Talk:Son of God

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as b-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Jesus work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Classification errors? 2 Son of God usage in Judaism vs. Christianity 3 Headline text 4 No citations? 5 Listings of other "Son(s) of God" 6 /*In the New Testament*/ 7 NPOV 8 Beware of vandalism promoting the use of "Prophet of God" instead of "Son of God" 9 Rama (in "Other Beliefs" Section) 10 Augustus 11 Out-of-place changes 12 Primary sources 13 Proposed language change

[edit] Classification errors?

It strikes me that several of the New Testament quotations in the section "New Testament Passages" are incorrectly categorized. In particular, as I understand it, Jesus *never* refers to himself as "Son of God" in the Synoptic Gospels. (He does refer to "Son of Man" in the third person, presumably referring to himself, several times.)

Several of the cited passages would better be classified together, I think, as "Others (unsuccesfully) challenge Jesus to call himself the Son of God."

   * Matthew 4:3
   * Matthew 4:6
   * Matthew 26:63-64
   * Mark 14:61-62 (equivalent expression)
   * Luke 4:3
   * Luke 4:9
   * Luke 22:70  

Jcfreed (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Son of God usage in Judaism vs. Christianity

The phrase "son of God" or "daughter of God" is most often used in the vernacular to refer to any Jew as being one of the "chosen" people of God. As such, anybody of the faith, is a either a son or daughter of God. The Old Testament prophets such as Ezekial and Elijah refer to themselves as being "a son of God". Christians refer to Jesus as "the" son of God and not just "a" son of God because in the Christian faith he is part of a trinity of equality with God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

However, Jesus never, at any time in the bible, ever directly refers to himself as "the" son of God. The appellation Jesus uses in reference to himself is "son of Man". Christians who are aware of this fact cite his appearance before the Sanhedrin as proof that the term applies to Jesus by relating the question in the New Testament put to him by the High Priest of the Jewish Temple, Caiaphas, in which the priest is alleged to have asked him if he is "the son of God".

It should be noted, however, that it is most unlikely that Caiaphas would ever have asked Jesus that question simply because the Jews did not believe that the Messiah was "the" son of God but rather "a" son of God, the same as other Old Testament prophets who referred to themselves, as such. Consequently, if Caiaphas had asked that question in the context of the Messiah, then "the" son of God is either a mis-translation and/or a false interpretation of Jewish doctrine in the Christian New Testament. PVSalsedo71.198.211.97 11:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is not only about Biblical usage of "Son of God", it should cover all significant usages of the term in past and present, whether Biblical or not. In mainsteram Christian tradition Jesus is generally referred to as "the" Son of God, in accordance with the Apostolic Creed ("God's only begotten Son"). On the other hand, Christians generally call themselves "children" of God, but usually not "sons and daughters", to avoid confusion with the term reserved for Jesus only. This linguistic distinction should be clearly pointed out, even though its biblicity is controversial. (user LemonKing from Finnish Wikipedia)

[edit] Headline text

[[^{Removed from article: In Greek Mythology you will find many Sons (and Daughters) of God, but apart from mythology it was very common to call a wise and holy person Son of God. The early Cristians named Jesus a Son of God, to say he was a wise and holy person indeed. This all within Roman Civilisation, with many many Gods around, in the Helenistic melting pot. Later, when Cristians were in power, they said Jesus is the only Son of God, so the Christians were very human indeed. any of this true? ---rmhermen}]]:Well, there were many sons and daughters of Zeus, but calling him "God" seems a confusion of the issues. As for the conclusion that Christians were very human indeed--can one person be more human than another? The last sentence seems like a candidate for the scrap heap. "Christian" does indeed have an "h" between the C and the R. And "Hellenistic" has two l's. I can't speak for the content, though. It sounds like filler for bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, though it may just need considerable expansion and citation. --Koyaanis Qatsi

The bit about Christians calling Jesus "a Son of God" because he was "a wise and holy man" is tripe. Jesus was recognized as the only Son of God by his followers (see John 3:16, Hebrews 11:17, 1 John 4:9, and 1 John 5:5 for examples), and his enemies in the Jewish power base plotted his death because Jesus claimed equality with God (see John 5:18, for example). <>< tbc

Well certaintly that was what they came to believe at some point; whether they always believed that or whether the belief was a later development is an open question, as is whether all of Jesus' followers believed that or whether it was only some group. The New Testament was written several decades after Jesus' death, and certaintly its authors did not represent the full range of thought in earliest Christianity (otherwise, why is it filled with warnings about 'false teachers'?). So exactly what the earliest followers of Jesus believed we don't know. -- Simon J Kissane

so the only candidate for restoral is "[In Greek society] it was very common to call a wise and holy person Son of God"? Hm. What was intended by this article, anyway? A historical examination of people claiming to be the Son of God? Or a partisan screed about Jesus Christ? Regardless of what was originally intended, what should it be? Has anyone other than Jesus claimed to be the son of God? --KQ

yay, another opportunity for a LIST O' LINKS - Son of God, the List! Actually, I vote that this was a partisan screed, and personally suggest a deep breath, a quick edit to remove the worst parts, remembering the idea of sonship (in which all Christians become Sons of God), and moving on to other articles. --MichaelTinkler

There are several fairly obscure references to sons of God in the Old Testament. e.g. Genesis (6:2) writes about sons of God marrying daughters of men. In the New Testament, John (1:12) says of Jesus "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name". The Lord's prayer begins with the words "Our Father", suggesting that according to Jesus we are all sons or daughters of God. In contrast, however, there are many passages where Jesus is referred to as *the* son of God, or as the *only begotten* son of God. This suggests that there are two distinct traditions being melded in the gospels, or perhaps two distinct phrases both being translated as "son of God". --Martin Gradwell.

The "Our Father" correlates with Jesus (supposedly?) saying "The Father" and not "My Father". Something like "none is greater than the father" or some such thing. I have no idea, no bible handy and not worth searching for it. JoeHenzi 07:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"No idea and not worth searching for" translates into "do not bother reading my commentary, since I confess not knowing the value of what I am saying." Curiouscdngeorge (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No citations?

The sources used in the creation of the article should be cited in the article. - ChessPlayer 01:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Listings of other "Son(s) of God"

I don't know when this will be seen next, although religion is a hot topic on wikipedia.. There should be a listing for other "Sons of God". It would help with historical research as Jesus Christ isn't the only one ever believed to be the Son of God. It's pretty lame that we have only Hebrew vs New Testament stuff. Don't get me wrong, I want to add them myself, but I'm not an expert on the topic and I could only add things which I found on other sites (which don't reveal their sources). I'll come back and make a listing if I can. Problem is most Internet/Google/Yahoo! searches bring back results based on stuff which is against Jesus, something I'd like to stay away from as a "real" source. Get what I mean? If anyone can help, please do. JoeHenzi 11:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] /*In the New Testament*/

Could someone please make this text a readable one? The New testament is inspirtational but difficult to understand. For someone wants to learn about the Son of God in the New Testament, the text is not very enlightening. Maybe someone should paraphrase some of the quotes into normal sentences about what the Son of God is. Thank you.

[edit] NPOV

Much of the section "Son of God" in Judeo-Christian terms seems to include unattributed conclusions about how biblical phrases and translations are used or should be translated. Without attribution, it amounts to POV original research. -Rholton 13:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I cleaned up the New Testament section extensively and removed the tags. Because there was so much text I was unable to reconcile, I'm including it here in case someone else wants to try.--Ephilei 07:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The question arises as to whether the term "son of God" possesses in the New Testament the same sense found three centuries later at the time of the Nicene creed. However, the New Testament teaching that God appeared in the form of man (as Jesus) does not depend on whether "Son of God" normally has this Nicene meaning. John's Gospel explicitly says that God appeared in the form of man (Jn 1:14; cf 1:1), and Paul taught that Jesus created the world (Colossians 1:16). This eventually affected the Christian usage of the term "son of God", as Raymond Brown explains.

Some say that the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John have given the term "son of God" a meta-physical and dogmatic significance. Many hold that the Jewish Alexandrian Logos concept has had a formative and dominant influence on the presentation of the doctrine of Jesus' sonship in the Christian writings. The Logos in Philo is designated as the "son of God"; the Logos is the first-born; God is the father of the Logos ("De Agricultura Noe," § 12; "De Profugis," § 20).

However, since in Matthew's Gospel God himself specially speaks from heaven to call Jesus his Son (Matt 3:17), and since the devil assumes that the true "son of God" can perform miracles (Matt 4:3), and since Jesus says he will judge all men (25:31), the Gospel of Matthew does not simply present Jesus as a good man. According to this theory, all the authors of the New Testament and all the first century followers of Jesus which these earliest Christian books of the New Testament represent, collectively misunderstood a basic claim of Jesus, while all who did understand happened to leave no surviving records. Many scholars find this theory historically unconvincing.

Christians believe the Resurrection of Jesus vindicates Jesus's claim to a unique relationship to the Father.

This article is superfluous and reeks of apologetics. It covers a narrow point of view that favors evangelism. My opinion is that this article should be merged with a general article on Jesus. People who want to discuss what Son of God means should do so through theology groups. Burpboohickie (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beware of vandalism promoting the use of "Prophet of God" instead of "Son of God"

Watch out for edits promoting an Islamic agenda on this article. I found that a user with the IP address 203.99.179.49 made changes to the entire article, indiscriminately replacing all instances of "son of God" with "Prophet of God." This was clearly done in an effort to promote the Islamic view of Jesus, which is that Jesus was not the son of God, but instead just a prophet of God and only human. The same user also falsely altered an article pointing out the Christian origins of a Mosque. This was overturned, as seen here.

Lurker972 Posted a section here entitled "'B'nei' does not mean 'prophet'" regarding this issue, but I removed it as it is no longer necessary. Please watch out for other changes relating to these things.

Zefhous 22:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted a relatively long section added to the beginning of the article that was obviously propagandistic.--195.236.222.1 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rama (in "Other Beliefs" Section)

Why is Rama listed ad half-God when Hindus believe HE is God? And in any case HE and His brothers are not "Sons of God" so I don't think that should be written here. Shruti14 12:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Augustus

Nice job, Lima.Eschoir 23:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out-of-place changes

Some explanations too long to put in an edit summary and that seem required because of the another editor's insistence.

I have removed the very long discussion about the Aramaic expression "בר־אלהין" (bar-elahîn) in the Old Testament (Dn 3:25) from the account of the Greek phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (ho huios tou theou) in New Testament professions of faith in the Greek language (Ac 8:37, 9:20; 1Jn 4:15, 5:5; Jn 20:31).

What language Jesus spoke is also unrelated.

"Jesus traditionally spoke only Aramaic, and consequently it is not known what term they used." On the contrary, it is indeed known what term "they", the writers of the cited passages, used. Those who deny that Jn and 1Jn were written by one of the Twelve Apostles will also question whether that writer spoke Aramaic, and the same holds for the writer known as Luke. "They" used the term "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ".

"Jesus quoted referring to himself, presumably in Aramaic, translated into Greek as the Son of God". Most commentators do not suppose that the writers meant to quote exact words of Jesus, rather that they expressed their understanding of him. And they understood him as ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. Lima 11:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Astounding that you would say "What language Jesus spoke is also unrelated." After all your word parsing in Greek, I would think any neutral observer would be entitled to know it didn't apply to the quoted participants.Eschoir 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. Who are the "quoted participants"? The Gospels that the article quotes as attributing to Jesus the declaration that he is "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ", that attribute the same statement to others and that make the same statement themselves do so in Greek. I would have thought that what they meant is what counts. I find it hard to think of you as one of those who imagine that the writers had, so to speak, a recording of Jesus' exact words and were simply translating those words from Aramaic to Greek. Surely you are not that kind of fundamentalist. Lima 19:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps by the puzzling phrase "quoted participants" you meant those to whom the four Gospels attribute the declaration, including, I suppose, Jesus, but perhaps excluding the demons. 1) The Gospels are only four books of the New Testament, and "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" is used repeatedly also in the other books. 2) The Aramaic language would be indeed poor if it could not express "son of God" by anything clearer than "בר־אלהין". One of the first lessons in studying Hebrew and Aramaic (after learning the alphabet) is to learn how to distinguish between "son of a king" and "son of the king". Even the long screed that you copied into the article late last night stated clearly that Aramaic can distinguish the one true God from other "gods". Yes, for understanding what the New Testament writers meant by "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" it is indeed irrelevant what language Jesus and his disciples and even the demons spoke. Lima 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary sources

If Eschoir wants to tag the article with an objection to primary sources - I do not agree with his classification of such tagging as a "minor" edit - would he please indicate on Talk:

a) what part or parts of the article he is objecting to;

b) where does Wikipedia state that, "alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are insufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article". Without its context, this statement seems hard to reconcile with the fact that, for instance, for statements about what the New Testament says, the best source by far is the New Testament itself, a primary source.

c) in what way he believes the article violates the Wikipedia rule: "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions". That article, which explains Wikipedia "official policy", lays down that "research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is source-based research, and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia", and it envisages the use of primary, as well as secondary and tertiary sources, in the source-based research that it encourages.

The weakness of depending entirely on secondary and tertiary sources is shown up in an interesting recent International Herald Tribune article. Lima 04:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

==Perhaps you should go write for the IHT. a) what part or parts of the article he is objecting to;

All parts where you present an original unattributed opinion and argue using primary sources.

b) where does Wikipedia state that, "alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are insufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article". Without its context, this statement seems hard to reconcile with the fact that, for instance, for statements about what the New Testament says, the best source by far is the New Testament itself, a primary source.

It states that in the flag. I know it's hard for you to reconcile, you seem incapable of 'getting' wiki editinig. You don't just quote a primary source, you gloss it and explain it yourself, on yoour own authority. In fact, it is just your opinion that "for statements about what the New Testament says, the best source by far is the New Testament itself." There follows an unwritten corrolary, "for statements about what the New Testament means, the best source by far is Lima."

c) in what way he believes the article violates the Wikipedia rule: "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions".

Because you make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, and evaluative claims, in your own voice, based on your biases and presuppositions.

I await a response to the above. "Alone, primary sources, as you use the Bible, are insufficient" in an edit summary is merely a repetition of the unsourced statement mentioned in b) above. Lima 04:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Do yoou think i made it up?????!?!!?Eschoir 02:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I know "it states that in the flag" that Eschoir placed in the article. But where in Wikipedia official policy does it state that? Rather, does it state that in Wikipedia official policy, which seems, in the part I cited, to contradict the idea?

Please point out the analytic, synthetic, interpretative, explanatory and evaluative claims, and I will willingly correct them. Lima 07:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the positive tone. I will flag the claims with the < ! -- inseert.Eschoir 15:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschoir (talk • contribs) 14:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Eschoir 15:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Though the claim that it requires "expert knowledge" to tell that ho huios tou theou means "the son of God" rather than "a son of God" has been inserted into the article as a comment, I presume you are not really calling on me to quote a source that says that the Greek article is usually translated into English as "the". I can do so if necessary - what about Liddell and Scott as a source? - but quoting any source for something so elementary will look quite ridiculous in a serious article. Lima 16:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

===It's not a serious article, it's wikipedia. Yoou can't do original research in wikipedia. You have not "cleared up everything written by me in which Eschoir claims to see something more than is in the source." You have cited no secondary sources that make the points you are trying to argue. And you can't do the analysis yourself, however worthy and scholarly. You are writing for a chat room or bulletin board or blog. This is not that. There are rules that say all points of view may be represented if they come from non-original sources. Yoou can't take out sourced quotes even if they are anathema to you. And you need to source your assertions, even if they regard what are to you elementary translations, because the average reader is not convnersant in Greek. It shouldn't be hard to source the points you make. Is it? Or are you just not trying, because the conclusions you make are so obvious to you:Eschoir 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"It's not a serious article, it's wikipedia." I still think Wikipedia articles should be serious.

"You can't do original research in wikipedia." I haven't. I have only quoted sources.

"You have not 'cleared up ..." Please indicate what else there is to clear up.

"You have cited no secondary sources ..." I have done better: I have cited the New Testament itself to show what the New Testament says.

"There are rules that say all points of view may be represented ..." Go ahead and put your view in with sources and without taking out other people's.

"You can't take out sourced quotes even if ..." I haven't, even if I think that the one that declares, against (as shown in Aramaic of Jesus) the views of others, that Jesus spoke no language but Aramaic is quite irrelevant.

"You need to source your assertions ..." To give Eschoir time to cool down, I will wait until tomorrow to quote dictionaries so as to "prove" that the New Testament words "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" do mean "the son of God" and, while I am at it, perhaps do the same for other words too. No, I will instead wait for Eschoir or anybody else who reads this to assure me that he really does believe that "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" does not mean "the son of God". (It would also be interesting to learn what he thinks it does mean.) If Eschoir does maintain that "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" means something other than "the son of God", I will no longer hesitate to insert the "proof" into the article, justifying my action by the comment that an editor has disputed it. Meanwhile, good night. (Yes, I do know that it is not yet night in Atlanta. It will be before I get up.) Lima 19:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There, you demonstrateed the flaw in your whole approach, in my view, when you use the term "prove." Wiki is not a place for proving. That implies an argument, and one side prevailing. Here is the land of NPOV. Now it is possible to show through published sources that one view is a minority view. Or an overwhelmingy unanimous view. But you can't utter it on your own authoirty, no matter how obvious.Eschoir 21:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir says Wikipedia is not the place for "proving". He treats it instead as a place for "showing". Well then, replace "prove" above with "show". Or, if Eschoir prefers, with "demonstrate" (as in "quod erat demonstrandum"). I leave aside the implied claim that it is easier to demonstrate, apparently on the basis of a single source that says so, that something is a minority view than it is to demonstrate that the New Testament makes a particular statement. Since he has not yet declared that "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" means something other than "the son of God", I am postponing the showing or demonstration of what it means, since, as far as I can see, the idea that "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" means something other than "the son of God" is not even a minority view. Lima 04:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is source it with a nice secondary or tertiary footnote, brother. Don't argue it from primary sources on your own authority please. Isn't that easier?Eschoir 05:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you insist (though I think it is silly and though I have difficulty in determining whether a dictionary definition of the meaning of a word is secondary or tertiary, rather than primary).

I await the requested indication of where Wikipedia is supposed to say that a simple direct quote from a nice primary source is unacceptable. Lima 09:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to help out and have added a reference. I see that Pastordavid has also offered up something in his response at the editor assistance page. Hope that it helps. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I'm looking for, and what I'm trying to convince Lima to use. I thought about citing pastordavid's very valuable citation, butdecided I couldn't, as it is a stranger to me. I will take out what is consensus OR in the current cite. Eschoir (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed language change

Now:

If in that language he called himself "a son of God" or "the Son of God", a description that the New Testament writers frequently apply to him, while attributing it to Jesus himself in very few instances (see "New Testament passages" below), the question of the exact form of words he would have used is a matter of hypothesis. Unless it is held that Jesus, unlike contemporary Jews, was a polytheist, the expression "בר־אלהין" (bar-elahîn) is excluded by a study by Doug Kutilek that explains that that phrase means "son of the gods", not "Son of God".[6]

Pursuant to input from Lima and pastordavid, I propose the following consensus change:

A lack of definite articles in the Aramaic language, coupled with a lack of primary Aramaic primary sources about the life of Jesus, make it impossible for modern scholars to demonstrate whether contemporary Aramaic speakers called him, or he called himself, either "a son of God" or "the Son of God." < ref > Unless it is held that Jesus, unlike contemporary Jews, was a polytheist, the expression "בר־אלהין" (bar-elahîn) is excluded by a study by Doug Kutilek that explains that that phrase means "son of the gods", not "Son of God". < / ref >

Or another wordier track:

Though Greek New Testament writers frequently apply the title "Son of God" to Jesus, while attributing it to Jesus himself in very few instances (see "New Testament passages" below), a lack of definite articles in the Aramaic language, coupled with a lack of primary Aramaic primary sources about the life of Jesus, make it impossible for modern scholars to demonstrate whether contemporary Aramaic speakers called him, or he called himself, either "a son of God" or "the Son of God." < ref > Unless it is held that Jesus, unlike contemporary Jews, was a polytheist, the expression "בר־אלהין" (bar-elahîn) is excluded by a study by Doug Kutilek that explains that that phrase means "son of the gods", not "Son of God". < / ref > Eschoir (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This checking before changing deserves congratulations and thanks. I regret I must disavow what is attributed to me above.

To speak of a "lack of definite articles in the Aramaic languages" is not quite exact. While not using a separate word, like the English "the", Aramaic expressed the idea of the definite article by the ending of the word, as in the Scandinavian languages. I quote:

One of the peculiarities of Aramaic compared to its sister languages is that Aramaic puts the definite article ­– the word meaning “the” – at the end of a word instead of at its beginning. So if you take the word keph, meaning “rock,” and add the article ­– simply the syllable a – you get kepha, “the rock,” which also happens to be the original Aramaic name of “Peter,” the nickname of Simon Bar Jona. It shows up in English bibles as “Cephas” (e.g., I Cor. 1:12). You can also see the definite article in golgotha, “the skull,” from Aramaic gulgulta. It also appears in the name of Martha, which means “the lady,” Tabitha, “the gazelle,” and in the word talitha, “the little girl,” used by Jesus during a healing according to Mark 5:41. Lima (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I should not have limited myself to making a remark on just the first words of Eschoirs proposed text. More important is the suggestion that "בר־אלהין" (which, as the quoted study pointed out, means "son of (the )gods") corresponds to "ὁ υἰὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" (the son of God). There may be other difficulties also, less grave than this, but I must hurry off now. Lima (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)