or Blavatsky's book Studies in Occultism. EALacey 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be a more appropriate place to mention it than here, since obviously her theories form no part of the encyclopedically notable information about Iaso. Re the recent edits, let me note that, even if her theory is to appear somewhere, any discussion of the evidence on which she based it has to be referenced to her references. It is utterly unacceptable to mention those Church Fathers unless she cited them as evidence; if she did, there must be a reference to a page number in a book where she did so. Otherwise, it's obviously original research synthesis (someone else's ideas, with an editor's own research supporting them). And of course the same applies mutatis mutandis to the statement that she based her argument on "page 816." If the Ionic genitive is a fact (which happens not to support her theory very well), it doesn't need to be referred to the lexicon (which she'd have used in an earlier edition if at all). By the way, the entry in LSJ is ambiguous. Ionic generally doesn't contract, and I offer the following claim for Anonymous to refute: (1) the eta-for-alpha and contracted genitive never occur together with this word, (2) LSJ knew that perfectly well, and nothing in their article means to say otherwise (the contracted ending being found in Attic, and the statement "Ion. Ἰησώ" being parenthetical). This constellation has all the marks of original research, so I'm removing it entirely from the article. If it's introduced to an article on Blavatsky, it needs to be presented without this original synthesis of supporting evidence that was not specifically cited by Blavatsky, is irrelevant, and may not even exist! Wareh 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are doing Vandalism to Wikipedia to delete an entire half page. You may make changes but you may not vandalize the article. 72.186.213.96 21:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never vandalized Wikipedia; removing your original research is a service. By the way, I've just read the theosophy link, and Blavatsky indeed does not cite Cyril or Clement, so any connection is original research, pure and simple, without a reliable source relating the two arguments. She does seem to believe that ὁ Ἰησοῦς [υἱός] is some kind of acceptable Greek for "Iaso's son." Why don't you first take up my challenge to show some source for such a form Ἰησοῦς "Iaso's" in any extant Greek text. My search of literary sources & inscriptions has found nada, so presumably it's just her wishful thinking, hardly worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. Wareh 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia references are precise and pertinent to the article. 72.186.213.96 21:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the Catholic Encyclopedia article does not mention Iaso, and thus cannot be pertinent to this article, which happens to be about Iaso. Wareh 21:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia quotes are pertinent to the name Iaso being Greek. That's why you hate them. But Wikipedia must take well sourced references which are indeed pertinent to the discussion. 72.186.213.96 21:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"That's why you hate them." This user makes his or her trollage clearer and clearer with every comment. I have warned this user for not assuming good faith; I have given only an initial warning, even though the user has violated this several times already, and continues to be disruptive on each and every page that he or she is involved with. I strongly suggest that this user be ignored entirely, as his or her behavior on Talk:Jesus and this talk page have made it quite clear that he or she is not willing to be cooperative or sensible in any sort of discussion.--C.Logan 23:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are a closed mind Bible thumper who hates facts. 72.186.213.96 00:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a quite irrelevant and uncivil personal attack on C.Logan. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not provide any evidence that Cyril and Clement believed "Jesus" was connected to "Iaso," because there is no such evidence. I do not "hate" anything in that encyclopedia; I use its collection of facts all the time, when they have pertinence. The extremely minor point of interest about Cyril and Clement could perhaps go in an article about the name Jesus. As far as I can tell, the only reason they're being added here, given that they have no specific connection to the topic of Iaso, is that this is an obscure article that is watched by fewer vigilant eyes. Wareh 01:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, Clement and Cyril belong where Wikipedia discusses the origin of the name Jesus and that place is precisely in the first paragraph of Wikipedia's article on Jesus. 72.186.213.96 03:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

72.186.213.96, you are wrong and what has come from a dinkum misinterpretation has escalated into a third opinion in favour of EALacey. Furthermore you have conceded defeat by repeating something which has already been discredited. I beg of you to not get an account until you have grown out of this childish state of being. Kaeso Dio 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are Vandalizing Wikipedia when you cut off half a page where each sentence is fully referenced. 72.186.213.96 21:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR, (WP:SYN). You're wasting people's time with your form of argumentation, which goes absolutely nowhere. That Madame Blavatsky claimed a connection is certainly worth noting, but unfortunately, the sources do not seem to support her conclusion in any manner, and therefore they cannot be sorted. WP:UNDUE may come into play as well, but as this is a minor article I don't know if such is the case (Iaso doesn't seem to be very well known). If you don't want to learn how to contribute properly, please leave the encyclopedia. The editors here are following the rules, whereas you are not. As far as I'm aware, persistence in this direction is a bannable offense.--C.Logan 22:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia, and Liddell abd Scott, they back up Blavatsky 100%. Perhaps they offend your personal pre-conceived religious notions, but they are excellent sources. 72.186.213.96 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt this will alter your worldview, 72.186, but I am a non-religious Classics professor, and I think this is hogwash too! I'd like a single verifiable reference to any record of the alleged Ionic genitive Ἰησοῦς. As soon as someone produces it, I will drop my opposition to a brief statement of Blavatsky's theory. In fact, I will even improve it so that it explains her rationale better. Until then, it's reasonable to regard it as sheer fabrication on Blavatsky's part and a misreading of the lexicon on your part, and it's staying out of the encyclopedia with every other fabricated zero-evidence theory that has received no attention from competent scholars. And for the nth time, do you really not understand that "some origin in Greek" is a huge superset of "an origin in the name Iaso," and that your equation of the two is your own utterly original thought? If it's such a great insight, publish it; until then, it's WP:OR. And until you take the trouble to understand and reply to my claim about what Liddell and Scott says, you have nothing there either. Wareh 00:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is right there on page 816 Liddell and Scott, Iesous = genitive of Iaso. Liddell and Scott should be referenced in the article. 72.186.213.96 01:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What you've just said is false. The form Iesous is not printed in Liddell and Scott. Please have a look at p. 816 again. You will see that the contracted ending -ous is given only as an ending, and presumably it only appears on the stem Ias-. If you believe the form exists, simply refer me to any text other than Madame Blavatsky's book where it has been printed, even conjecturally, as a genitive of Iaso. Wareh 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The base is given there as Ie- , which makes it Iesous, go look again, I am right. 72.186.213.96 03:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Search the above discussion for the word "parenthetical" for my explanation of the lexicon article. Wareh 03:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A common Greek name was Iesous in ancient times - it is not Hebrew at all - it was just a nearest sound-alike to the Aramaic word Joshua. The definition of Etymology is the study of word origins and their changing usage in time. - Iesous first appears in Greek Mythology as a derivative of Iaso the healer. 72.186.213.96 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"First appears" is absurd if you can't provide a single reference to that form in a Greek text. I have searched every text up to the 1st century BCE on which Liddell and Scott based their lexicon and have found nothing. Wareh 03:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ask Liddell and Scott, they certainly saw it somewhere, and they are the experts not you. 72.186.213.96 04:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your reading of Liddell and Scott is incorrect, and you're in violation of the three-revert rule. Please don't revert again. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have Liddell and Scott right here, the Ionian genitive is clearly given as Iesous. Don't you have there ? 72.186.213.96 04:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be Iasous. Not Iesous. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No no no ! The Ionian root, look closer, Put on your glasses the root is Ie-sous. Now revert the article back. 72.186.213.96 04:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No. The lexicon isn't telling us that there's an Ionic form Iesous; that's a reasonable conjecture on your part, but Wareh has been kind enough to search the entire corpus of ancient Greek up to the 1st century BCE, and the form Iesous doesn't occur. So I'm not reverting, and I hope you don't either. I would strongly recommend, in fact, that you don't revert tomorrow, the day after that, the day after that, and so on, because your edit is clearly original research (and wrong-headed original research at that), and you've done nothing to demonstrate that Blavatsky's idea is notable. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. You must have the usual abridged version. Go to the library for the complete L and S it is there as I say. Blavatsky is correct. 72.186.213.96 04:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions. I've got the Great Scott right here, I know full well what it says. The point, which you seem to be misunderstanding, is that you are misinterpreting the entry. In addition, you've got several editors telling you that Blavatsky isn't worth including in this article, and you've made no response to that argument, except to say that you think she's important. Furthermore, you've violated the three-revert rule; rather than block you myself, I've reported this at WP:AN3. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Put on your glasses and read it again it is there Ie-sous. Also, Blavatsky made Iaso known, she is important to the article. 72.186.213.96 04:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have the full version as well (please note that as you are giving page numbers, you are essentially making a point that you are using the same version which I am). It does not make any explicit statements to the effect of "Iesous", but it does note two things. One, that the Ionic form of Iaso is "Ieso". Two, that the contracted genitive form of Iaso possesses the "-ous" ending. It is certainly reasonable to connect the two, though it is not explicitly noted to that effect.

As the other editors have pointed this out, the ambiguity of the entry (and a second look at the Catholic Encyclopedia) raises doubts in my mind if "Iesous" in the Greek is even a valid contruction (in terms of the etymology you are arguing for), as further research into the matter shows that the Ionic dialect rarely contracts adjoining vowels. If this is applicable here, then such a formula would not be common (if it was used at all), whereas "Iasous" would be a relatively normal construction in Attic Greek. Therefore, while the entry is ambigious on the subject, it appears that external evidence makes one possibility far more likely.--C.Logan 22:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, though I do not find Blavatsky to be a credible source, her notability is arguable. If anything, we should probably discuss this- the version which I'd endorsed was free from OR, but the anon keeps tacking it back on.--C.Logan 22:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Helena Petrovna Blavatskaya is:

• Not a notable source because she is not notable in a relevant field. For example, President Bush could make the same assertion she did, but as he is not a Greek scholar it would not be an opinion worth mentioning in support of it.
• Not a notable source because she's not particularly well-known to anyone but those interested in theosophy and its descendant movements. For example, had President Bush repeated her assertion, the fact that he did so (although not the opinion itself) would be notable because of his personal notoriety, and it is likely that many who had not previously known of this goddess would then be aware of her. Helena Petrovna was insufficiently well-known even in her day for this to have been the case. The bald, unsupported assertion that she was does not make it so.
• Not an important source because, pace the anon, this goddess is known primarily from mentions in ancient Greek literature commonly known in Greek scholarship; and not because of the theory Helena Petrovna put forward, known to her followers and practically no one else.
• Not a credible source because regardless of her formal qualifications, her scholarship is so shoddy as to be valueless. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that that's a pretty weighty assessment, and as far as I'm concerned, it appears to be more than sufficient to argue against inclusion.--C.Logan 00:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blatvatsky is not the only source. I seached Iaso Iesous on the net and there are dozens, over a hundred, religious groups that discuss this connection, so do not bury your head in the sand over this. Also, Liddell and Scott are perfectly clear on p.816 that there was Iaso-Ieso the genitive meaning of Ieso being exactly Iesous I-E-S-O-U-S, by Liddell and Scott. Then on p.824 Liddell and Scott point out the name was then later used in different fashions to mean either Jesus (New Testament) or Joshua (Septuaugint), but as for the origin of the word, it first appears meaning of Iaso. You cannot escape that and don't bury your head in the sand over your pre-conceived notions. Over a hundred religious websites present this origin. 72.186.213.96 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You were harming the credibility of your suggestion by mixing in a lot of irrelevant original research. You are still harming your credibility by persisting in your misreading of the lexicon. The way you put it now is even more embarrassingly tendentious: "Liddell and Scott point out the name was then later used in different fashions to mean either Jesus..." You seem actually to believe that the lexicographers meant to communicate a connection between Iaso and Jesus, but this is absurd. If there is any discussion that should go forward here, it's a listing of reliable sources (not crackpots on the internet) that have shown an interest in Blavatsky's theory. Publications of reputable presses and journals would be particularly welcome. The idea does not have to be endorsed by reputable people; if you can simply show that it has been widely discussed (even derisively) in reliable and mainstream sources, then that would furnish a basis for including it somewhere in the encyclopedia. (I'd still like to point out that the obvious places would then be Madame Blavatsky or an article that tries to review all kinds of theories, both scholarly and otherwise, on Jesus' name. As a Classicist, I'd like to make a plea to all my fellow-editors, that just because Iaso is obscure, doesn't mean that this is really relevant encyclopedic information about Iaso. It seems to pertain more to other topics, which can always link here for any readers who, studying up on Madame Blavatsky's ideas, want an actual encyclopedic treatment of the significance of Iaso per se!) Wareh 14:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am pointing out that the connection Iaso Iesous is well known. Also, the New Testament was well after the Septuagint, which had already used Iesous for the Prophet Joshua, before Jesus existed. The word first appears meaning of Iaso, as exactly I-E-S-O-U-S. 72.186.213.96 15:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally seem to have accepted that Iesous predates the New Testament as a transliteration of the relevant Jewish name. Now how about actually citing this text where Iesous "first" occurs as the genitive of Iaso? As Wareh pointed out days ago, Ionic Greek doesn't usually contract double-omicron, so this isn't actually a form of Iaso we would expect to see. EALacey 15:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Liddell and Scott know more than you, they are the experts, not you. And, the Septuagint translators seized on a Greek name, Iesous, that Greeks would recognize. Clement and Cyril said it was Greek not hebrew. 72.186.213.96 15:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the experts Liddell and Scott don't cite any instance of Iesous being used as the genitive of Iaso. EALacey 15:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you. But they are the top reference, not you. 72.186.213.96 15:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunate for me how? I'm not the one claiming Iesous is "first" used as the genitive of Iaso. EALacey 15:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, that Liddell and Scott include it as correct usage. 72.186.213.96 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No they don't, as Wareh pointed out. They state only that Ies- is the word's Ionic root and that -ous is a contracted genitive ending, not that these ever occur together. The Ionic dialect avoids most of the vowel contractions found in other Greek dialects. And even if LSJ did give Iesous as "correct usage", that wouldn't mean that any ancient text actually used the form, let alone that any did so before it was used as a transliteration of Joshua's name. EALacey 15:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to revise my position, as I suggested too strongly that the form is linguistically impossible. It may occur in Ionic Greek (our texts of Herodotus print Ἰοῦς, Σαπφοῦς, cf. Smyth 279D). But my position is that this encyclopedia needs more evidence than the existentially ambiguous entry in Liddell and Scott. I regret the error, but until someone can cite a text or inscription with this form, it is a hypothetical form. I just did another search of medical writers up to the end of antiquity and found nothing. Wareh 16:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'd checked Smyth's section on vowel contractions and inferred from 59D that Ionic as a rule didn't contract -οο-, but on rereading I see his only example there is πλόος for πλοῦς in the nominative, and you're right about 279D. But let me reemphasise, lest I be cited as retracting everything I've said, that a claim that "The word first appears meaning of Iaso, as exactly I-E-S-O-U-S" can only be substantiated by an actual pre-Septuagint example of this form, and wouldn't suggest an etymological connection in any case. EALacey 17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You can turn and squirm and make excuses, but you cannot erase it from the Lexicon - that Liddell and Scott include it, it exists, and you are no one to say that Liddell and Scott are mistaken. - it is indeed the first appearance of the word Iesous, which by the very definition of Etymology, requires that it be included in wipedia's article. 12.153.75.132 20:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Liddell and Scott do not say that Iesous occurs anywhere as a form of Iaso, still less do they say that it has any connection to the transliteration of Joshua/Jesus. All this has been pointed out to you repeatedly. What do you not understand? EALacey 20:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, we're being way too tolerant of nonsense. I've just semi-protected the article and blocked both of the IPs our friend is using for a week. I suppose we should be happy that we got this chance to clarify our knowledge of Ionic genitives, but otherwise I don't think this discussion is leading anywhere, and I suggest ignoring our troll from now on. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, this troll will wander off into oblivion. We've been bending over backwards for no good reason, as any efforts are simply ignored. I haven't check the block limitations, but I think we're all very satisfied with the arguments made against this anon's nonsense theory, and therefore should really just ignore him if he returns. Really.--C.Logan 00:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)