Talk:Names of Jerusalem
|
|
| Contents |
TNK,Bible,OT,etc.
Instead of using a multitude of terms, why not just use the term "bible"? It's the most nuetral, and most commonly used, term.--Yoshiah ap 21:59, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I considered that too. But I realized that "Bible" means different things for different religions. To Samaritans, it's the first five books. To Jews, it's what makes up the Tanakh. To Christians, it includes the Tanakh along with the New Testament. But if I say "Book of Genesis", no one is too confused. :) Either someone knows what it is and knows what I'm talking about, or they don't know what it is and have no clue about most of these words anyway. :) - Gilgamesh 01:56, 17 June 2004 (UTC)
- Well, there aren't that many Samaritans, let alone Samaritans that surf English websites. I think an honest estimate would be 10 Samaritans check out English websites reguarly. Jews recognize when someone says "The Bible", they are generally talking about the Christian Bible. The word "Tanakh" is used excuslively when speaking of a Jewish Bible, and the phrase "Old Testament" to refer to a Christian translation of the bible.--Yoshiah ap 03:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- There might indeed be only ten Samaritans that check English pages but that does not mean we can ignore them. I think Wikipedia, being an international effort, must avoid anything that can cause cross-cultural confusion. It is best to stick to specific terms, rather than using ambiguous terms. Just saying 'Bible' is confusing for Turks too, as they would mostly assume that what's being referred to is the New Testament but sometimes it is used for OT plus NT. Let's not confuse people :) -- EnginGunduz 16:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Should "City of David" be added? - Mustafaa 01:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
References for Ha-Qedosha?
From what I know of Aramaic's methods of adapting loanwords, I find it difficult to believe that this particular title would have entered Aramaic in a form that could generate "al-quds" any more than it could have entered Arabic in that way. Can you cite a reference in support of this claim? - Mustafaa 02:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ha-Qedoshah (the Holy) is applied to Jerusalem on coins from the Bar Kokhba period. In later hymns one finds usage of the masculine Ir Ha-Qodesh (City of the Holiness) as well. In Aramaic Ha-Qodesh is Qodsha' which if I am not mistaken gives rise to Arabic Al-Quds ? Kuratowski's Ghost 13:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ir Ha-Qodesh is phonologically a much more plausible source than "Ha-Qedoshah"; I'm willing to accept that one as the source even without references. Ha-Qedoshah itself, though, doesn't really work. - Mustafaa 23:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hebrew spelling transliterations instead of pronounceable name?
I see Gilgamesh has replaced the pronounceable names with direct transliterations of Hebrew spelling? I don't see how this is useful to anyone, surely proper words that can be pronounced make more sense than this? Also do we need this Tiberian vs Standard Hebrew stuff? Kuratowski's Ghost 15:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
More names
- We agreed that Ir Ha-Qedoshah "The Holy City" is different to Al Quds / (Ir) Ha-Qodesh "(City of) the Holiness/Holy Place", so it should be listed as a separate name.
- City of David is indeed used for Jerusalem so we need it as well.
Kuratowski's Ghost 15:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)