Talk:Jesus H. Christ
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Vandalism
I (user 24.193.110.140) removed "support the Holacost" from the bottom of the article. small edit. Sorry i forgot to log in first. Drms 03:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)drms
[edit] Etymology
Frankly, the monogram "IHS" or "IHC" (frequently seen in churches of certain denominations) seems to me to be the only proposed origin that has any shred of linguistic plausibility -- all the other ideas are pure hypothetical speculative "Just-So Stories" of the ex post facto "Whole Nine Yards" and "Port Out - Starboard Home" variety. AnonMoos 19:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I don't know where to write this. I don't know if this is the reason why the phrase started but it is actually supported by the original Koine Greek of the New Testament where Jesus is sometimes referred to as Ιησους 'ο Χριστος. The Middle word, pronounced "ho", is the masculine nominative form of the Greek article, roughly equivalent to "the" in English. The original Greek does not exclusively use this formation, sometimes there is no "ho" though at other times it is present. Also it should be noted that in Koine Greek even names take articles (so most of the time Jesus is 'ο Ιησους) but if the name is described further there is another article before the description thus 'ο Ιησους 'ο Χριστος although the extra article seems redundant to us English speakers it can (although doesn't have to be) used in ancient and Koine Greek. This extra use of the article is called "attributive position" by classicists. Finally, this cannot be the source of the monograms because middle word starts with a rough breathing omnicron (it is also just one letter with that rough breathing mark which makes the h sound) whereas H in Greek is used to signify different letter, eta.
[edit] User 83.76.218.123 edits
I removed the following passage:
- + John Wycliffe in his 1380s Bible translation spells the name with an h, as Jhesus (see also Jesu), probably to ensure the pronunciation of J as [j] instead of an affricate [?].
1) Because it's very likely not true. The OED simply says the "H" is due to the monogram "IHS" or "IHC", which was used as a scribal abbreviation for the name of Jesus. In fact, the OED says that abbreviated forms such as "ihc", "ihs", "ihus" etc. were a lot more common in Middle English manuscripts than fully-spelled out Ihesus.
2) Because even if it were true, it's very difficult to see how this could influence the modern English jocular slang term "Jesus H. Christ". AnonMoos 20:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] General
Frankly this seems to be unlikely. Is there any evidence to support it?
It seems that the phrase comes from 1850 or before, when 'hallowed' would be a perfectly regular word.
Here are some sites that present alternative views:
(Incidentally, don't search Google for the term if you are of a sensitive nature!) DJ Clayworth 17:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- The only place I had heard this phrase before was in the movie Full Metal Jacket, often said by the Drill Instructor. Del arte 20:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Nice work, Meelar.
I like the additions you made.
[edit] Maybe from Hebrew
This might be kind of out there, but the Hebrew word for "the" is "he." So maybe this is along the lines of the joke that John the Baptist's middle name is "the." In this case Jesus "The" Christ has a Hebrew middle name, and thus he's Jesus "He" Christ.
- Actually, Hebrew for "the" is HA (ה), a clitic which joins on to the following word. Jesus Christ in Hebrew is ישוע המשיח yeshua` hammashiaH, but I really don't see any plausible linguistic channel by which the Hebrew definite article could influence jocular modern English slang. AnonMoos
[edit] history
any idea as to when the phrase is first attested? 20th century, one would assume. pre-war? dab (ᛏ) 08:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 1998 lawsuit
If someone doesn't supply some kind of link or reference for this, then it's probably eventually going to have to go. AnonMoos 16:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Bored church attendees"
I really don't understand why you're singling out that one sentence (which is not intended to be derogatory of anybody, but is more or less a necessary part of the explanation in that section), when just about everything in the whole "Other speculations (serious and otherwise)" section is pure unmitigated bullshit. Furthermore, the sentence has been on the page for three and a half months, and nobody ever objected to it before you. If you want to establish this whole article on a solid sourced reliable encyclopedic basis, then that would be a laudable project -- but please don't cherrypick out one particular sentence which has a reason for being there, and is a lot less "unencyclopedic" than a lot of other stuff on this page. AnonMoos 18:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't remove it because I think it's derogatory, I removed it because it's unencyclopedic speculation. As for why I haven't done more to delete crap out of the article, that's bcz I've been busy with school. (A study of my recent contribution level will indicate that I've been somewhat "preoccupied" by "something"...well, the "something" is trying to finish my degree in CS...) If you want to keep the sentence, fine, but try to reword it so that it doesn't sound like a 3rd grade essay. Tomertalk 23:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
First, it is clear that both of you are honestly trying to improve the 'pedia. This is good. :-) As for the specific sentence, this seems like a perfect time to apply WP:V, and (try) to find a source. Looking at this, it seems quite possible that someone, in print, has suggested this (board chruch goers and all); in that case, we can find where they said it, and source this. If we can't find such a source, I hope you both would agree that we should move this particular theory to the talk page; it'll still be easily available, and when someone finds a source, they can re-add it. (I was brought here by Tomer's request, but I don't particularly know him or have much history(except reverting some vandalism) on this article.) Thanks again to you both for your work on the 'pedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I went through the past 50 edits to the article, requesting input from registered users who had edited it, as well as from the few registered users who have participated on this talk page... Tomertalk 00:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
After a short google search (in which I turned up another good ref, which I added), I was not able to find a source which talks about the monograms often having a prominent place in church decoration, or about the phrase having been invented due to churchgoes having been board during the sermon, so I've removed those sections. Feel free to add them back if you can find a source. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Harold Vs. Herald
My understanding has been that the H is for Herald, as in "Hark, the Herald Angels Sing..." The definition of Herald seems to fit. Harold would then be a corruption of the original or something. Whatever.Gabenowicki 02:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
mmmmmBoooya: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=herald I guess I'm just better than everybody else. I've unlocked the DaVinci Code!!! AnywayGabenowicki 02:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Removed: this appears to be your idea and your link merely confirms what a herald is. Rd232 talk 11:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. I guess that would fall in the Original Research category, so not appropriate for wikipedia. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I'll try to find a more acceptable link. You haven't seen the last of me.Gabenowicki 16:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Alrighty, R2d2, how's this?: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22jesus+herald+christ%22 I do feel a bit ashamed "researching" this phrase on Santa's Birthday and all, but as you can see the term is in use out there. Although I'm not sure if it meets the criteria for inclusion, I'll assume that you'd be the better judge of that. Please keep in touch. Your Pal,Gabenowicki 20:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- That does nothing to establish that anyone of note thinks this is the origin of "Jesus H. Christ", or that many people think that is the origin. The exclamation [1] in Natural Born Killers is interesting usage though. Rd232 talk 23:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, perhaps this item could find a home in this article under a new "common usage" or "interpretations" category. I do recognize your point regarding the origin of the phrase and I'm not in a position to argue for inclusion under the header "speculations" as it is currently defined in the article. I'm just trying to give folks a fun twist on the usage, considering that the INRI cockney pronunciation is clearly identified as a "common joke" in the article. I shall patiently await your response to these points. It might be worth mentioning that Herald and Harold can have identical pronunciations and who's to say the average movie watcher wouldn't interpret the line as "Jesus Harold Christ on a !@#$ing rubber crutch?" Sincerely, Gabenowicki 02:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it can be listed as a speculation - it isn't common as a speculation on origin (AFAIK), whereas the INRI joke thing is. If you can find some authority that says something about "Herald" having a connection with "Jesus H. Christ" we can note that. I added the NBK quote. Rd232 talk 10:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] NBK quote
User:Introgressive (my brother) asked me to look into this little revert war he got himself into :) My personal opinion is that we should not censor direct quotes. On the other hand the reference to NBK may not be necessary in the lead or in the article. Maybe it can be moved or another example found? - Haukur 17:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't much care about the full quote myself (nothing wrong with a good bit of swearing...), but I know others do, and a slight "bleeping" does no harm to the relevance of the quote. Since this is not language people will expect to find here (not the case in, say, fuck), we can do people the courtesy of a little bleeping. If you can find other quotes of equal interest and prominence, fine, we can replace it. But I'm slightly mystified why anyone is bothered about the bleeping. Rd232 talk 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- On a second thought, I can agree that seeing 'fuck' in the intro is slightly prominent. Maybe it is just better to keep this quote out of the article and/or find a better one. But, please, don't beep it. Everyone knows what '****ing' stands for and the stars don't change the meaning. Introgressive 19:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I disagree - I don't think everyone knows what it stands for. I doubt I did at your age, Introgressive. That's why I think the spelled-out version is more informative, it also allows us to have a link to the article on fuck. The "bleeping" seems slightly misleading, the word isn't bleeped in the film and this is presented as a direct quote from the film. On the other hand this isn't a quote that really needs to be in the article to begin with so I'm fine with your compromise version, Introgressive.
-
- And none of this is a big deal anyhow so let's be careful not to blow it out of proportion. - Haukur 22:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I seem to have inadvertedly stepped in the mud here. My intention was only to disambig curse but I must have selected an older version to edit. I think I even looked at the edit history again and still missed it. So, the answer to Introgressive's question was that I didn't notice what I was doing. In other news, we should certainly not be censoring ourselves here. In an article about a particular profanity we could expect comparisons to other profanities and we shouldn't be worried about that. And anyway, I find this ****ing business slightly ridiculous, that might of course be my cultural background, but for those who support **** on wikipedia I think that it is interesting to note that both F**k and F*ck redirect to..., well I cannot actually say that can I :) The edit histories of those articles are funny. Stefán Ingi 02:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Here's my problem: Why would you chose to delete 1 particular profanity when the whole article could be considered "profane" http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/profane
Simply suggesting that "Christ" is Jesus's last name fits the definition. Just using any of the cited phrases "in vain" would constitute blasphemy. That means that any reader who would take offense to the use of FUCK in this article would also take offense to JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST. So I vote to put the NBK quote back in, although I won't be so BOLD as to do it without discussing it here first. What are your thoughts on this? What the fuck do I know anyway?Gabenowicki 03:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Apu's pseudo-variation (heard on "The Simpsons")
In "Bart the Fink", Apu exclaims "Shiva H. Vishnu!": the script writers poked fun at Apu's Hindu beliefs, inventing a "Jesus H. Christ" substitute which referred to his gods. (Technically, Shiva and Vishnu are separate gods with titles of their own. However, making Apu's oath more "theologically correct" would have offended real-life Hindus and spoiled the joke for other viewers.) ISNorden 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] another possibility
I always thought the H was for Holy. As in "holy christ!" Avigon 22:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's "Haploid" as he only has one set of chromosomes (only one physical parent). 38.115.151.134 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Science H. Logic
Science H. Logic derived from Jesus H. Christ in a Southpark episode after everyone becomes athiest.
[edit] The H. in Jesus H. Christ...
I always thought the H. in Jesus H. Christ stood for 'Holy' - as in 'Holy Christ'... obviously, I don't really have anything to back this up... anyone else ever heard this? 71.244.180.48 04:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Just a hunch
Haploid —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.18.53 (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Rationale for Usage
I was always told that adding the "H" when using the name of Christ as an expletive was to have a tounge-in-cheek explanation in case you were overheard by a Christian who accused you of "taking the Lord's name in vain." Since, obviously, Jesus was not recorded as having a middle initial/name in the Bible, one could always claim (trying to suppress a smile) that no, see, this is a different Jesus I'm invoking. StanislavJ 01:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you've got a reference, put it in WLU 15:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
