Talk:Notzrim

Merge with Nazarene (sect)

    I had proposed this merge, but someone erased it and replaced it with one in this talk page's section concluded below. I suggest merging Notzrim and Nazarene (sect), because they are (or can be) spelled the same way in Hebrew (though it changed in the 'Notzrim' article: it would be good if someone fluent helps/comments.) One article with Judaism and Jewish-Christian sections, or an article on each, or 3 on the root words (that have tens of pronounciations/spellings) would be sufficient: 4 articles (currently) is excess, and at least one is somewhat duplicated (the Nazoraean article says it is Nazarene and gives evidence it is Notzrim.) The articles pertain to Judaism (Nazarites) and Jewish-Christians (which I will call Nazareans, some of who are sometimes considered Nazarites, though the root word is quite different,) but are mostly based on historical references from non-Nazareans that did not speak (m)any Hebrew dialects, who purported to distinguish sects similarly named, such as in dialects, and they were not educated by Nazareans, who the sources were biased against--in fact they were members of sects recorded to have tried to completely exterminate Nazareans and mostly succeeded by the time of the sources, so they would not have been able to find some/most of the sects, thus they are unreliable. Part of my earlier comment elaborates (--Dchmelik (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC) :)

[...]Most/all references are from Epiphanus, who disagreed with this group and arguably wanted to spead misinformation. Other references disagree with Epiphanus, who was saying different things about the same word. Maybe there were groups within this group, such as the Ossaeans, Nazareans, Therapeutae, but the latter and Ossaeans are what should have separate articles--Dchmelik (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Firm disagree - I know little about these two groups, apart from what I've read here, and a BBC news article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7678123.stm) on the Mandaeans being under threat. But it seems to me you shouldn't merge two things that are different for whatever your own reasons - contact some Mandaeans first; my guess would be they'd say NO WAY JOSE, and therefore who are we to 'know better'! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.80.11 (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you see what section you were commenting on? It is about merging 'Notzrim' and 'Nazarene (sect ;') it has nothing to do with the Mandaeans article. Someone changed my merge proposal from 'Nazarene,' to 'Mandaean' before this was discussed (or it was not discussed here,) but (s)he should not have done that until my merge was decided. The person who deleted my proposal had some basis: IIRC the BBC article does not say that as religous members Mandaeans call themselves Nasurai. I have also seen the term 'Mandaean Nasurai;' perhaps Mandaean is the name of their people.--Dchmelik (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Notzrim article is confusing enough without merging other "stuff." There are two conflicting claims, one that the name refers to a group created in Hasmonian time, another that they claimed Jeremiah as an early leader. One version has it that the group traces it's origins to before Jeremiah, under several names generally refering to following this or that prophet, or prophets in general, and being called Nazareenes since early Hasmonian times, with John and Jesus as Teachers/Leaders in the Christian first century. Notzrim are Jews, as such, they cannot accept Jesus as a divinity called the Christ, but rather as one of a long line of Teachers that spoke against the teachings of the two Priestly groups. Since the topic _IS_ debatable, it should have separate topics for the Christian version and for the Jewish version, with cross-reference so a researcher can read each side's position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.146.179 (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Shalom, all. I am just getting started with Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I do not get the protocol right. Please feel free to give me any friendly tips at servant@nazareneisrael.org. We are attempting to recreate the original first century 'Jewish-Christian' Torah-submitted faith at www.nazareneisrael.org. We would not like to see a merger of terms for various reasons. IMO, there is a distinct advantage to having at least two separate pages, as the preceding author suggests. That way, the anti-Yeshua/Jewish groups can present their side, and the pro-Torah, pro-Yeshua groups (such as Nazarene Israel) can achieve a mutually-acceptable page without a tug-of-war between the Jewish and Christian/Nazarene sides. While I am a newcomer here, might I please suggest the term Nazarene for the pro-Torah, pro-Yeshua groups (such as Nazarene Israel), and Notzrim for the anti-Yeshua-as-Elohim (G-d) groups such as Ben David's organization? That way there can be greater inherent native disambiguation for the readers, identifying Nazarene with pro-Deity, and Notzrim with ant-Deity? I pray that suggestion will not offend anyone. If anyone wants to write me directly, please send email to servant@nazareneisrael.org. Also, if anyone knows how to add to cites, this information would be greatly appreciated. May YHWH lead us all in His pathways of righteousness and truth. Shalom, Norman Willis.Nazareneisrael (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Shalom Rav in Ribi Yeshua HaMoshiach, I would like to throw in my lot in saying that the two articles should not be merged. The Netzarim and Notzrim seem to be two different groups that lived in different time periods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.246.145 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Notzrim (Heb:נֹצְרִים/נוצרים, Grk:Νασαραίοι) can not be merged with Nazarene (sect) (Heb:נזרים, Grk:Ναζωραίων) because the two groups of distinctly different etymologies are clearly distinguished in all the original sources and citations given. Ναζωραίων are clearly pro-Torah, while Νασαραίοι are clearly anti-Torah. I am surprised, therefore, that someone who had read the articles and checked the sources could have even suggested confounding the clearly distinct topics by merging them into what would become one super-confused and super-confusing article which would be naturally destined for a vdf from the outset. Leave them as they are and remove the merge suggestion already. :) 82.6.30.147 (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Since all disagree, I close this discussion as consensus not to merge. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Notzrim and Nazarenes

I added a paragraph on Notzrim and Nazarenes based on the above summary by 82.6.30.147. As I am not an expert on the subject I urge the paragraph be given expert attention, but not deleted. Such a "disambiguation" paragraph is most urgently needed to avoid confusion. Yabti (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted this new paragraph, and added the reasons in the edit summary: 1. there already is a hatnote about the Nazarenes, which at the beginning of the article tells us what this article is and is not about. 2. the statement that the notzrim were anti-Torah and the Nazarenes were pro-Torah is unsourced. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the Nazarenes were the start of the Chiristians, this seems doubtful at best. Debresser (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the claims in the paragraph may be wrong. How about correcting it then? My point is that a "disambiguation paragraph" is absolutely necessary in the circumstances. Surely you agree that such a paragraph is encyclopedic. Yabti (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We usually don't have such paragraphs on Wikipedia, no. That is what disambiguation pages and hatnotes are for. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Great!

Just want to say that the version of this article I read available today is absolutely great! Well done to all those involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.121.144 (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Notzrim ≠ Nazarene really?

Not to be confused with Nazarene (sect).

Why not? The etymologies seems to be identical somehow deriving from "sentinel". Is the separation and lack of interrelating text explaining the (presumed?) difference in fact a feat of wishful thinking? If in fact Notzrim = Nazarene it would inconveniently imply that Christianity existed before Christ and that Christianity was gnostic, and that many of the modern beliefs of this and that original Orthodoxy is in fact an ultra-Heterodoxy. (Just couldn't refrain from pinpointing the most tender spot! ;-) Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 22:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, take a look here! That link actually claims that

Mandaean scholars Lady Drower and Macuch as well as Biblical scholars like Eisenman have made the connection between the term Nasoraeans (Mandaeans) and the pre-Christian Nasaraeans in Epiphanius' account

I'm beginning to believe: 1. I'm more heretic than I already knew partially gnostic for believing in trinity, 2. The more orthodox, the more heterodox (no reason to attack those of other faith, then), 3. If all heretics are to be smited by Lord God, then all Christians are to be smited by Lord God. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 23:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Structure of article

Dear In ictu oculi, I would like to discuss here how you see this article moving forward. Very happy to have your participation here. As you can see I have tried to include the structure you recommended in an more chronological way. But I got a bit lost on the details you were trying to insert. Please if you could continue what I started off for you that would be great. Best wishes.81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello User talk:81.103.121.144. Just a suggestion that it might be better if you registered and became a regular editor on Wikipedia, though you don't have to. This article contained the following sections by primary sources:

• 1 Pliny and the Nazerini
• 2 Etymology
• 3 Origin of Christians in Toledot Yeshu
• 4 The 4thC Nazarenes
• 5 Views of Rabbinical Judaism
• 6 Mandaeans
• 7 Modern Hebrew usage
• 8 See also
• 9 References
• 10 Further reading

Those should actually be rearranged chronologically 2,1,4,3, which I will do in a second. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Contents [hide] NOW:

• 1 Etymology
• o 1.1 Etymology of Hebrew Notzrim
• o 1.2 Relation to Greek term Nasaraioi
• 2 Notzrim in Rabbinical usage
• o 2.1 Talmud
• o 2.2 Views of Rabbinical Judaism
• o 2.3 Origin of Christians in Toledot Yeshu
• 3 Modern Hebrew usage
• 4 Possible Relation of Notzrim to other groups
• o 4.1 Pliny and the Nazerini
• o 4.2 The 4thC Nazarenes, Greek Nasaraioi
• o 4.3 Mandaeans

The above has, I hope focussed the article on the subject Notzrim, and moved all the theories about relations with other groups to 4.1 4.2 4.3 In ictu oculi (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I have been hanging around for a very long time on wiki, but I don't find it a very supportive place for people with disabilities. I prefer the honesty and anonymity of an IP rather than usernames which can be abused. It is frustrating however that the rights of IP users have been restricted over the years. Anyway with regards to your edits, this is looking much better. I have some corrections to offer but don't have time right now. Anyway I am happy to see the direction you are taking it. I will write more soon.81.103.121.144 (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Toledoth Yesu comment removed

Cut this for lack of source:

They were certainly one of the earliest key Gnostic sects. Many of the original Nasoraeans became Christians and, thus, in Modern Israeli Hebrew, the term Notzrim has come to simply mean Christians. Since the Greek word Christos is the translation of Messiah or "anointed," the Hebrew word for Christians could have been Meshikhiyim (Messianics).

In ictu oculi (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources?

Hi User talk:81.103.121.144, is there a source for this paragraph? "They were certainly one of the earliest key Gnostic sects. Many of the original Nasoraeans became Christians and, thus, in Modern Israeli Hebrew, the term Notzrim has come to simply mean Christians. Since the Greek word Christos is the translation of Messiah or "anointed," the Hebrew word for Christians could have been Meshikhiyim (Messianics). " Without a source this should not be in the article. Same goes for some of the other attempts to connect these various groups.In ictu oculi (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, to be kind, it could be left in with a dated citation needed tag for a couple of months for whoever put it in to add the reference then removed if not. To be harsh there is no need to do this.81.103.121.144 (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, these edits, sorry, reverted. There have to be sources to these kind of changes.

And there's a reason why Talmud is listed before Toledoth Yesu, because information should be presented chronologically.

(1) What is your source that Notzrim is derogatory? It may be, but what/where is the source?

(2) Greek Nasaraioi - what source connects these with Notzrim? There may be one, but what is it?

Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I was quite shocked at your censorship. Notzrim is an absolutely derogatory word as Notzrim are said to burn in feces in hell. The word is extremely negative in the Talmud. I did not realise that you are just a beginner in this area. You need a book called Jesus in Jewish tradition by Morris Goldstein. It proves conclusively that there are no references to Jesus and the Christians in Jewish tradition. But that Notzrim which is linguistic cognate with the Arabic and Aramaic words you removed which according to all accounts match up perfectly with the Patristic references to Nasaraioi but not the Nazuraioi (e.g. Lady Drower). Now I am going to put you on the spot too so that you might learn something useful.81.103.121.144 (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:81.103.121.144,

(1) whether it is censoring or not, you must provide sources for your edits. Which source says that Notzrim is derogatory?

(2) You can add Ethel Drower as a source. What is the page number?

In ictu oculi (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

User:81.103.121.144,

I've been and added sources myself.

Have you read Goldstein's Jesus in Jewish tradition? You probably want to take your ideas to Talk:Jesus in the Talmud

I have supplied 5 sources that Notzrim and Nazarene are the same. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't do that again, or I'll have to ask for page protection. When making edits we all need to provide sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to take sides but to be fair User:In ictu oculi it certainly seems this time you might be the one who is confusing the issue.212.219.231.1 (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well if there is a point to these edits, let us see some sources, otherwise I will proceed to asking for page protection from unregistered IPs.

(cur | prev) 15:58, 9 June 2011 78.148.166.116 (talk) (13,392 bytes) (→Notzrim in Hebrew tradition) (undo)

(cur | prev) 13:05, 9 June 2011 212.219.231.1 (talk) (13,328 bytes) (→=Notzrim in Hebrew tradition) (undo)

(cur | prev) 12:57, 9 June 2011 212.219.231.1 (talk) (13,327 bytes) (undo)

(cur | prev) 12:54, 9 June 2011 212.219.231.1 (talk) (13,328 bytes) (undo)

(cur | prev) 12:51, 9 June 2011 212.219.231.1 (talk) (13,247 bytes) (undo)

(cur | prev) 07:56, 9 June 2011 81.103.121.144 (talk) (13,248 bytes) (undo)

(cur | prev) 07:56, 9 June 2011 81.103.121.144 (talk) (13,241 bytes) (undo)

(cur | prev) 07:51, 9 June 2011 81.103.121.144 (talk) (13,239 bytes) (→Talmud) (undo)

(cur | prev) 07:45, 9 June 2011 81.103.121.144 (talk) (13,186 bytes) (Nazarenes are not to be confused with Notzrim.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 07:39, 9 June 2011 81.103.121.144 (talk) (13,249 bytes) (Removing either conscious or unconscious pushing of Synthesis, POV, Original Research. There is no evidence anywhere that Notzrim and Nazarenes are the same.) (undo)

"There is no evidence anywhere that Notzrim and Nazarenes" would include the 5 sources giving Notzrim and Nazarenes as the same in some contexts which 81.103.121.144 deleted. Please provide sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Normal proceedure when info is contested is to present your ideas here for discussion and when everyone has arrived to a consensus then insert them into the article. Now you are suggesting that Notzrim and Nazarenes are the same. It is no wonder many people here who have worked on this article have not made such an assumption because they are very clearly mentioned in the Hebrew sources (e.g. in Jeremiah and sources concerning Yeshu Ha Notzri the student of Joshua ben Perachiah) long before Jesus of Nazareth. so please present here clearly your evidence for this opinion. It can then be discussed, and if and when consensus is achieved you can insert it into the article.81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Here, let me start the Ball rolling with some of the sources you brought in.

Tertullian Marc 4.8

"etiam in virga ex radice Iesse processura figurate praedicabat. Igitur si alias leges aliosque sermones et novas testamentorum dispositiones a creatore dixit futuras, ut etiam ipsorum sacrificiorum alia officia potiora et quidem apud nationes destinarit, dicente Malachia, Non est voluntas mea in vobis, inquit dominus, et sacrificia vestra non excipiam de manibus vestris, quoniam a solis ortu usque ad occasum glorificatum est in nationibus nomen meum, et in omni loco sacrificium nomini meo offertur, et sacrificium mundum scilicet simplex oratio de conscientia pura, necesse est omnis demutatio veniens ex innovatione diversitatem ineat cum his quorum fit, et contrarietatem ex diversitate. "

My latin is rusty, In ictu oculi, but you quoted this as evidence that Νασαραίος is nothing but a variant spelling of Ναζωραῖος. But I can't see it (especially as the two words you are mentioning are Greek, but the work you quoted is in Latin). You suggested that Tertullian (Adversus Marcionem 4.8) confirms that Nazarene was an early name for Christians among Jews according to both Stephen G. Wilson Related strangers: Jews and Christians, 70-170 C.E. - 1995 Ta'an 27b) as well as versions of the Jewish liturgical malediction against heretics (Birkat ha-minim) which extend to include notzrim after the term minim (heretics). Could you clarify how this is possible please? And it would be helpful if you could also provide a copy of the version of the malediction you are referring to. Also where exactly does Jerome refer to Tamudic references to Jesus? You also state that Jerome reported Jewish curses upon the Nazarenes, but what exactly was the Greek word used in this context? Could you provide a quote from Jerome in Greek please? You also suggest that Yaakov Y. Teppler, Susan Weingarten Birkat haMinim: Jews and Christians in conflict in the ancient world - - 2007 Page 58 state "The fact which is undisputed is that both of them cite the term Notzrim in connection with the curse by the Jews. Following the letter of Jerome to Augustine, Marcel Simon states that the term minim became a synonym for ..." Who does "both of them" refer to, and does the original source really say Notzrim? Again you suggest that Epiphanius said "may God curse the Nazarenes" but where exactly does he say this? How does Travers Herford's discussion of Nitzraphi explicitly identify Notzrim as Nazarenes? Isn't this just the author's assumption? Shouldn't it therefore be reported as such in NPOV rather than take the author's side? Pritz the same. Similarly tentative suggestions of Waetjen and Basser should be reported accurately not with a heavy POV bias and certainly not synthesized into original research. You are misrepresenting A. J. M. Wedderburn's unclear footnote. If you want to include their speculations in the section "Possible Relation of Notzrim to other groups" then you should report the author's opinions honestly and accurately (without insertions) there. I have even started the section off for you under the title "Nazarene Sect". Also please indicate more clearly how Chase (Chase, Frederic H. Jr. (translator "Saint John of Damascus: Writings" Volume 37 of The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1958 ch 19 on Heresies. First short run reprint 1999.) ignored the distinctions made by Epiphanius.

Meanwhile, that Jesus settled in Nazaret in order to match an ambiguous prophesy about being called a Nazuraios.(Matt 2:23 καὶ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς πόλιν λεγομένην Ναζαρὲτ, ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν, Ὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται), and that in Greek Nazoraios (Ναζωραῖος) is the word in the New Testament used by John, Matthew, and Luke and John in relation to Jesus and his followers. Also that the earliest documented use of the term in the context of a sect of Christians is the use by Tertullus in Acts 24:5 to refer to Paul as being of the "sect of the Nazarenes". And finally that Ehrhardt suggests that just as the term Christian was coined at Antioch by Gentiles, so Nazarene was coined at Jerusalem by Jews.(Arnold Ehrhardt The Acts of the Apostles - Page 114 " John 1 :46 is an apt commentary upon this development, for there seems to be no evidence to support the thesis of a ... We only mention it because it has given rise to all sorts of speculations amongst the more imaginative students of Christian origins") is all well and good and would fit very well in an article about Nazarenes but not this article which is about the Hebrew term Notzrim. Therefore I removed all this.81.103.121.144 (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Specific sources

User:81.103.121.144 your recent edits reverted. You must provide specific sources for your views. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC) As regards the above questions. You have queried a couple of the sources, and deleted others (reversed). We'll try and add in specific sources below.

Which views are you talking about? I am removing your POV, OR, Synthesis, and Fringe material. I am not inserting any views. I just want to keep this page on the topic i.e. Notzrim and how that Hebrew word has been applied to different groups throughout the ages. But you keep trying to conflate the meanings with the "Nazarene sect" (whatever that was). It seems you are desperately trying to find historical corroborations for something which only has one source.81.103.121.144 (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're not inserting views, let's start with line 1:In ictu oculi (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Line 1 "unflattering" "derogatory"

81.103.121.144 You edited twice: Notzrim (נוצרים) is an derogatory term in Rabbinical and modern Hebrew for "Christian"[1]. Notzrim (נוצרים) is an unflattering term in Rabbinical and modern Hebrew for "Christian"[1].

What is your source for this? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

My Bad, it was "The Gospel of Matthew" by R.T. France, at the bottom of page 95 and the word is "uncomplimentary" but it is in reference to the cognate Syriac term Nasraya not Notzrim. You can remove it if you don't think that Yeshu boiling in feces in hell for being a Notzri (Talmud Gittin 56b-57a) is uncomplimentary to Christians.81.103.121.144 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but Talmud Gittin does not say "Notzrim is a derogatory term", so that is WP:OR; you are not a dictionary, and you seeing a line in the Talmud which says "Jesus will boil in feces in hell because he is Christian" does not mean that Christian is a "derogatory term." In modern Hebrew the Christian Quarter of Jerusalem, is rovah ha-Notzri, likewise "Christian Hospital" "Christian marriage law" etc. are .. ha-notzri, not derogatory terms. Which is why the Oxford Hebrew Dictionary is given as a source in the article. You have to provide sources for your edits. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, chill out! I said my bad and you can remove it if you like. Why don't you just try a simple removal edit without adding anything and see if I revert. I won't, I promise. Don't be scared.81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Toledoth Yeshu related sources

Use of Toledoth Yeshu as a source

On what grounds should Toledoth Yeshu be considered a reliable source, for example on Jeremiah 31:16?

Who is making such a suggestion? Do you even read anything before you revert?81.103.121.144 (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to judge when unsourced material is added what the intended/presumed source is. But in this case as the identification can only be sourced to Toledoth Yeshu, as per your edits on Salome Alexandra, if it is not the source, then what is? Please give sources for your edits. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Salome Alexandra??? What Talk page do you think you are on right now? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about from this Notzrim article. What source material did I include which you did not? You really are not making any sense at all. Show me the edit from the Notzrim article that you are referring to.81.103.121.144 (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144

You have been making edits based in the Toledoth Yeshu to a series of articles, Salome Alexandra is one. Just try and explain any of these, please just explain something. Or give one source for one edit. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dude, haven't you read it? They are all your insertions. I was salvaging info you and others contributed. How about removing them and saving the page (without inserting any of your own ideas) and let's see what it looks like.81.103.121.144 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have done exactly that using the compare versions and can only judge your removals from what you have been removing. If it is just coincidence that your deletions include deletion of anything that differs with the medieval Toledot Yeshu, then that's even less meaningful. So far the only source you have mentioned is rabbi Morris Goldstein (in fact not Goldstein but the Toledot Yeshu he himself doesn't consider credible). Now what source do you wish to use for what change? You mentioned Jeremiah, what source do you have for Jeremiah saying "Notzrim"? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahhhh! So your objection is you think I am removing any info which does not agree with the Toledtodh Yeshu? Well actually you are quite wrong. Notzrim is a Hebrew word, and I simply don't think that non-native meanings should be put onto it. It was first mentioned in Jeremiah, then in the Talmud, then in the Toledoth Yeshu which is a folk-tale amalgamation of everything concerning Yeshu Ha-Notzri in the Talmud, then in the Rabbinical writings such as Rashi and Maimonides etc. and finally now in Modern Israel. There is a clear evolution of the use of the term through these sources from applying to something pre-Christian to now simply meaning Christians. Try to learn how to read Hebrew letters, it won't take you long. Then have a look at Jeremiah 31:6. We are allowed to use non English sources in Wikipedia. Especially since the word Notzrim is originally not English.81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Morris Goldstein Jesus in the Jewish Tradition 1950

Apart from Toledoth Yeshu, what specific academic/critical content from this book do you wish to see in the article, and please which page number? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am happy with Jeremiah, Talmud, and Toledoth Yeshu but would also like to see references to Rabbinical works such as Maimonides etc. who use the term Notzrim, also perhaps some modern Israeli government references to Notzrim. I think that should cover the legitimate uses of the word. How about you go try find something like that which is more relevant to the article instead of bringing in Fringe ideas about how Notzrim might seem to possibly relate to the Nazarene sect.81.103.121.144 (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

When Morris Goldstein translates/quotes from Toledoth Yeshu that is still a WP:Primary source, what specific academic/critical content from this book, the commentary to the WP:Primary source do you wish to see in the article, and please which page number? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well actually nothing more that what [you put there] already, Toledoth Yeshu is not the be all and end all of the story you know? Cunning attempt to try and make it look like I was the one who brought in the Toledoth Yeshu citations.81.103.121.144 (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not a cunning attempt to do anything. All I know is that I added "According to the medieval Toledot Yeshu" in front of "the Christians/Notzrim are a sect that began around the time of Jeremiah" and you edited it out. The ref by Morris Goldstein supports only that Toledot Yeshu says this, it doesn't mean that Morris Goldstein (a respected San Francisco rabbi) himself said this. But again, why are deleting changing this, and what is your source? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it because neither Goldstein not the Toledoth Yeshu say so. It might be that I have missed the page number so if you like you can find it and put it in. I do have a significant disability.81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Academic sources

Arnold Ehrhardt The Acts of the Apostles - Page 114

I added this when requested. You have accepted the validity of the source, but have deleted it because you do maintain that Greek Nazarene and Hebrew Notzrim are not the same word/equivalent. Yet the article contains 5 sources saying they are the same word/equivalent. Where please is your source that says someone says they are not the same word? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't read anything. I removed all references to a section created for you. Please learn how to read before you revert other peoples efforts. In my opinion this article should be about Notzrim only, not about hypothetical theories of connections to other groups. But I am trying to be polite to other editors who have contributed much to the article over the years before you came along with your Original Research, your Synthesis, your Fringe ideas and your POV.81.103.121.144 (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I am simply taking sentences out of modern academic sources and putting them into the article. You are editing to agree with a medieval text. Now in this section here please specifically give the source for your opinion, contradicting the 5 sources in the article which say that Nazarene and Notzrim are related. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Then please see Wikipedia:Describing points of view on how to insert Points of View properly into an article. That is why I created the Notzrim#Nazarene_Sect_.281stC.AD.29 section for you.81.103.121.144 (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144

— Some modern authors have attempted to equate the Notzrim of Jeremiah and Yeshu Ha Notzri with the much later Nazarene Sect mentioned in the Book of Acts. However, such attempts fail to cover the careful distinctions made in the primary sources between Nasaraioi and Nazuraioi.

Again 81.103.121.144 what is the author/title/year/page source for these views? You cannot put in an article that there was a "Nazarene" sect in Jeremiah's day (which no Jewish Bible translation supports) and that there was another "Jesus the Nazarene" 100 years before "Jesus of Nazareth" (fictional?) and the "sect of the Nazarenes" in Acts. Please understand you have to have sources to make edits like this. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand. That is my summary of what I understand you are trying to say. I simply started the ball rolling for you. Correct the sentence as you see fit to insert your own opinions but don't be surprised if I or other editors try to correct your use of language later.81.103.121.144 (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144

Why would anyone delete edits with academic references and then create a new section with their view (and no refs) of what that person is trying to say. Please stop deleting references with academic references, and start making your own edits using academic sources.

In ictu oculi (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Stephen G. Wilson Related strangers: Jews and Christians, 70-170 C.E. - 1995

What specifically is your concern with this source?

My problem is your use of it. Didn't you read what I wrote? I wrote (as you can see above but here it is again anyway for you)..

Tertullian Marc 4.8

"etiam in virga ex radice Iesse processura figurate praedicabat. Igitur si alias leges aliosque sermones et novas testamentorum dispositiones a creatore dixit futuras, ut etiam ipsorum sacrificiorum alia officia potiora et quidem apud nationes destinarit, dicente Malachia, Non est voluntas mea in vobis, inquit dominus, et sacrificia vestra non excipiam de manibus vestris, quoniam a solis ortu usque ad occasum glorificatum est in nationibus nomen meum, et in omni loco sacrificium nomini meo offertur, et sacrificium mundum scilicet simplex oratio de conscientia pura, necesse est omnis demutatio veniens ex innovatione diversitatem ineat cum his quorum fit, et contrarietatem ex diversitate. "

My latin is rusty, In ictu oculi, but you quoted this as evidence that Νασαραίος is nothing but a variant spelling of Ναζωραῖος. But I can't see it (especially as the two words you are mentioning are Greek, but the work you quoted is in Latin). You suggested that Tertullian (Adversus Marcionem 4.8) confirms that Nazarene was an early name for Christians among Jews according to both Stephen G. Wilson Related strangers: Jews and Christians, 70-170 C.E. - 1995 Ta'an 27b) as well as versions of the Jewish liturgical malediction against heretics (Birkat ha-minim) which extend to include notzrim after the term minim (heretics).

I asked you "Could you clarify how this is possible please? And it would be helpful if you could also provide a copy of the version of the malediction you are referring to. "

Basically I want you to print here verbatim what exactly (without any insertions) what exactly Wilson wrote on which page number. I want to see this because I checked out the source quoted Terullian Marc 4.8 and have copied it out for you verbatim above, and it caused me to mistrust your honesty in using sources where you seem to have inserted your own opinions into them. But also please don't forget that I want to see this version of the malediction you talk of.81.103.121.144 (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:81.103.121.144, one of the problems I have been having with getting academic references into this article has been your persistent deletions of them: In ictu oculi (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I am happy not to remove references when they are genuine. I delete them only when they are in-genuine.81.103.121.144 (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• The Latin text of Tertullian is given in the source ref Birkat haMinim: Jews and Christians in conflict in the ancient world ed Yaakov Y. Teppler, Susan Weingarten "Unde et ipso nomine nos Iudaei Nazarenos" as Marc 4.8, correct as given (before you deleted it). Your section is not 4.8. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh the section I quoted isn't 4.8? That's funny, because it looks like it is judging from this page http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tertullian/tertullian.marcionem4.shtml maybe you can draw my attention to which part Weingarten thinks is 4.8 then please? Do you realize what kind of sloppy WP:FRINGE scholarship you are quoting? You are simply not making sense. It is also remarkable that Weingarten only gives Tertullian as the source for a supposedly Hebrew version of the blessing. Very very WP:FRINGE indeed. Ever considered that she might be a Nazi trying to drum up anti-Semitic feelings? And how can you possibly use this quote as proof that Tertullian Latin "Nazarenos" is equivalent to Hebrew Notzrim? 81.103.121.144 (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

HelloIn ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello :)81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Latin text you found was 1.8, totally unrelated.In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So then where is 4.8 That is what I asked you to draw my attention to please.81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No I have not considered that this academic might be a Nazi trying to drum up anti-Semitic feelings?In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who equates Nazarenes and Notzrim by consciously covering up the facts certainly has some kind of sinister agenda.81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

How can Weingarten use Tertullian saying "Unde et ipso nomine nos Iudaei Nazarenos appellant per eum" as proof that the Jews call us Nazarenes? Well what do you think "and for this reason the Jews call us Nazarenes because of him" can mean other than called Nazarenes?In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not proof that Jews call Christians Nazarenes. Tertullian was clearly mistaken. He heard reports of Jewish Mishnah about Notzrim such as Yeshu and assumed that they were talking about Jesus and the Nazarenes. Don't you realize that you are assuming Tertullian is infallible?

But again, I don't have to explain this to you (though I guess I'm happy to do so), the reference explains it. Now please provide a source to explain why you've been deleting this? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Because anyone who cites the wrong part of Tertullian is no better scholar than me.81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Hello, you are both wrong. In ictu oculi, the passage you are quoting is 8.1 not 4.8 which does not exist and 81.103.121.144 you quoted Tertullian 1.8 are you confused? Perhaps you should both cool your tempers as you are both getting as "sloppy" as each other. But why are you both citing Tertullian? He uses the word Nazarenos, not Notzrim.212.219.231.1 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wilson Related strangers: Jews and Christians, 70-170 C.E. regarding notzrim/nazarene says "There are no tannaitic references and few from the amoraic period. The one clear reference (b.Ta'an.27b) could refer to Christians in general, but might mean only "Jewish Christians." The fullest discussion is in Kimelman, ...1981" p366

Now, can you please explain why you are deleting academic references and inserting material from a medieval tract? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You are doing it again. You say regarding Nazarenes, but that is only your interpretation of the text. You quote him and show clearly that he does not make any reference to Notzrim being Nazarenes there, he simply refers to http://steinsaltz.org/learning.php?pg=Daf_Yomi&articleId=528 . Can't you see that you are projecting your opinion about Nazarenes onto the text? Quote for me exactly where he says "Nazarenes are Notzrim" and do not insert in a word which is not in the published original. It is called lying if you do that. I am very happy for you to include Wilson's opinion that Nazarenes are Notzrim in the Nazarene Sect section of the article if you report it honestly. If you want to give the name of a translator who translates it as Nazarenes and write in the Nazarene section "so-and-so first translated Notzrim as Nazarenes, a translation which has become more popular very recently" then please be my guest.81.103.121.144 (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The source for Tertullian is Tertullian.

OK, fine, so where does Tertullian say Notzrim are Nazarenes? Don't Synthesize different sources or it will become Original Research.81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The source for Wilson is Wilson: he states Wilson Related strangers: Jews and Christians, 70-170 C.E. regarding notzrim/nazarene says "There are no tannaitic references and few from the amoraic period. The one clear reference (b.Ta'an.27b) could refer to Christians in general, but might mean only "Jewish Christians." The fullest discussion is in Kimelman, ...1981" p366

I suppose we could add Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies: Volume 65, Issue 1 University of London. School of Oriental and African Studies - 2002 "... around 331, Eusebius says of the place name Nazareth that ' from this name the Christ was called a Nazoraean, and in ancient times we, who are now called Christians, were once called Nazarenes ';6 thus he attributes this designation ..."

Again, fine tuning might be one thing, but you're not fine tuning, you're deleting sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

OK I have put back in Wilson and Weingarten now that you have clarified them, but Tertullian stays out because he does not mention Notzrim. Is that fine tuning now?81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yaakov Y. Teppler, Susan Weingarten Birkat haMinim: Jews and Christians in conflict in the ancient world 2007

Page 58 states "The fact which is undisputed is that both of them cite the term Notzrim in connection with the curse by the Jews. Following the letter of Jerome to Augustine, Marcel Simon states that the term minim became a synonym for ..." > "both of them" refer to, and does the original source really say Notzrim?<

here is the page [1]

As you can see "both of them" means Epiphanius and Jerome.

And no since Epiphanius is writing in Greek, Jerome in Latin then the word "Nazarene" is in Latin and Greek not in Hebrew as in the Cairo Genizah copies of the Birkath haMinim. But the point is Teppler/Weingarten equate Nazarene/Notzrim. For Wikipedia what is important is what is sourceable, not necessarily what is "true". In ictu oculi (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I saw the appallingly sloppy research of Weingarten, so you should put in the "Nazarene Sect" section something like: "Weingarten argues that terms used by Jerome's term Nazarenes is despite significant conflict to be equated with Epiphanius Nazuraioi, and that both words refer to the Hebrew Notzrim." That would be an honest report of the facts. The Cairo Geniza is very important and should be included in the Hebrew sources section.81.103.121.144 (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's a source, it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. And you haven't provided any source to suggest Weingarten is wrong. Why did you delete it? What alternative source do you wish to add? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have included a summary report of her approach which i have gathered from what you have taught me here concerning her.81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

R. Travers Herford Christianity in Talmud and Midrash 1903

>How does R. Travers Herford's discussion of Nitzraphi explicitly identify Notzrim as Nazarenes? Isn't this just the author's assumption?<

This is an elderly source and probably shouldn't be in the article at all, but cf Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient - 2000 Page 108

Anyway this is what he said: As p379 "This may be otherwise expressed by saying that wherever the Talmud or the Midrash mentions Minim, the authors of the statements intend to refer ... 1 The Notzrim are mentioned by R. Johanan (p. 171), and the Christian Sunday is called ..." In ictu oculi (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Your abbreviation of the quote does not make much sense to me. I already mentioned B.Taani 27b above. If you want to include Minim under the section Notzrim#Possible_Relation_of_Notzrim_to_other_groups then go ahead and put the quote in.81.103.121.144 (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you but I do not want to make any further edits while you are deleting academic content.

http://steinsaltz.org/learning.php?pg=Daf_Yomi&articleId=528 is a blog. "This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim of Rabbi Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud. To learn more about the Steinsaltz Daf Yomi initiative, click here." This is not a WP:source. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ray Pritz Nazarene Jewish Christianity: from the end of the New Testament 1988

p17 Pliny's Nazerini - While treating the name of the sect, we may deal here with a short notice by Pliny the Elder which has caused some confusion among scholars. .... Can Pliny's Nazerini be early Christians? The answer depends very much on the identification of his sources, and on this basis the answer must be an unequivocal No. It is generally acknowledged that Pliny drew heavily on official records and most likely on those drawn up for Augustus by Marcus Agrippa (d. 12 BC).[31] Jones has shown that this survey was accomplished between 30 and 20 BC [32] Any connection between the Nazerini and the Nazareni must, therefore, be ruled out, and we must not attempt to line this up with Epiphanius' Nazoraioi. [33]"

What is your specific issue with the Pritz references? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

These are your passages I am talking about.81.103.121.144 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Graham Stanton, Guy G. Stroumsa Tolerance and intolerance in early Judaism and Christianity 1998 p256 "According to Pritz, Notzrim as such are explicitly mentioned only in Avodah Zprah 6a, Ta'anit 27b, and Gittin 57a. 36 The text is from Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, 171-2. 37 Herford, followed by Pritz, thinks the term ..."

Graham Stanton, Guy G. Stroumsa Tolerance and intolerance in early Judaism and Christianity 1998 - Page 256 "37 Herford, followed by Pritz, thinks the term Notzrim in these two passages probably refers to catholic Christians. See Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, 172; Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity, 98-9. This is not so clear, ..."

Please, 81.103.121.144 what is your specific issue with the Pritz references? Why did you delete them, what sources do you offer instead? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My issue was that I ddn't understand what you were saying with it. But it seems you are saying that Stroumsa says Pritz thinks Notzrim means Catholics. I am happy to include such a report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Herman C. Waetjen The Gospel of the Beloved Disciple 2005

Page 142 The birkath ha-minim, that was formulated by Samuel the Little under the authority of Gamaliel II and incorporated into the Tefillah, may already have pronounced maledictions against the Nazarenes (Notzrim) in its earliest form in the "

What is your specific concern? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL terms and the fact you put in Nazarenes and Notzrim together alongside again as if the author wrote this. Did he? ::Also of all the Hebrews copies of the malediction known in existence only one in the Cairo Geniza which was anyway in a rubbish heap mentioned the Notzrim alongside the Minim to be cursed. No one knows who wrote that and yet because of Jerome's mention of something which seems it might possibly be based upon him hearing something like that version written in 870AD suddenly Jews are accused of cursing the Christians. What an amazing jump of Nazi logic. But that is besides the point. The worse point is trying to equate such a one off curse of Notzrim as a curse on all Nazirites.81.103.121.144 (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, Waetjen says "Nazarenes (Notzrim)" see above. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Duely included81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, what is your source that Nazarenes and Notzrim are different?In ictu oculi (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Logical fallacy. Two things can not be assumed to be the same until evidence proves them to be so.81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Your language What an amazing jump of Nazi logic is not appropriate. You are indulging in WP:abuse. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not calling you a Nazi, I am suggesting that Waetjen is using Nazi logic. Why are you so quick to take that cap on your own head?81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A. J. M. Wedderburn A history of the first Christians 2004

Page 245 Cf. Maier, Zwischen den Testamenten, 288: he points out that the reference to the 'Nazarenes' (notzrim) is first found in medieval texts; also van der Horst, 'Birkat ha-minim'; SG Wilson, Strangers, 176-83. 8. JT Sanders, Schismatics ...

How is the footnote being misrepresented? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Again the fact you put in Nazarenes and Notzrim together alongside again as if the author wrote this. Did he?81.103.121.144 (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's there in front of your eyes "Nazarenes (Notzrim)". That's Wedderburn citing Maier, not me.

Now, what is your reason for deleting this? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Getting towards vandalism?

Excuse me, now you are accusing me of vandalism? Where and how, please show me the EXACT edit you interpret as vandalism? 81.103.121.144 (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Notzrim In ictu oculi (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I said on Talk:Nazarene (sect) or Talk:Nazarene (title) that your edits are starting to get there when you make these reversions to your own view that deleted academic references. But forget that. Please start to present some sources for your edits. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you are getting too belligerent for me to handle alone, Please insert your WP:fringe POV WP:Original Research WP:Synthesis discussion on Notzrim relation to the Nazarene sect here Notzrim#Nazarene_Sect_.281stC.AD.29. I want to see how it looks in the right context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.121.144 (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144, this is a very normal and simple request on Wikipedia. I've given academic sources above, now you need to please present sources if you intend to edit. Thank you In ictu oculi (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I am not inserting anything, I am removing POV, OR, Sythesis, and Fringe material. You are the one who is inserting.81.103.121.144 (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have even encouraged you repeatedly here (since no sysop is taking an interest in stepping in to prevent it) to insert all this anti-wikip policy stuff you insist upon if you do it in the right location. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As before. Please do not delete sourced material. Please provide sources for your edits. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So now you have resorted to a revert war? I gave you more credit than that.81.103.121.144 (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It really might be better if you registered. Likewise you should not have reverted Mephistophelians edit, nor re-reverted.

If you read carefully you will see it is an edit not a revert. I also apologized for neglecting the edit summary the first time.81.103.121.144 (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As before. Please do not delete sourced material. Please provide sources for your edits. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've yet to sort through all the material here, but WP:DISPUTE and WP:ANI are both live options. I'd suggest one of those, rather than continuing this prolonged dispute here in isolation. Meph^talk 14:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Mephistophelian, agreed. But I'd be happy for User:81.103.121.144 to be given one last chance to provide a source for an edit. (and by that I do not mean a WP:Primary source like a medieval tract as Toledoth Yeshu, but a modern book with author, title, year and page number) In ictu oculi (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If i were inserting info then I would be providing sources, but in this case In ictu oculi is the one who is doing the WP:fringe WP:Original Research WP:Synthesis WP:WEASEL effort here. I have also offered advice on how to insert POV correctly. I am simply trying to uphold wiki policy.81.103.121.144 (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:81.103.121.144 The specific questions you had about the academic sources Wilson and Teppler which you deleted have been answered above. I cannot ask you to restore them since you have already gone over the WP:3RR and if I restore them that puts me over as well. So will now have to leave it. In the meantime you could use to breathing space here to provide some sources for your view beyond the medieval tract Toledot Yeshu, which is not admissable as an academic source. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you feel you have to revert? You can just edit in the references into the appropriate section as I suggest you should. It is because I am editing and not reverting that the rule you quote does not apply to me. If you learn how to collaborate and join in editing together instead of just reverting then we might have avoided all this unpleasantness in the fiorst place. But I hope you learned that discussion and collaboration is better than revert wars.81.103.121.144 (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:81.103.121.144

The changes you make frequently do include reversion, but irrespective of how you edit I'm afraid you edits will not stick because you are not using sources. You must provide sources. You mentioned in Talk Morris Goldstein's 1950 book. Okay, sounds as though that'd be a possible source, so what content do you want to add to the article, and what page number is it in the book? Not your opinion, not your view, but a source. Please. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You are making me sound like a broken record. If you do not present what you think is unsourced how do I know what you are talking about? Start with a sentence you disagree with. Present it here and ask for the source. Because honestly I do not know which lines you are talking about until you do. I pointed out the problems to you and you responded because I gave you a clear indication. But now you need to do the same courtesy for me. Read it through, take the sentences you don't like, present them here and ask for the source. Is that too difficult to do? Perhaps for you it is because I am not inserting info, I am have been removing info. You were inserting info which is why it was easy for me to highlight to you the problems with your sources.81.103.121.144 (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144, that I'm afraid is my point, ALL your edits are unsourced.

In any case a mainstream editor has arrived. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Cairo Geniza

Here is an interesting thing for you both to discuss. What is the spelling of Notzrim in the Cairo Geniza? According to this site it is נוצרים‎ not נצרים and there is a significant difference between Netzarim and Notzrim. Now Nazareth apparently comes from Netzer not from Notzri. So should Jeremiah be translated as watchmen or does it actually refer to the Netzarim of Nazareth? Perhaps you have both been wrangling over a spelling mistake? 212.219.231.1 (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Tertullian

212.219.231.1 I checked the Latin myself, the reference Adv Marc 4.8 given in the academic source ref is correct. That blog is not a reliable WP:source. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Methinks someone be tellin' porkie pies :/

=====TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUARTUS

1. [1] Omnem sententiam et omnem paraturam impii atque sacrilegi Marcionis ad ipsum iam evangelium eius provocamus quod interpolando suum fecit. Et ut fidem instrueret, dotem quandam commentatus est illi, opus ex contrarietatum oppositionibus Antitheses cognominatum et ad separationem legis et evangelii coactum, qua duos deos dividens, proinde diversos, alterum alterius instrumenti, vel, quod magis usui est dicere, testamenti, ut exinde evangelio quoque secundum Antitheses credendo patrocinaretur. [2] Sed et istas proprio congressu cominus, id est per singulas iniectiones Pontici, cecidissem, si non multo opportunius in ipso et cum ipso evangelio cui procurant retunderentur; quamquam tam facile est praescriptive occurrere, et quidem ut accepto eas faciam, ut rato habeam, ut nobiscum facere dicam, quo magis de caecitate auctoris sui erubescant, nostrae iam antitheses adversus Marcionem. [3] Atque adeo confiteor alium ordinem decucurrisse in veteri dispositione apud creatorem, alium in nova apud Christum. Non nego distare documenta eloquii, praecepta virtutis, legis disciplinas, dum tamen tota diversitas in unum et eundem deum competat, illum scilicet a quo constat eam dispositam sicut et praedicatam. [4] Olim contionatur Esaias prodituram ex Sion legem et sermonem domini ex Hierusalem, aliam utique legem aliumque sermonem. Denique iudicabit, inquit, inter nationes, et traducet populum plurimum, scilicet non unius gentis Iudaeorum, sed nationum quae per novam legem evangelii et novum sermonem apostolorum iudicantur et traducuntur apud semetipsas de pristino errore, simul crediderunt, atque exinde concidunt machaeras suas in aratra, et sibynas, quod genus venabulorum est, in falces, id est feros et saevos quondam animos convertunt in sensus probos et bonae frugis operarios. [5] Et rursus: Audite me, audite me, et populus meus et reges, auribus intendite in me, quoniam lex prodibit a me et iudicium meum in lucem nationum, quo iudicaverat atque decreverat nationes quoque illuminandas per evangelii legem atque sermonem. Haec erit lex et apud David, invituperabilis, qua perfecta, convertens animam, utique ab idolis ad deum. Hic erit et sermo, de quo idem Esaias, Quoniam, inquit, decisum sermonem faciet dominus in terra. [6] Compendiatum est enim novum testamentum et a legis laciniosis oneribus expeditum. Sed quid pluribus, cum manifestius et luce ipsa clarius novatio praedicetur a creatore per eundem? Ne rememineritis priorum, et antiqua ne recogitaveritis: vetera transierunt, nova oriuntur: ecce facio nova, quae nunc orientur. Item per Hieremiam: Novate vobis novamen novum, et ne severitis in spinas, et circumcidimini praeputio cordis vestri. Et alibi: Ecce venient dies, dicit dominus, et perficiam domui Iacob et domui Iudae testamentum novum, non secundum testamentum quod disposui patribus eorum in die qua arripui dispositionem eorum ad educendos eos de terra Aegypti. [7] Adeo pristinum testamentum temporale significat, dum mutabile ostendit, etiam dum aeternum de postero pollicetur. Nam per Esaiam, Audite me et vivetis, et disponam vobis testamentum aeternum, adiciens sancta et fidelia David, ut id testamentum in Christo decursurum demonstraret. Eundem ex genere David, secundum Mariae censum, [8] etiam in virga ex radice Iesse processura figurate praedicabat. Igitur si alias leges aliosque sermones et novas testamentorum dispositiones a creatore dixit futuras, ut etiam ipsorum sacrificiorum alia officia potiora et quidem apud nationes destinarit, dicente Malachia, Non est voluntas mea in vobis, inquit dominus, et sacrificia vestra non excipiam de manibus vestris, quoniam a solis ortu usque ad occasum glorificatum est in nationibus nomen meum, et in omni loco sacrificium nomini meo offertur, et sacrificium mundum scilicet simplex oratio de conscientia pura, necesse est omnis demutatio veniens ex innovatione diversitatem ineat cum his quorum fit, et contrarietatem ex diversitate. [9] Sicut enim nihil demutatum quod non diversum, ita nihil diversum quod non contrarium. Eiusdem ergo deputabitur etiam contrarietas ex diversitate cuius fuerit demutatio ex innovatione. Qui disposuit demutationem, iste instituit et diversitatem; qui praedicavit innovationem, iste praenuntiavit et contrarietatem. [10] Quid differentiam rerum ad distantiam interpretaris potestatum? quid antitheses exemploram distorques adversus creatorem, quas in ipsis quoque sensibus et affectionibus eius potes recognoscere? Ego, inquit, percutiam, et ego sanabo: Ego, inquit, occidam, et ego vivificabo, condens scilicet mala et faciens pacem; qua etiam soles illum mobilitatis quoque et inconstantiae nomine reprehendere, prohibentem quae iubet et iubentem quae prohibet. Cur ergo non et antitheses ad naturalia reputasti contrarii sibi semper creatoris? Nec mundum saltim recogitare potuisti, nisi fallor, etiam apud Ponticos ex diversitatibus structum aemularum invicem substantiarum. [11] Prius itaque debueras alium deum luminis, alium tenebrarum determinasse, ut ita posses alium legis, alium evangelii asseverasse. Ceterum praeiudicatum est ex manifestis, cuius opera et ingenia per antitheses constant, eadem forma constare etiam sacramenta.

2. [1] Habes nunc ad Antitheses expeditam a nobis responsionem. Transeo nunc ad evangelii, sane non Iudaici sed Pontici, interim adulterati demonstrationem, praestructuram ordinem quem aggredimur. Constituimus inprimis evangelicum instrumentum apostolos auctores habere, quibus hoc munus evangelii promulgandi ab ipso domino sit impositum. Si et apostolicos, non tamen solos, sed cum apostolis et post apostolos, quoniam praedicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset de gloriae studio, si non adsistat illi auctoritas magistrorum, immo Christi, quae magistros apostolos fecit. [2] Denique nobis fidem ex apostolis Ioannes et Matthaeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant, isdem regulis exorsi, quantum ad unicum deum attinet creatorem et Christum eius, natum ex virgine, supplementum legis et prophetarum. Viderit enim si narrationum dispositio variavit, dummodo de capite fidei conveniat, de quo cum Marcione non convenit. [3] Contra Marcion evangelio, scilicet suo, nullum adscribit auctorem, quasi non licuerit illi titulum quoque affingere, cui nefas non fuit ipsum corpus evertere. Et possem hic iam gradum figere, non agnoscendum contendens opus quod non erigat frontem, quod nullam constantiam praeferat, nullam fidem repromittat de plenitudine tituli et professione debita auctoris. [4] Sed per omnia congredi malumus, nec dissimulamus quod ex nostro intellegi potest. Nam ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet. Porro Lucas non apostolus sed apostolicus, non magister sed discipulus, utique magistro minor, certe tanto posterior quanto posterioris apostoli sectator, Pauli sine dubio, ut et si sub ipsius Pauli nomine evangelium Marcion intulisset, non sufficeret ad fidem singularitas instrumenti destituta patrocinio antecessorum. [5] Exigeretur enim id quoque evangelium quod Paulus invenit, cui fidem dedidit, cui mox suum congruere gestiit, siquidem propterea Hierosolymam ascendit ad cognoscendos apostolos et consultandos, ne forte in vacuura cucurrisset, id est ne non secundum illos credidisset et non secundum illos evangelizaret. Denique ut cum auctoribus contulit, et convenit de regula fidei, dextras miscuere, et exinde officia praedicandi distinxerunt, ut illi in Iudaeos, Paulus in Iudaeos et in nationes. Igitur si ipse illuminator Lucae auctoritatem antecessorum et fidei et praedicationi suae optavit, quanto magis eam evangelio Lucae expostulem, quae evangelio magistri eius fuit necessaria?

3. [1] Aliud est si penes Marcionem a discipulatu Lucae coepit religionis Christianae sacramentum. Ceterum si et retro decucurrit, habuit utique authenticam paraturam, per quam ad Lucam usque pervenit, cuius testimonio adsistente Lucas quoque possit admitti. [2] Sed enim Marcion nactus epistulam Pauli ad Galatas, etiam ipsos apostolos suggillantis ut non recto pede incedentes ad veritatem evangelii, simul et accusantis pseudapostolos quosdam pervertentes evangelium Christi, connititur ad destruendum statum eorum evangeliorum quae propria et sub apostolorum nomine eduntur, vel etiam apostolicorum, ut scilicet fidem quam illis adimit suo conferat. [3] Porro etsi reprehensus est Petras et Ioannes et Iacobus, qui existimabantur columnae, manifesta causa est. Personarum enim respectu videbantur variare convictum. Et tamen cum ipse Paulus omnibus omnia fieret, ut omnes lucraretur, potuit et Petro hoc in consilio fuisse aliquid aliter agendi quam docebat. [4] Proinde si et pseudapostoli irrepserant, horum quoque qualitas edita est, circumcisionem vindicantium et Iudaicos fastos. Adeo non de praedicatione sed de conversatione a Paulo denotabantur, aeque denotaturo si quid de deo creatore aut Christo eius errassent. Igitur distinguenda erunt singula. Si apostolos praevaricationis et simulationis suspectos Marcion haberi queritur usque ad evangelii depravationem, Christum iam accusat, accusando quos Christus elegit. Si vero apostoli quidem integrum evangelium contulerunt, de sola convictus inaequalitate reprehensi, pseudapostoli autem veritatem eorum interpolaverunt, et inde sunt nostra digesta, quod erit germanum illud apostolorum instrumentum quod adulteros passum est, quod Paulum illuminavit et ab eo Lucam? Aut si tam funditus deletum est, ut cataclysmo quodam, ita inundatione falsariorum obliteratum, iam ergo nec Marcion habet verum. [5] Aut si ipsum erit verum, id est apostolorum, quod Marcion habet solus (et quomodo nostro consonat quod non apostolorum, sed Lucae refertur?) aut si non statim Lucae deputandum est quo Marcion utitur, quia nostro consonat, scilicet adulterato etiam circa titulum, ceterum apostolorum est. Iam ergo et nostrum, quod illi consonat, aeque apostolorum est, sed adulteratum de titulo quoque.

4. [1] Funis ergo ducendus est contentionis, pari hinc inde nisu fluctuante. Ego meum dico verum, Marcion suum. Ego Marcionis affirmo adulteratum, Marcion meum. Quis inter nos determinabit, nisi temporis ratio, ei praescribens auctoritatem quod antiquius reperietur, et ei praeiudicans vitiationem quod posterius revincetur? In quantum enim falsum corruptio est veri, in tantum praecedat necesse est veritas falsum. [2] Prior erit res passione, et materia aemulatione. Alioquin quam absurdum, ut, si nostrum antiquius probaverimus, Marcionis vero posterius, et nostrum ante videatur falsum quam habuerit de veritate materiam, et Marcionis ante credatur aemulationem a nostro expertum quam et editum, et postremo id verius existimetur quod est serius, post tot ac tanta iam opera atque documenta Christianae religionis saeculo edita, quae edi utique non potuissent sine evangelii veritate, id est ante evangelii veritatem. [3] Quod ergo pertinet ad evangelium interim Lucae, quatenus communio eius inter nos et Marcionem de veritate disceptat, adeo antiquius Marcione est quod est secundum nos, ut et ipse illi Marcion aliquando crediderit, cum et pecuniam in primo calore fidei catholicae ecclesiae contulit, proiectam mox cum ipso, posteaquam in haeresim suam a nostra veritate descivit. Quid nunc, si negaverint Marcionitae primam apud nos fidem eius, adversus epistulam quoque ipsius? Quid si nec epistulam agnoverint? [4] Certe Antitheses non modo fatentur Marcionis, sed et praeferunt. Ex his mihi probatio sufficit. Si enim id evangelium quod Lucae refertur penes nos (viderimus an et penes Marcionem) ipsum est quod Marcion per Antitheses suas arguit ut interpolatum a protectoribus Iudaismi ad concorporationem legis et prophetarum, qua etiam Christum inde confingerent, utique non potuisset arguere nisi quod invenerat. [5] Nemo post futura reprehendit quae ignorat futura. Emendatio culpam non antecedit. Emendator sane evangelii a Tiberianis usque ad Antoniniana tempora eversi Marcion solus et primus obvenit, expectatus tamdiu a Christo, paenitente iam quod apostolos praemisisse properasset sine praesidio Marcionis. Nisi quod humanae temeritatis, non divinae auctoritatis, negotium est haeresis, quae sic semper emendat evangelia dum vitiat; cum et si discipulus Marcion, non tamen super magistrum; et si apostolus Marcion, Sive ego, inquit Paulus, sive illi, sic praedicamus; et si prophetes Marcion, et spiritus prophetarum prophetis erunt subditi, non enim eversionis sunt, sed pacis; etiam si angelus Marcion, citius anathema dicendus quam evangelizator, quia aliter evangelizavit. Itaque dum emendat, utrumque confirmat, et nostrum anterius, id emendans quod invenit, et id posterius quod de nostri emendatione constituens suum et novum fecit.

5. [1] In summa, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod et ab initio, id ab initio quod ab apostolis, pariter utique constabit id esse ab apostolis traditum quod apud ecclesias apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum. Videamus quod lac a Paulo Corinthii hauserint, ad quam regulam Galatae sint recorrecti, quid legant Philippenses, Thessalonicenses, Ephesii, quid etiam. Romani de proximo sonent, quibus evangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine quoque suo signatum reliquerunt. [2] Habemus et Ioannis alumnas ecclesias. Nam etsi Apocalypsin eius Marcion respuit, ordo tamen episcoporum ad originem recensus in Ioannem stabit auctorem. Sic et ceterarum generositas recognoscitur. Dico itaque apud illas, nec solas iam apostolicas, sed apud universas quae illis de societate sacramenti confoederantur, id evangelium Lucae ab initio editionis suae stare quod cum maxime tuemur, Marcionis vero plerisque nec notum, nullis autem notum ut non eadem damnatum. [3] Habet plane et illud ecclesias, sed suas, tam posteras quam adulteras, quarum si censum requiras, facilius apostaticum invenias quam apostolicum, Marcione scilicet conditore, vel aliquo de Marcionis examine. Faciunt favos et vespae, faciunt ecclesias et Marcionitae. Eadem auctoritas ecclesiarum apostolicarum ceteris quoque patrocinabitur evangeliis, quae proinde per illas et secundum illas habemus, Ioannis dico et Matthaei, licet et Marcus quod edidit Petri affirmetur, cuius interpres Marcus. Nam et Lucae digestum Paulo adscribere solent. [4] Capit magistrorum videri quae discipuli promulgarint. Itaque et de his Marcion flagitandus, quod omissis eis Lucae potius institerit, quasi non et haec apud ecclesias a primordio fuerint, quemadmodum et Lucae. Atquin haec magis a primordio fuisse credibile est, ut priora, qua apostolica, ut cum ipsis ecclesiis dedicata. Ceterum quale est, si nihil apostoli ediderunt, ut discipuli potius ediderint, qui nec discipuli existere potuissent sine ulla doctrina magistrorum? [5] Igitur dum constet haec quoque apud ecclesias fuisse, cur non haec quoque Marcion attigit, aut emendanda si adulterata, aut agnoscenda si integra? Nam et competit ut si qui evangelium pervertebant, eorum magis curarent perversionem quorum sciebant auctoritatem receptiorem. Ideo et pseudapostoli, quod per falsum apostolos imitarentur. In quantum ergo emendasset quae fuissent emendanda, si fuissent corrupta, in tantum confirmavit non fuisse corrupta quae non putavit emendanda. [6] Denique emendavit quod corruptum existimavit. Sed nec hoc merito, quia non fuit corruptum. Si enim apostolica integre decucurrerunt, Lucae autem, quod est secundum nos, adeo congruit regulae eorum ut cum illis apud ecclesias maneat, iam et Lucae constat integrum decucurrisse usque ad sacrilegium Marcionis. Denique ubi manus illi Marcion intulit, tunc diversum et aemulum factum est apostolicis. [7] Igitur dabo consilium discipulis eius, ut aut et illa convertant, licet sero, ad formam sui, quo cum apostolicis convenire videantur (nam et cotidie reformant illud, prout a nobis cotidie revincuntur), aut erubescant de magistro utrobique traducto, cum evangelii veritatem nunc ex conscientia tramittit, nunc ex impudentia evertit. His fere compendiis utimur, cum de evangelii fide adversus haereticos expedimur, defendentibus et temporum ordinem posteritati falsariorum praescribentem, et auctoritatem ecclesiarum traditioni apostolorum patrocinantem, quia veritas falsum praecedat necesse est, et ab eis procedat a quibus tradita est.

6. [1] Sed alium iam hinc inimus gradum, ipsum, ut professi sumus, evangelium Marcionis provocantes, sic quoque probaturi adulteratum. Certe enim totum quod elaboravit etiam Antitheses praestruendo in hoc cogit, ut veteris et novi testamenti diversitatem constituat, proinde Christum suum a creatore separatum, ut dei alterius, ut alienum legis et prophetarum. [2] Certe propterea contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit, conspirantia cum creatore, quasi ab assertoribus eius intexta: competentia autem sententiae suae reservavit. Haec conveniemus, haec amplectemur, si nobiscum magis fuerint, si Marcionis praesumptionem percusserint. Tunc et illa constabit codem vitio haereticae caecitatis erasa quo et haec reservata. [3] Sic habebit intentio et forma opusculi nostri, sub illa utique condicione quae ex utraque parte condicta sit. Constituit Marcion alium esse Christum qui Tiberianis temporibus a deo quondam ignoto revelatus sit in salutem omnium gentium, alium qui a deo creatore in restitutionem Iudaici status sit destinatus quandoque venturus. Inter hos magnam et omnem differentiam scindit, quantam inter iustum et bonum, quantam inter legem et evangelium, quantam inter Iudaismum et Christianismum. [4] Hinc erit et nostra praescriptio, qua defigimus nihil Christo dei alterius commune esse debere cum creatore, ceterum creatoris pronuntiandum si administraverit dispositiones eius, si impleverit prophetias eius, si adiuverit leges eius, si repraesentaverit promissiones eius, si restauraverit virtutes eius, si sententias reformaverit, si mores, si proprietates expresserit. Huius pacti et huius praescripti, quaeso te, lector, memineris ubique, et incipe recognoscere aut Marcionis Christum aut creatoris.

7. [1] Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani proponit eum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum, utique de caelo creatoris, in quod de suo ante descenderat. Ecquid ergo ordinis fuerat ut prius de suo caelo in creatoris descendens describeretur? Cur enim non et ista reprehendam quae non implent fidem ordinariae narrationis, deficientis in mendacio semper? Plane semel dicta sint per quae iam alibi retractavimus an descendens per creatorem, et quidem adversus ipsum, potuerit ab eo admitti et inde tramitti in terram aeque ipsius. [2] Nunc autem et reliquum ordinem descensionis expostulo, tenens descendisse illum. Viderit enim sicubi appamisse positum est. Apparere subitum ex inopinato sapit conspectum, qui semel impegerit oculos in id quod sine mora apparuit. Descendisse autem dum fit, videtur et subit oculos. De facto etiam ordinem facit, atque ita cogit exigere, quali habitu, quali suggestu, quonam impetu vel temperamento, etiam quo in tempore diei noctisve descenderit: praeterea quis viderit descendentem, quis retulerit, quis asseveraverit rem utique nec asseveranti facile credendam. [3] Indignum denique ut Romulus quidem ascensus sui in caelum habuerit Proculum affirmatorem, Christus vero dei descensus de caelo sui non invenerit annuntiatorem, quasi non sic et ille ascenderit iisdem mendacii scalis, sicut et iste descendit. Quid autem illi cum Galilaea, si non erat creatoris, cui ista regio destinabatur ingressuro praedicationem? dicente Esaia, Hoc primum bibito, cito facito, regio Zabulon et terra Nephthalim, et ceteri qui maritimam et Iordanis, Galilaea nationum, populus qui sedetis in tenebris, videte lumen magnum: qui habitatis terram, sedentes in umbra mortis, lumen ortum est super vos. [4] Bene autem quod et deus Marcionis illuminator vindicatur nationum, quo magis debuerit vel de caelo descendere, et, si utique, in Pontum potius descendere quam in Galilaeam. Ceterum et loco et illuminationis opere secundum praedicationem occurrentibus Christo iam eum prophetatum incipimus agnoscere, ostendentem in primo ingressu venisse se non ut legem et prophetas dissolveret, sed ut potius adimpleret. Hoc enim Marcion ut additum erasit. [5] Sed frustra negabit Christum dixisse quod statim fecit ex parte. Prophetiam enim interim de loco adimplevit. De caelo statim ad synagogam. Ut dici solet, ad quod venimus; hoc age, Marcion, aufer etiam illud de evangelio, Non sum missus nisi ad oves perditas domus Israel, et, Non est auferre panem filiis et dare eum canibus, ne scilicet Christus Israelis videretur. [6] Sufficiunt mihi facta pro dictis. Detrahe voces Christi mei, res loquentur. Ecce venit in synagogam; certe ad oves perditas domus Israelis. Ecce doctrinae suae panem prioribus offert Israelitis; certe ut filios praefert. Ecce aliis eum nondum impertit; certe ut canes praeterit. Quibus autem magis impertisset quam extraneis creatoris, si ipse inprimis non fuisset creatoris? [7] Et tamen quomodo in synagogam potuit admitti tam repentinus, tam ignotus, cuius nemo adhuc certus de tribu, de populo, de domo, de censu denique Augusti, quem testem fidelissimum dominicae nativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt? Meminerant certe, nisi circumcisum scirent, non admittendum in sancta sanctorum. Sed etsi passim synagoga adiretur, non tamen ad docendum nisi ab optime cognito et explorato et probato, iam pridem in hoc ipsum vel aliunde commendato cum hoc munere. Stupebant autem omnes ad doctrinam eius. Plane. Quoniam, inquit, in potestate erat sermo eius, non quoniam adversus legem et prophetas docebat. Utique enim eloquium divinum et vim et gratiam praestabat, magis exstruens quam destruens substantiam legis et prophetarum. [8] Alioquin non stuperent, sed horrerent. Nec mirarentur, sed statim aversarentur destructorem legis et prophetarum, et utique inprimis alterius dei praedicatorem, quia nec potuisset adversus legem et prophetas docere et hoc nomine adversus creatorem, non praemissa diversae atque aemulae divinitatis professione. Cum ergo nihil tale scriptura significet, nisi solam vim et potestatem sermonis admirationi fuisse, facilius ostendit secundum creatorem docuisse illum, quia non negavit, quam adversus creatorem, quia non significavit. [9] Atque ita aut eius erit agnoscendus secundum quem docuit, aut praevaricator iudicandus si secundum eum adversus quem venerat docuit. Exclamat ibidem spiritus daemonis, Quid nobis et tibi est Iesu? venisti perdere nos: scio qui sis, sanctus dei. [10] Hic ego non retractabo an et hoc cognomentum competierit ei quem nec Christum vocari oporteret, si non creatoris. Alibi iam de nominibus expostulatum est. At nunc discepto quomodo hoc eum vocari cognoverit daemon, nulla unquam retro emissa praedicatione in illum a deo ignoto et in id temporis muto, cuius nec sanctum eum contestari potuit, ut ignoti etiam ipsi suo creatori. Quid autem iam tale ediderit novae divinitatis per quod posset alterius dei sanctus intellegi? [11] Tantum quod synagogam introgressus, et nec sermone operatus aliquid adversus creatorem? Sicut ergo quem ignorabat nullo modo poterat Iesum et sanctum dei agnoscere, ita quem norat agnovit. Nam et prophetam meminerat sanctum dei praedicasse, et Iesum nomen dei esse in filio Nave. Haec et ab angelo exceperat secundum nostrum evangelium: Propterea quod in te nascetur vocabitur sanctum, filius dei: et, Vocabis nomen eius Iesum. [12] Sed et habebat utique sensum aliquem dominicae dispositionis (licet daemon tamen), magis quam alienae et nondum satis cognitae. Nam et praemisit, Quid nobis et tibi, Iesu? non quasi in extraneum, sed ad quem pertinent spiritus creatoris. Nec enim dixit, Quid tibi et nobis? sed, Quid nobis et tibi? se deplorans et sorti suae exprobrans; quam iam videns adicit, Venisti perdere nos. [13] Adeo iudicis et ultoris et, ut ita dixerim, saevi dei filium agnoverat Iesum, non optimi illius, et perdere et punire nescientis. Quorsum hunc locum praemisimus ? Ut Iesum et a daemone non alium doceamus agnitum et a semetipso non alium confirmatum quam creatoris. Atquin, inquis, increpuit illum Iesus. Plane, ut invidiosum, et in ipsa confessione petulantem et male adulantem; quasi haec esset summa gloria Christi, si ad perditionem daemonum venisset et non potius ad hominum salutem, qui nec discipulos de subactione spirituum sed de candida salutis gloriari volebat. [14] Aut cur eum increpuit? Si quasi mentitum in totum, ergo non fuit Iesus, nec dei sanctus omnino: si quasi ex parte mentitum, quod eum Iesum quidem et sanctum dei, sed creatoris, existimasset, iniustissime increpuit hoc sentientem quod sciebat sentiendum, et hoc non existimantem quod ignorabat existimandum, alium Iesum et alterius dei sanctum. [15] Quodsi verisimiliorem statum non habet increpatio nisi quem nos interpretamur, iam ergo et daemon nihil mentitus est, non ob mendacium increpitus; ipse enim erat Iesus, praeter quem alium daemon agnovisse non poterat, et Iesus eum confirmavit quem agnoverat daemon, dum non ob mendacium increpat daemonem. =====

8. [1] Nazaraeus vocari habebat secundum prophetiam Christus creatoris. Unde et ipso nomine nos Iudaei Nazarenos appellant per eum. Nam et sumus de quibus scriptum est: Nazaraei exalbati sunt super nivem, qui scilicet retro luridati delinquentiae maculis et nigrati ignorantiae tenebris. Christo autem appellatio Nazaraei competitura erat ex infantiae latebris, ad quas apud Nazareth descendit, vitando Archelaum filium Herodis. 212.219.231.1 (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

> Methinks someone be tellin' porkie pies :/

212.219.231.1

Methinks someone is an anonymous IP who does not understand the numbering system on (in this case) Tertullian's works and should register for Wikipedia before going around deleting academic sources and now owes me an apology. See <The Oxford Bible commentary - Page 850 John Barton, John Muddiman - 2001 Further, in Acts 24:5 Christians are 'the sect of the Nazarenes' (an appellation also attested in Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.8), and in rabbinic writings Christians are nosrim.>

I have noted your editing activity at the Incident board btw. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oxford Hebrew Dictionary is POV?

Please discuss here your recent attempt to undo all the hard work and deliberation which has gone into discussing your opinions and sources. All relevant sources have been included in the appropriate places. What more do you want now?

"Nazarenes", in Rabbinical and modern Hebrew is the standard term for "Christians".

Sorry this is just too POV.81.103.121.144 (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is on incident board. I think what bothers me most about your edits is not now the deletion of sources, but the way you have been rewriting content ahead of the academic source references I have been adding to create something totally different. For example, before restoring your edits on Catholics, you should know that you misread the academic source (Herford) where you altered the content. Do you understand the difference between "catholic" and "Catholic"?

Now

A. Do you have a WP:source for any of your content?

B. Do you have a source that contradicts the Oxford Hebrew Dictionary?

C. Do you have a source that Notzrim appears in Jeremiah?

In ictu oculi (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Time to break the silence again, and I have to say that I agree, it is very clear from this entire issue that In ictu oculi is manipulating source references to present a very heavy Nazarene = Notzrim POV in this article. She pretends to know something about Rabbinical Judaism but yet clearly has no idea concerning the historical context of the references to Notzri/Notzrim in the Talmud. For example:

Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 107b

What of R. Joshua b. Perahjah? — When King Jannai (104-78 B.C.) slew our Rabbis, R. Joshua b. Perahjah (with hisstudent Yeshu) fled to Alexandria of Egypt. On the resumption of peace, Simeon b. Shetach sent to him: 'From me, the holy city, to thee, Alexandria of Egypt (my sister). My husband (the Rabbis) dwelleth within thee and I am desolate.' He arose, went, and found himself in a certain inn, where great honour was shewn him. 'How beautiful is this Acsania!' (can mean inn or female innkeeper) Thereupon (Yeshu) observed, 'Rabbi, her eyes are narrow.' 'Wretch,' he rebuked him, 'dost thou thus engage thyself.' He sounded four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him. He came before him many times pleading, 'Receive me!' But he would pay no heed to him. One day he was reciting the Shema', when Yeshu came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign to him. He thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick, and worshipped it. 'Repent,' said he to him. He replied, 'I have thus learned from thee: He who sins and causes others to sin is not afforded the means of repentance.' And a Master has said, 'Yeshu the Notzri practised magic and led Israel astray.'

Yes Notzrim means Christians now, but it didn't always back then as the incident reported clearly predates Christianity. As far as I can tell In ictu oculi is trying to synthesize two ideas in the following steps of flawed reasoning:

1) Notzrim now means Christians.

2)Notzrim sounds(?) a little like Nazarenes

3) Therefore both Christians = Nazarenes and Notzrim = Nazarenes.

The whole process of logic not only avoids the reality but is also fundamentally flawed and as others have rightly pointed out is against wiki policy. In ictu oculi is basically not being honest with herself. In ictu oculi please don't give up on discussing your edits before adding them. Try one at a time so we can see what the ideas you want to contribute are more clearly. I am a Catholic can you prove that we come from the Notzrim? Until then I do not appreciate you trying to present your arguments as if it is a universally accepted Catholic point of view. You are as far as I can tell in an extreme minority apparently. Let's just all agree that Notzrim are Notzrim, Minim are Minim, Jewish Christians are Jewish Cristians, Nazarenes are Nazarenes, Catholics are Catholics, and none of these should be mixed up and synthesized into each other least of all through albeit Original but still amateur research.149.254.61.35 (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Transaltions of Notzrim

In ictu oculi, could you name the translators who have translated Notzrim as Nazarenes instead of as watchers and instead of as Christians or anything else please?81.103.121.144 (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The number of anon IPs seems to be multiplying.

See source for Notzarim = Christians in article: The Oxford Hebrew Dictionary, plus the other 5 sources which were deleted/scattered by yourself.

What WP:source do you have for the idea that Notzarim is wacthers? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over the term

Template:Rfcid Sorry for coming to this discussion rather late. So far as I can see, the bulk of the existing disagreement is about the definition of the subject term and the sources available to verify such usages. In general, wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect, as much as possible, the current mainstream academic consensus, when there is one, and where there isn't the article is generally supposed to devote the greater weight to those opinions which have substantial academic support. This is more or less what WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT, taken together, convey. On that basis, I think the best way to go would be to review the most highly regarded of the existing academic sources which discuss this topic, and, for the most part, reflect what they say. If the subject is discussed in academic encyclopedic sources, the sources they use are probably the most highly regarded sources for the material they discuss, and are often referred to as the "standard" sources. Generally, we would be best served by placing the majority of the content to reflect the standard sources, and a lesser amount to reflect sources which put forward variant opinions. Historical primary sources should definitely be discussed, but, particularly if their reliability is seriously questioned by a majority of modern academics, or if those sources are in some way themselves pushing a POV, that would have to be taken into account.
All that being said, can those involved indicate, perhaps below, the sources they have for given material, the expressed academic opinions of those sources, and what they say about the subject? Based on our policies and guidelines, that information would be of great importance in determining the content and structure of the article. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Every single reference that in ictu oculi has brought along I have myself painstakingly included into the article in the appropriate places under the appropriate headings (except when they were clear and manifest fabrications). The vast majority of occurrences of the word Notzrim are from Jewish sources as this is a Hebrew term. Meanwhile there is no academic consensus on what Nazarene sect means, so it is premature and heavily POV to insist that this should be an article about Nazarenes (whatever they were). It is only in ictu oculi's heavy POV pushing and skillful manipulation of references which I (and apparently other users also) object to yet I have been encouraging the user to include all his ideas about that in the appropriate Nazarene section. However it is difficult to keep him contained as he keeps on deleting everyone else's work except his own. Apparently he is not a team worker, and would prefer to have the monopoly on the page.81.103.121.144 (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144

I think that you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. When other editors provide sourced content, you are not expected to "painstakingly include[d] into the article in the appropriate places," since in doing you are expressing your own views. As with changing the text.

You say >"Meanwhile there is no academic consensus on what Nazarene sect means,"<

What is your WP:source for this statement?

Or, alternatively

What is your WP:source for any edit you have made?

Look, I understand from Talk:Nasrani that you are strongly committed to certain theories of the origins of the Knanaya Messianic Christians of SE India. Fine, you can express those views with a Nasrani/Knanaya church publication and say "Nasrani/Knanaya church says...." + author, title, year of publication and page number. No problem. What you cannot do is insert your own opinions as "painstaking work". This is not a blog, this is Wikipedia: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. which means WP:sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What have Nasrani Catholics got to do with this? I can't see any connection.81.103.121.144 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it appears to have a connection for yourself. On Talk:Syrian Malabar Nasrani you have been editing/discussing on the meaning of the Malayali/Arabic/English meaning of the word "Nazarene":

The English transliteration of സുറിയാനി മലബാർ നസ്രാണിക is totally erroneous. It seems like the article was first begun by a Muslim. In Islam they call all Christians "Nasara" and singular is Nasrani. But the correct transliteration of നസ്രാണി would be Nazori or Nasori. No other Christians in India Use this term, only we do, but Nasrani would apply to all the Christians in the world from a Muslim point of view. Can someone change to the correct transliteration please? The name is clearly the same as that Philaster referred to as Nazorei/Nazarei (as too thought Jerome). "The sect of Filaster (Nazorei/Nazarei) derives somehow from the Nazirites and accepts the Law and prophets." ft.12, p.73 'Nazarene Jewish Christianity: from the end of the New Testament period until its disappearance in the fourth century' By Ray Pritz

I do have many Knanaya friends but I honestly don't remember that. Interesting though.81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

These are your edits. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that 81.... necessarily responded to my questions. And, unfortunately, I have to think that we should allow even those who produce the material to determine where it is appropriate to place it, as opposed to having someone else determine where it should be placed. So far as I can tell, FWIW, there is, pretty much, a fairly clear consensus on what "Nazarene (sect)" means. There is not a lot of consensus as to the specific nature of the historical group(s) referrred to by that term, but that is a slightly different matter. I myself cannot say anything on way or another about the use of the term "Nasrani" by the Knanaya Christians, but, if there is some evidence that they claim in some way to be related to the Notzrim or Nazarenes (or anybody elese, for that matter) it would be very useful to have some documentation to that effect presented. And, of course, at least in my opinion, if there are any recent tertiary academic sources, or other review sources, which make fairly clear statements about the term, it would certainly be relevant to have them indicated, as that material is, probably, among the least likely to reflect any sort of inherent bias. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Which question responses were you looking for?81.103.121.144 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144 The question responses I was looking for were the ones I asked:

What WP:source do you have for the statement that there isn't agreement about the meaning of the term Notzrim/Nazarene?

What WP:source do you have for the the statement that Jeremiah's "netzarim" watchmen are Nazarenes?

What WP:source do you have for any of your edits?

Your unsourced changes today are reverted. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you always answer for John Carter?81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, on an unrelated point, I do think that there are probably some places where the article could use some serious work. I noticed in particular that the last names of some of the published sources, like Pritz, are used in the text without first name, even though there had not earlier been any discussion of the source, or, even, any indication in the text of the article as to who exactly this person is, what if any credentials he might have, and why he is included. Also, if I remember, the phrasing is "Pritz says", implying that this is something he said vocally. If what is being referred to is statements in his book, it would certainly be helpful if that were more clearly indicated in the text. And, considering that book by Pritz is itself I believe sufficiently notable for a separate article, and contains enough rather unique content to merit having a place in wikipedia where the totality of his theory is spelled out, I have every reason to think that it would make sense if the editors invovled maybe created an article on the book, which could be directly linked to in this article and others.

Anyway, just a few ideas. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

John, thanks for those comments. Re. >I noticed in particular that the last names of some of the published sources, like Pritz, are used in the text without first name,< yes sorry about that, that I think to be one of several 81.103.121.144's rewrites of the copy in front of academic ref I inserted. Since what the source here (Pritz) is saying and seems born out by other sources, I'll double/triple up on the source, and check there's no alternative academic view. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please follow Talk guidelines

81.103.121.144, no of course I don't answer questions asked others, but you answered inside a block of text by John without adding "John Carter" at the end (which even then isn't a good idea, it's best to answer at the end anyway), making it look as though you were talking to me, and now you have been back and added bold to my in John's comment here. Please answer under Talk text, or clearly indicate where breaking Talk text, and do not edit, even to add bold, to other editors' Talk. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Misleading edit history summaries

81.103.121.144, I'm sorry but while you refuse to give sources It's reasonable to revert back http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Notzrim&action=historysubmit&diff=434917956&oldid=434911815 this]. Firstly because it adds in the lede the unsourced view that "Nazarenes" predate Christianity and are found in Jeremiah please give a WP:source for this claim Secondly all it does is jumble up the academic footnotes I added. Thirdly it misprepresents the situation here on the talk:

1. (cur | prev) 11:43, 18 June 2011 In ictu oculi (talk | contribs) (17,513 bytes) (Undid revision 434917956 by 81.103.121.144 (talk) anon IP editor refuses to discuss) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 11:34, 18 June 2011 81.103.121.144 (talk) (19,202 bytes) (removing in ictu oculi POV problems as per ongoing discussion.) (undo)

I'm sorry, but as far as I can tell you haven't yet provided a single academic source for any of your edits, and you are refusing to discuss them. Which may make your edit summaries misleading, no matter how sincere you are in believing that you are discussing them. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we duplicate the Jesus in the Talmud article material here?

81.103.121.144, Fourthly, a more interesting issue. I note that you've pasted in 2 substantial chunks apparently from the Jesus in the Talmud article:

• Sanhedrin 107b: What of R. Joshua b. Perahjah? — When King Jannai (104-78 B.C.) slew our Rabbis, R. Joshua b. Perahjah (with his student Yeshu) fled to Alexandria of Egypt. On the resumption of peace, Simeon b. Shetach sent to him: 'From me, the holy city, to thee, Alexandria of Egypt (my sister). My husband (the Rabbis) dwelleth within thee and I am desolate.' He arose, went, and found himself in a certain inn, where great honour was shewn him. 'How beautiful is this Acsania!' (can mean inn or female innkeeper) Thereupon (Yeshu) observed, 'Rabbi, her eyes are narrow.' 'Wretch,' he rebuked him, 'dost thou thus engage thyself.' He sounded four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him. He came before him many times pleading, 'Receive me!' But he would pay no heed to him. One day he was reciting the Shema', when Yeshu came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign to him. He thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick, and worshipped it. 'Repent,' said he to him. He replied, 'I have thus learned from thee: He who sins and causes others to sin is not afforded the means of repentance.' And a Master has said, 'Yeshu the Notzri practised magic and led Israel astray.'

I have no objection to this being here, it supports sourced material already in the article which states that Notzrim means Christian in the Talmud. But do we really need this whole chunk, and which edition, which translation is it? Evidently "(104-78 B.C.)" is a note, so whose note is it? Which edition is this? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

[Archiving - moved from personal talk page]

Page protection... Not yet, sorry I'd keep putting on uw-unsourced warnings until he gets to a level 4 and report him, but the edits are spread out enough that that won't work... However, the editor is trying to improve the reference, and has gotten far enough that he does deserve some explanation. But, in trying to find the source he is using, I instead found this book which points out that the Yeshu Toledeth is of no use for serious research except for the history of antichristian polemics. Indeed, I can't seem to locate any texts which discuss Salome Alexandra's role in the Yeshu Toledot. Of the search result for "Salome Alexandra Yeshu Toledot", the first book mentions the Yeshu Toledot, the latter Salome Alexandra, but neither both. While I'm assuming good faith and assuming that Goldstein's "Jesus in the Jewish Tradition" does discuss this, it appears to be a now-rejected anomaly in scholarship. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ian, the book you need is Jesus in the Jewish Tradition by Morris Goldenstein. I have read a lot of Bruce's works and he is a great Christian scholar, but he is simply not familiar enough with the Jewish sources he attempts to handle to understand exactly what he is talking about. It may "appear to be now-rejected" based upon what you have read, but appearances can be deceiving. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, now you are accusing me of vandalism? Where and how, please show me the EXACT edit you interpret as vandalism? 81.103.121.144 (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Notzrim In ictu oculi (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And if anyone is guilty of fringe it is you.81.103.121.144 (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Van Voorst, Neusner etc are not fringe sources. As per Talk:Notzrim you need to present sources other than a medieval rabbinical document for your ideas. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Belatedly pasted this in since should have been on the Talk page in the first place. But regretably see no sign in the last week that the 81.103.121.144 has any interest in providing sources.... In ictu oculi (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia endorsement of Epiphanius removed from Nazarene 4thC paragraph

If this were refed it wouldn't belong here anyway but in Nazarene (sect) anyway, but just to explain why it was removed:

>Thus it appears that the Νασαραίοι were originally composed at least partly of Jews (viz., Israelite-Samaritans) beginning long before the Christian Era, whose anti-Torah teachings may have had some gnostic leanings.<

END .... yes, that's part of Epiphanius attempt to distinguish his own two spellings of Nazarene. But given what Luomanen says (source) Epiphanius isn't an NPOV source unless a post-war academic says "...and he was probably right." The article already says what Epiphanius says (primary source supplied), so article copy doesn't need to then endorse it.In ictu oculi (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad grammar

The passage under "birkat haMinim" is ungrammatical at the moment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.49.10 (talk) 19 June 2011 (UTC)

86.179.49.10 Welcome to Wikipedia. Yes unfortunately that was one of the sentences hacked around by anon IPs. Fixed by repairing "which" to "include". Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Translators who have translated Notzrim as Nazarenes

Here is an honest list of translators who have translated Notzrim as Nazarenes. The list does not include any speculative assumption of intentions of other authors who have not been so clear in their statements.

Waetjen

Please feel free to add to the list and add references. Once complete the opinion will be reported appropriately in the article. Until that time, any attempt to ignore the other uses of the term Notzrim and push the POV that Notzrim means nothing less than Nazarenes WILL BE DELETED.81.103.121.144 (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144

You already DELETED six references showing that Notzrim/Nazarenes are equated in scholarly texts. Among those you DELETED were:

Stephen G. Wilson Related strangers: Jews and Christians, 70-170 C.E. to notzrim (Nazarenes, ie, Christians).

The Cambridge History of Judaism: The late Roman-Rabbinic period 2006 p289 ed. William David Davies, Louis Finkelstein, Steven T. Katz "Krauss recognized that the blessing has undergone change and speculates that the original "must have explicitly named the Nazarenes [Notzrim], for Epiphanius gives us the definite formula, 'may God curse the Nazarenes."In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This is very nice. Please put it in the Birkat HaMinim page where it will be most appropriate. After-all it is only 2 9th century scraps discovered in the Cairo Geniza upon which such theories rest which is pretty fringe so it should not be propagated as the mainstream truth across all related articles. I think your Birkat HaMinim page is growing nicely. Please do include your theories there not here.81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yaakov Y. Teppler, Susan Weingarten 2007 "all the Christians under the name of notzrim/ Nazarenes,"

Page number please. You have made enough errors as anyone can see in this page o make it difficult to believe you on your word only. Once I have recieved the books from the library and verified that you really are being honest in your reportage of quotations (and not just POV pushing) then Teppler can be included in the list of translators.81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Philip F. Esler The Early Christian World "the introduction of the term notzrim (Nazarenes)"

Page number please. You have made enough errors as anyone can see in this page o make it difficult to believe you on your word only. Once I have recieved the books from the library and verified that you really are being honest in your reportage of quotations (and not just POV pushing) then Teppler can be included in the list of translators.81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

R. Travers Herford "reference to Notzrim, Nazarenes,In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Page number please. You have made enough errors as anyone can see in this page o make it difficult to believe you on your word only. Once I have recieved the books from the library and verified that you really are being honest in your reportage of quotations (and not just POV pushing) then Teppler can be included in the list of translators.81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional sources include:

James Louis Martyn History and theology in the Fourth Gospel 2003 p63 "That Christians are included among those who are cursed in the Benediction is placed almost beyond question by the term "Notzrim" (Nazarenes)" In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This is very nice. Please put it in the Birkat HaMinim page where it will be most appropriate. After-all it is only 2 9th century scraps discovered in the Cairo Geniza upon which such theories rest which is pretty fringe so it should not be propagated as the mainstream truth across all related articles. I think your Birkat HaMinim page is growing nicely. Please do include your theories there not here.81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dwight Moody Smith The theology of the Gospel of John 1996 p55 Blessed art thou, O Lord, who humblest the proud!35 In Martyn's view, the Benediction was revised so as to include (and exclude) notzrim (Nazarenes = Christians) and minim (heretics) by Samuel the Small, who flourished ca. 80-90. ...In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This is very nice. Please put it in the Birkat HaMinim page where it will be most appropriate. After-all it is only 2 9th century scraps discovered in the Cairo Geniza upon which such theories rest which is pretty fringe so it should not be propagated as the mainstream truth across all related articles. I think your Birkat HaMinim page is growing nicely. Please do include your theories there not here.81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Marvin R. Wilson Our father Abraham: Jewish roots of the Christian faith -1989 p68 Both texts refer to "the Christians [notzrim, ie, the Nazarenes] and the heretics / minim]."In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I. Davidson Birth of the Church 2005- p144 At some stage, among those who came to be cursed as minim, "heretics," were Notzrim, "Nazarenes." In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the page number. You have made enough errors as anyone can see in this page o make it difficult to believe you on your word only. Once I have recieved the books from the library and verified that you really are being honest in your reportage of quotations (and not just POV pushing) then Teppler can be included in the list of modern translators who would make the term Notzrim (which is a Jewish word first used in Jewish tradition and sources such as in the Talmud to refer to groups in the early 1st century BC) mean Nazarenes.81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Gavin D'Costa Catholic Church and the World Religions 2011 p68 which broke the ties of the notzrim [Nazarenes] with rabbinic Judaism. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the page number. You have made enough errors as anyone can see in this page o make it difficult to believe you on your word only. Once I have recieved the books from the library and verified that you really are being honest in your reportage of quotations (and not just POV pushing) then Teppler can be included in the list of modern translators who would make the term Notzrim (which is a Jewish word first used in Jewish tradition and sources such as in the Talmud to refer to groups in the early 1st century BC) mean Nazarenes.81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Will that do.

In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. For anyone looking at the above and wondering what happened compare Talk history. Some of those page numbers were there in the refs when you deleted them from the article, but I'm quite happy to repeat them:

• Wilson, S. p.182
• Davies, Finkelstein, Katz p.289
• Teppler, Weingarten p.59
• Esler, p.157
• Herford, p.170
• Martyn, p.63
• Smith, D. p.55
• Wilson, M. p.68
• Costa, p.68
• Davidson, p.144

So having now shown 5 refs for Notzrim=Nazarenes which were deleted, and 5 more new ones, there's no reason not to go ahead and restore both the comment and the refs that were deleted is there? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Pre-Christian Notzrim

Now, please show any WP:source for your assertion that Notzrim meant a pre-Christian group in the time of Jeremiah.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, here:

Jeremiah 4:16

טז הַזְכִּירוּ לַגּוֹיִם, הִנֵּה הַשְׁמִיעוּ עַל-יְרוּשָׁלִַם, נֹצְרִים בָּאִים, מֵאֶרֶץ הַמֶּרְחָק; וַיִּתְּנוּ עַל-עָרֵי יְהוּדָה, קוֹלָם.

The Portion on Jeremiah 31:5

ה כִּי יֶשׁ-יוֹם, קָרְאוּ נֹצְרִים בְּהַר אֶפְרָיִם; קוּמוּ וְנַעֲלֶה צִיּוֹן, אֶל-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ. {פ}

And of course the uncensored passage of Sanhedrin 107b clearly placing Yeshu Ha Notzri alive at the time of Jannaeaus which you love to remove from the article.81.103.121.144 (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144 Thank you for the answer, however as before Jeremiah 4:16/31:15 itself is not aWP:source, please see:

WP:PRIMARY

— Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

You don't seem to understand what a Primary source is in history. A Primary source would be if there was a firsthand report from the נֹצְרִים directly. Since Jeremiah is not one of the נֹצְרִים but is writing something concerning them, he is considered a secondary source.81.103.121.144 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• If you want to argue that in those 2 of the 63 uses of the verb natzar the Hebrew Bible text which says "watchers" netsrim נצרים‎ should in fact instead read "Nazarenes" notzrim נוצרים‎, then that's fine, if you can find a WP:source to make your case. I'll check with Brown Driver Briggs in an hour or so, but I'm assuming that BDB will follow Gesenius' Lexicon in "watch" simply meaning "watch", so you'll need a substantial source to argue for inserting an extra vav into the Masoretic Text to change "watchmen" to "nazarenes".

I do finally understand where you are coming from now. But there is a problem with this. The spelling נוצרים‎ does not mean Nazarenes. Can you confirm sources where the spelling נוצרים‎ occurs? We can remove all other references to נצרים‎ away from the article on notability grounds. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Likewise Sanhedrin 107b (in various versions) is a primary source. I have no objection to including Sanhedrin 107b (in which version), provided there is a WP:source. In fact I'll try and remember to find an academic source and include it in gap between restoring other deleted academic sources. What isn't acceptable is you including a variant manuscript of a primary source as a unreferenced fact in the lede line of the article. For example. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry your understanding of first hand reports (primary sources) is wrong again. Talmud is tertiary (not even secondary).81.103.121.144 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• PS, out of interest, since it has a bearing on the likely availability of sources, I'm curious as to whether the view you wish to be presented in the article is that "Jesus the Nazarene" in Sanhedrin 107b (some MSS) who existed 150 years prior to "Jesus the Nazarene" in Matthew/Mark is the same individual, in your opinion, or whether there are two "Jesus the Nazarene"? And is this just your view or all Knanaya? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as this reader can tell, the only person here convinced that Notzrim means Nazarenes is you mate. It is so funny to ready your replies. LOL 212.219.231.1 (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Knanaya have to do with this really.81.103.121.144 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I can answer that :) there is NO 1st centutry AD "Jesus the Nazarene" mentioned in the Talmud. There is only 1st century BC Yeshu Ha Notzri. Jesus Christ is not mentioned in the Talmud silly billy. LOL 212.219.231.1 (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

212.219.231.1. Thank you. May I ask two questions:

(i) which manuscript of Sanhedrin 107b are you basing the comment on?

(ii) is this a formal view of the Syrian Malabar Nasrani or Knanaya church? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone knows it. It really is common sense. How can a Yeshu who was a talmid of Joshua ben Perachyah when Alexander Yannai died still only be 33 in 33AD? Only if he was not Jesus Christ! I challenge you to find one mention of Jesus the Nazarene in the Talmud. If you can I will certainly take my hat off to you. 212.219.231.1 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello 212.219.231.1.

Well the article Jesus in the Talmud details around 30 Biblio sources discussing Jesus in the Talmud, so perhaps you'd want to take it up with the more modern (living) ones, but back to "Everyone knows it. It really is common sense." may I ask:

(i) which manuscript of Sanhedrin 107b are you basing the comment on?

(ii) is this a formal view of the Syrian Malabar Nasrani or Knanaya church?

If you don't know, that's fine also. I'm only asking. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Jesus in the Talmud article is in all honestly crap to put it nicely, and anyway you cant use wiki articles as a source. Find me one place where the Talmud mentions Jesus the Nazarene. As far as Knanaya are concerned... Jesus came from the North. Knanaya were from the south. Jesus promoted Torah. Since the Goa inquisition Knanaya have not been practicing Torah (much). I hope this helps you.212.219.231.1 (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

June 19 edit "(Undoing moronic attempts of the dynamic duo.)"

81.103.121.144. After having been cautioned by an Admin on ANI for calling editors/sources "Nazi" the term "moron" is an improvement but it's still not the way to advance representation of your view on a collective encyclopedia. Generally on Wikipedia, unless it's a very freaky article/subject abandoned to IP edits, one editor or another will eventually spot and remove edits based on e.g. Toledot Yeshu in favour of majority view materials, in this case the view in the 10 refs above. The way to represent the views of Toledot Yeshu, and so on, is to find a modern authority that considers the Toledot Yeshu to be historically accurate and then include that WP:source in the article, or even an Indian Nasrani source if it has author/title/yop. But calling other editors names doesn't advance your cause. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for saying it was moronic. I did not call you Nazi (although the idea that Jews have been curse Christians every morning when they have never done so is pure Nazi and anti-semitic propaganda).81.103.121.144 (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144 opening line of article

81.103.121.144, among your various inserts into text in front of sources is the first line of the article:

Notzrim (Hebrew: נוצרים‎) is a word in late Rabbinical and modern Hebrew, referring to "Christians", though this was not always the case.

Problem 1. The Oxford Hebrew Dictionary 1998 gives only "Christian" as meaning. So the ref has been distorted. Problem 2. As evidence for "late" and "though this was not always the case." you've supplied 2 of 63 uses of natsar in the Hebrew Bible, which in the Masoretic Text say netsarim (watchmen) not notzrim (Christians). Can you provide a WP:source that supports that notzrim used to mean netsarim? Yes/No. Can you provide a WP source? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I finally get where you are coming from. You want the article to be about the word as it is spelled נוצרים‎ not the word as it is spelled נצרים. OK this is fine, if you want you can do that. Please provide the sources where the spelling is ONLY נוצרים‎ then and never נצרים. I will be happy to remove all references to any occurrence which is not spelled נוצרים.‎‎‎ We can have a separate article about occurrences of the word נצרים.‎ 81.103.121.144 (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not a question of "If I want", that is what WP:sources indicate.

See above, the source is the Oxford Hebrew Dictionary 1998 ISBN-10: 9780198601722; ISBN-13: 978-0198601722 now as promised please remove all references to any occurrence which is not spelled נוצרים.‎‎‎

Done.81.103.121.144 (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for an article on the Hebrew verb "to guard". In ictu oculi (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Question of topical notability

I believe WP:NOT#DICT may apply here regarding the notability of this article. So far as I have seen, the majority of the content of this article is, basically, about instances in which the word was used. Unfortunately, wikipedia articles are supposed to be able to provide information about a topic which has received significant enough attention in independent reliable sources as per notability guidelines to merit a separate article. I have yet to see any independent reliable sources which specifically discuss the subject of this article, the "Notzrim", to any significant degree. If the word is simply one which may have been used to refer to several groups, it would probably be possible to include that information in the main Jewish Christians article or the articles on the specific relevant groups. I would ask that independent reliable sources which specifically and clearly establish the notability of the topic of this article be provided. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I can agree with that :) Perhaps it should simply be a re-direct page. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's unlikely to be a redirect. The likely result would be the content and references you have been removing would be moved to more prominent positions in the Nazarene (title) and/or other articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

John, you have hit the nail on the head, I don't believe the topic is notable, it seems to be a WP:POVFORK about Nazarene (title) and for most of the history of the article have been subject to WP:fringe editing. Having a separate entry for the Hebrew spelling of Nazarene doesn't make much sense on English wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the text as it was prior to the IPs' latest revert, preserving the Notability tag. That means that the Sanhedrin 107b text chunk which doesn't mention Nazarenes drops off, but can't see anything else lost.In ictu oculi (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And immediately, after 1 week of appealing to this anon IP for any WP:source, the IP reverts....:

Notzrim‎; 21:45 . . (+1,575) . . 81.103.121.144 (talk) (Undid revision 435348378 by In ictu oculi (talk) Sorry mate, Notzrim means Notzrtim, long distinct from Nazarenes by consensus. The two words are spelled different for a start.) (Tag: references removed)

Presumably by "The two words are spelled different for a start." 81.103.121.144 means the two Hebrew words netsarim ("watcher" 2 Kings 17:9, Jeremiah 31:6) and notzarim ("Christian, Nazarene" Rabbinical and Modern Hebrew) which is the opposite of his/her argument that the words are the same in Jeremiah given above. Odd. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well actually, now that I know what you mean, i would like to see an article which is either only about Notzrim or Netzarim but not one which confuses the two terms (as you indicate this one might be doing).81.103.121.144 (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144

There is no need on Wikipedia for an article on the Hebrew verb "watch, guard", try Wiktionary. The word netsrim ("watchers" 2 Kings 17:9, Jeremiah 31:6) is a present participle plural of the verb natsar, it is no relation to either "Nazarene/Christian" nor, incidentally to "green shoots" (Netzarim (settlement))

Anyway, if you know accept that the Oxford Hebrew Dictionary is correct, and the word Notzrim does not mean watchmen, will you now restore the text of the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to insert references to where Notzrim (not Netzarim) occurs in Hebrew scriptures. Be careful though as you know I will remove any references which are not about what you have argued for, i.e. Notzrim NOT Netzarim.81.103.121.144 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144

The only person who has been inserting references to "watchmen" is yourself for 1 week now.

Why am I wasting my time with this? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No disrespect intended to any of the editors here, but how can the Nasaraioi not be notable? There is a whole chapter written about them in the Panarion. They were a Samaritan-Jewish sect (pre-Christian) who were daily bathers and practiced vegetarianism. I wouldn't expect Randy to be writing about this, but someone should dig into the literature and get it right. In ictu oculi, you seem to be involved in this dispute somehow. Can you help out here? Ovadyah (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked into the problem a bit more. It seems that the main difficulty is an inability to distinguish between the Greek names Νασαραίοι and Ναζωραίοι and their Hebrew equivalents. The worst possible solution would be to merge this article with the Nazarene (sect). That would be the equivalent of saying we are all so ignorant as editors we can't tell the difference and, therefore, neither can our readers. I wouldn't bet on it. Ovadyah (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct Ovadyah, except that In ictu oculi's willful ignorance is the only reason there is a dispute (he IS the Randy if you like), but he is learning slowly. He does not recognize the difference between the gnostic Nasaraioi (Notzrim) and the somewhat unexciting Nazuraioi (Nazarenes) yet.81.103.121.144 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess we had better not talk about the Naasenes then either! :0D Ovadyah (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame that you retired. :\ 81.103.121.144 (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite yet, but my plan is to sign off by the end of the week. Ovadyah (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ovadyah, thanks for your input. A couple of comments:

(1) the distinction between S and TS in changing between languages is inevitably fluid. This is one of those "common knowledge" things to anyone with any hands-on knowledge of linguistics, but I could probably find a source if anyone wants to challenge this.

(2) Epiphanius has his objectives/agenda in distinguishing 1stC Nazarenes from his 4thC Nazarenes and distinguishing the spelling [of Nasaraioi].

(3) The Toledot Yeshu/Sanhedrin 107b(some MSS) also has objectives/agenda in trying to merge netsarim "watchers" from Jeremiah (why just Jeremiah why not 2 Kings etc?) with Nazarene.

(4) The Syrian Malabar Nasrani/Knanaya, as 81.103.121.144, also have their objectives/agenda in trying to reconstruct an ethnic identity/origin story.

(5) Since Notzri is a title, I'm assuming the suggestion to merge would be with Nazarene (title) not Nazarene (sect).

Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

the following were moved from 81.103.121.144 in-line comments and the numbering (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) added for clarity:

(1) LOL if only he knew who he was talking to. The hubris of some folks is astounding.81.103.121.144 (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(2) Do you have a source for that? LOL81.103.121.144 (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(3) Sure, there are conspiracies everywhere. Best not take anything the Jews say at face value right? LOL81.103.121.144 (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(4) You still have not explained what your hypothetical connection is. If anything Knanaya might side with your views.81.103.121.144 (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(5) Oh so now you are open to the idea of a merge? Whatever changed your mind?81.103.121.144 (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144

(1)

(2) yes, but as someone who has in the last month of disruptive editing not provided a single source, and is deleting sources from the article, you're not really in a position to ask others for more sources.

(3) you have been warned by an admin on ANI against calling people "Nazi". The last charge of antisemitism you made against a source was against an Israeli author.

(4) Talk:Syrian Malabar Nasrani

(5) Please read what John Carter said, and my response; a "merge," if that is the route, would mean the sources you disagree with and are deleting would still be there in other articles.

Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi In ictu oculi. I don't mean to beat a WP:dead horse but Epiphanius discusses the Νασαραίοι in Panarion Chp.18 while the Ναζωραίοι are discussed in Chp.29. You might want to review this material before you go any further. Jerome also mentions the Νασαραίοι as one of the seven Jewish sects. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ovadyah, sorry yes I didn't finish my sentence, I meant "distinguishing the spelling [of Nasaraioi from 1stC and 4thC Nazarenes] per Pritz p.45, Nasaraioi, as a probably invention/misunderstanding/tale of Epiphanius don't rate more than a footnote. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental issue remains. We are not so much dependent upon what the primary sources say, and in this case the primary source being discussed is Epiphanius. Our concern is whether there are any independent reliable sources which clearly distinguish between the Notzrim and the Nazarenes as early Jewish Christian groups. If there are independent reliable sources which indicate that these differently-named groups are in fact seen by modern academics as separate groups, I would love to see them. Until and unless those sources are presented, then we are more or less supposed to adhere to policies and guidelines and, effectively, place the greatest weight on the consensus academic opinion, which might, in this case, lump the differently named groups together. Even if the content was merged, the different sources could be presented in different sections. However, the obligation as per WP:BURDEN in this case is upon those who wish to change the material, or, in this case, keep the material as a separate article. I well understand that there might be internet groups or other groups which indicate that they are different groups, and if they are sufficiently notable they might be referred to in individual articles about themselves. However, short of that, we are more or less supposed to produce the independent reliable sources which draw a differentiation between them. John Carter (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Correction, Epiphanius is secondary, not primary.81.103.121.144 (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Also the objective behind all wiki policies is to build a better encyclopedia. History is not like science. In science the opinions of the most recent scholars is important. In history, no new opinion can ever be counted as evidence.81.103.121.144 (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Academic consensus is important in the disciplines such as the correct definition of a Pluto as a dwarf planet. But if academic consensus was to replace the validity of historic sources then we would be in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union for example. There is no such thing as one size fits all when it comes to different disciplines which require completely conflicting approaches. This is why Richard Dawkins although an outstanding geneticist is not even a rank amateur theologian for example (no idea about critical engagement with a text).81.103.121.144 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Page content reduced to stub

81.103.121.144

>(cur | prev) 22:18, 20 June 2011 81.103.121.144 (talk) (351 bytes) (In ictu oculi, is this what you want to see? Or a redirect page? Please feel free to revert to my previous edit if not.) (undo)

No 81.103.121.144, what I would like to see, as I think you well know, is the academic sources you have deleted or distorted in rewriting the text before them restored. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

So should I accept that you are not genuine now and that you really just want to keep on changing your mind about what you want chopping and changing as you see fit? Either you can have the article about the spelling you have repeatedly demanded נוצרים‎ or you can have it about נצרים‎ or you can have it about both if you accept that both are variant spellings of the same root word meaning watchers/watchmen (not Nazarenes). I will be watching. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)‎ Remember the current stub is what you demanded. You can expand it. But if you do put in one reference to a source where the Hebrew spelling is not נוצרים‎ then it will be reverted to the original article. Afterall it is clear that this whole argument is just about your education n the subject and once that is over it should be restored to something which benefits the readers and not just you alone.81.103.121.144 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144

No one demanded the current stub, John suggested a redirect, which is a redirect not a stub.

>Either you can have the article about the spelling you have repeatedly demanded Notzrim < YES, PLEASE (that is the article title)

>or you can have it about "watchmen" < NO, THANKS

>or you can have it about both < NO, THANKS

I hope that is clear. Do you understand now?

Will you please restore all the academic sources you have deleted?

If you do not intend to restore them please explain why. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The academic article was about both words which is not what YOU DEMANDED. You demanded REPEATEDLY that this article be about נוצרים‎ so now you have your chance to write such an article from scratch. My only request is that now you have what you demanded that you do NOT include any reference to the Hebrew word נצרים‎ or there would be no point in starting the article again from scratch. If you insist that it is about Nazarenes then it should be a redirect page but I am willing to see what you do with the page about נוצרים‎ alone and not about נצרים‎. If you start to bring in references to נצרים‎ then certainly I will restore the article to my version which deals with the subject much more honestly than yours.81.103.121.144 (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Other editors, can someone else either deal with this IP or simply revert him/her

The IP either is ably gaming Wikipedia or has no clue about what/why he/she is editing. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The only person who does not know what he is talking about here is YOU! You whine and whine to get what you want and then you don't know what to do when you do get it because quite simply you are ignorant of the fundamental facts.81.103.121.144 (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew dictionary page numbers as requested

The page number for the entry "Christian adj. n. Notzri"

• Oxford Hebrew Dictionary 1999 p.69
• The New Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew & English Dictionary, Dr. Sivan Reuven, Dr. Edward A. Levenston, 2009 p.50
• Ben Yehuda's Hebrew Dictionary, 1940 reprint, p.450

In ictu oculi (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you write here the Hebrew spelling used in those places please? Is it נצרים, נוצרים, נוצרי‎, or נצרי‎ which one every time? or does it vary depending upon source?81.103.121.144 (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144

I note despite the friendly advice about your 2x WP:3RR you didn't voluntarily return the edit to that of Editor2020, therefore I have done so. And added in the page numbers requested above.

Yes, of course the Hebrew word notzri נוצרי is in the dictionaries as notzri נוצרי. The verb natsar guard/watch, from which the participle netsarim found in "tower of the watchmen" 2 Kings, etc. has no connection with with the Rabbinical term notzri, which does not occur in the Hebrew Bible.

Back to WP:sources from where did you get the strong conviction that it did? From Toledoth Yeshu, or from a Syrian Malabar Nasrani text? For example I note that Vellian, Jacob (2001) Knanite community: History and culture; Syrian church series; vol.XVII; Jyothi Book House, Kottayam is used as a source in the Knanaya article. Is this, or similar the source for your belief that Nazarenes predate Jesus of Nazareth? If it is a source it can be used in the article.

Please do not revert the page to your own views again without first presenting here a text, with author, title, year, page as a source. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry I can not allow you yourself to include references to נצרי in the article if you insist that it must be about נוצרי only. You need to prove that every reference you are inserting is about נוצרי only and not about נצרי. Start with the Talmud. Put in every quote in Hebrew first alongside the English and then the Toledoth Yeshu the same, then finally we will be getting somewhere. Once I am satisfied that you are not mixing up your terms then I will get off your case on this. Note how I am not hounding you on other pages, because there is no personal vendetta (unlike your approach to my edits on other pages). All I want is to see you have learned about the topic enough to comment appropriately.81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

നസ്രാണി = Nazori not Nasrani

duplicated here from Talk:Syrian Malabar Nasrani The English transliteration of സുറിയാനി മലബാർ നസ്രാണിക is totally erroneous. It seems like the article was first begun by a Muslim. In Islam they call all Christians "Nasara" and singular is Nasrani. But the correct transliteration of നസ്രാണി would be Nazori or Nasori. No other Christians in India Use this term, only we do, but Nasrani would apply to all the Christians in the world from a Muslim point of view. Can someone change to the correct transliteration please? 81.103.121.144 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC) The name is clearly the same as that Philaster referred to as Nazorei/Nazarei (as too thought Jerome). "The sect of Filaster (Nazorei/Nazarei) derives somehow from the Nazirites and accepts the Law and prophets." ft.12, p.73 'Nazarene Jewish Christianity: from the end of the New Testament period until its disappearance in the fourth century' By Ray Pritz 81.103.121.144 (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144, I hope you will understand that I am trying to understand where your strong conviction comes from. You note that only "we" use the term നസ്രാണി Nazori, wheras Nasrani would be all Christians. Do you consider that the your church the നസ്രാണി Nazori of Kerala are descended from the "watchmen" of Jeremiah? or from the Notzrim in rabbinical writings? Is that the reason for these edits? It would help greatly to understand the connection. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Notzrim vs Notzarim

Apparently In ictu oculi believes that the terms נוצרי and נצרי are from entirely different roots and are never to be mixed up. He proposes that נוצרי refers uniquely to Christians only and נצרי refers to watchers (as in Jeremiah and the book of kings). If there really is no linguistic interchangeability between the terms then it really does pose a significant challenge to the original structure of the article which assumed that there is no significant difference between the terms. However, it also means that the spellings in the original Hebrew in the Talmudic, the Toledoth Yeshu and the Rabbinical sources for example need to be re-checked to ensure that there is no confusion in the discussion. In ictu oculi has already checked the Bible and has found no occurrence of the spelling נוצר which is a helpful step forward. Now the same needs to be done for all the versions of the Talmud and all the versions of the Tledoth Yeshu and all the classical rabbinical writings. We need to be absolutely certain that an author has not confused נוצר with נצר in their work and if they have then an appropriate comment needs to be made to highlight the problem in the scholarly works to readers who might swallow them whole. This is the duty of an encyclopedia. Clear and critical reportage concerning the sources and commentaries will do the trick.

Now if In ictu Oculi is proven correct then it means that much of this article as it was written before he came along may have been about Notzarim and not about Notzrim at all! In which case references by Epiphanius to Nasaraioi who predated the Nazuraioi may be about the Notzarim (watchers) and not about the Notzrim as the article originally assumed. It might therefore be the Notzarim and not the Notzrim who are thought to be related to the Mandaeans. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In ictu may well be right but it looks like she will have to be doing original research to prove it.212.219.231.1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

He was involved in original research when he was trying synthesis. But simply reporting on what the sources say is not original research (though research is involved) it is just reportage.81.103.121.144 (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Contribution, not revert war

In ictu oculi, do you see how many authors are contributing a little here and a little there without completely re-writing the article? Can you see that your ideas have been incorporated into the current version? Can you see that there are still places where citations are needed? Why don't you try to joining with the rest of us and contribute say some citations which back up the views which we have included for you here waiting for you to cite? Your contribution would still be just as welcome today as it was when you first touched the article before you got stuck in your unilateral POV push agenda. If you can be a good sport and just stop re-writing the whole thing but insert your citations where they have been requested, that would be great.81.103.121.144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

Question for the anon IPs

A question for the various anon IPs who are promoting that the Hebrew term Notzri ("Christian") predates rabbinical/dictionary WP:source usage. How many referenced WP:source materials (author/title/publ/year/page) have you contributed to this article? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, you don't even understand what a secondary source is in history so stop pointing fingers at splinters until you take that plank out of your own eye. There would be more refs here if you hadn't removed the ones you don't like. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As above, I have no objection to Sanhedrin 107b being included in the article, it should be included even though it does not mention notzrim pl., and I would like to supply it along withWP secondary or tertiary sources. In fact that is what I have now done, leaving the note

reverted to article history where lede agrees with sources. Sanhedrin 107b added with 4 refs, but primary source as footnote needs confirmation.

• reverted to article history where lede agrees with sources. means that the words reversing the Oxford, Bantam and Yehuda dictionary page no. refs in the first sentence have again been removed as conflicting with sources.
• Sanhedrin 107b added with 4 refs, but primary source as footnote needs confirmation. means that I've added mention of it with 4 academic refs. And kept your own version of the Sanhedrin 107b primary text as a 5th ref. The problem remains however that this translation isn't sourced. I haven't checked Ian.Thomson's observation of a possible copyright problem.

Plus of course Jesus in the Talmud already has an article which is linked before and after the short summary paragraph in this article on notzrim.

Now back to the question; How many referenced WP:source materials (author/title/publ/year/page) have you contributed to this article? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Another day, another IP revert

Here we go again:

lede per 81.103.121.144 version

— Notzri (Hebrew: נוצרי‎‎) and Notzrim (Hebrew: נוצרים‎‎) are derogatory words in late Rabbinical and modern Hebrew, referring to "Christians"[1][2][3] though this was not always the case.[4][5] It is not regarded as respectful by all Hebrew-speaking Christians who generally prefer the name Meshiykhiyyim[6][7] (Hebrew: משיחיים‎). The exact meaning of the word is "watchers" (sometimes spelled נצרים) although some more recent translators, despite significant problems, render it in English as Nazarene.[citation needed]

81.103.121.144 changes are:

• references [1][2][3] do not indicate that the word is "derogatory"
• "though this was not always the case." is inserted before [4][5] even though [4][5] say nothing of the kind.
• "It is not regarded as respectful by all Hebrew-speaking Christians" - no source
• "The exact meaning of the word is "watchers" (sometimes spelled נצרים)" - no source, other than Syrian Malabar Nasrani tradition?
• "although some more recent translators, despite significant problems, render it in English as Nazarene." [citation needed] - which translators translate notzrim as anything else other than "Nazarene/Christian"?

81.103.121.144 has still failed to provide a single WP:sources for his/her edits and is inserting his/her church's POV in front of academic references which say the opposite. This then continues through the article... In ictu oculi (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeremiah's watchmen

I deleted the small section about the occurrence of the word "watchmen" in Jeremiah. One of them is a mistranslation - the verse doesn't say anything about "watchers" come from a far country, it says "A besieging army is coming from a distant land, raising a war cry against the cities of Judah", which makes a lot more sense. Jer.31:6 (Christian verse-count) does say "There will be a day when watchmen cry out on the hills of Ephraim, ‘Come, let us go up to Zion'", but I can't see that this has any relevance to the use of the word "notzrim" meaning Christians. (So there were watchmen in Israel in Jeremiah's day, is this so surprising?) Also, you can't just pluck bible verses and single words out of their context like this - you need to read them against the time when they were written, and to do that properly you need to consult a good commentary. PiCo (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, many thanks but I think that's not the latest version of the page. The edit previous to yours 07:24, 23 June 2011 81.103.121.144 (talk) (19,879 bytes) (reverted to 18:00, 22 June 2011 by 93.97.194.200 in ictu oculi needs to learn how to collaborate with other editors rather than push ahead unilaterally with singular POV) (undo) was the IP effectively returning the article to his/her version of several months ago, at least as concerns the main message, this Jeremiah watchman theory, to see the latest version with academic refs added over the last 3 weeks you need to click the penultimate version. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I would very seriously consider putting this article up for deletion. It's unreadable. It conveys no coherent body of information. But most of all, and listen well, it isn't encyclopediac. Encyclopedias explain things and concepts; they do not (repeat, not) define words. That's what dictionaries are for. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article, insofar as it's about anything, is an attempt to define the word "notzrim" through extensive, and quite mind-numbing, quotations. I'm quite sure that it would be deleted if anyone raised that possibility in the right forum. PiCo (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it never should have existed, other than on Hebrew wikipedia, where it does exist as a quite sensible article, about Christians. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

New Lead-in section

I have learned a lot from the discussions and conflict above. This is a suggestion for the lead in based upon what I have learned from reading through the interesting debates concerning this page (you can all put your references in which you cited at the points I have idicated). Let's cooperate:

Notzrim (singular Notzri) refer to an enigmatic group (or groups) of people described in Hebrew traditions((fact)). The words also appears transcribed as Notsri and Nosrim as well as a variety of other transcriptions of נוצר generally spelled נצר‎ in older texts without the helpful waw. The first known occurence of the waw spelling (נוצרים) is in two copies of the Amidah found in the Cairo Geniza. It has sometimes been translated as Nazarenes((fact)) while standard Rabbinical and Mordern Hebrew the word Notzrim (נוצרים) simply means Christians((fact)), although there are Christians who object to the word in preference to Meshiykhiyyim((fact)). The fact that they are mentioned in the Talmud((fact)) 100 years before Jesus of Nazareth((fact)) adds to the controversy. The folkloric Toledoth Yeshu builds upon this idea making connection to the watchmen of mount Ephraim mentioned in Jeremiah((fact)). This description matches that of the Nasaraioi mentioned by Epiphanius in contrast to the Nazuraioi((fact)). The following article will attempt to explain the concept in relation to its contexts.

Now what is wrong with that for a compromise?212.219.231.1 (talk)

I think it is a great start. I have put brackets in where in ictu can put his sources in if he would like to participate in constructive editing and team effort rather than continue in his lone gunman ways.81.103.121.144 (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

212.219.231.1 how many WP:sourced edits have you contributed to this article? 15:41, 24 June 2011 User:In ictu oculi

Please don't be a wet blanket, we obviously all really want you to drop the macho-master attitude and join in with us humble anon IPs to build a constructive encyclopedic entry. Just because you have a user account may give you more user rights but certainly does not make you automatically right nor a more experienced wiki user. Be nice :) 81.103.121.144 (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)