Talk:Notzrim/Archive 1

untitled comments

Hm. Well this friendly Gentile wonders whether ythese guys mean Netzerim? And hearing that some sect existed is less engaging for me as hearing how we know they existed, where they existed, what they thought if we know, or whether we don't know and what kind of writing survive. The rest is rather fancy gossip. Wetman 03:12, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Notzrim is simply Hebrew for "Christians." Danny 03:15, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Note that Wetman's referral to Netzerim refers to the spelling used in Nazarene (sect) Dchmelik (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Netzrim" means "branches" and usually isn't used in Hebrew to refer to people. "Notzrim" is a Hebrew word and refers to any believer in Jesus in Hebrew, Jewish or Gentile. Joe 7:16, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.43.156 (talk)

This is a complex subject with many twists and turns. It very well could be merged with the Nazarene article, since that article takes up aspects of the subject which include this one. However, it would probably take a top-notch scholar, whose specialty would include the Mandaens of Iraq, to do a good job of it. The pre-Christian sect split into at least three groups with the coming of John the Baptist and Jesus; and further splits and mergers could lead to further confusion unless dealt with masterfully. Firecircle (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, why not simplify things by keeping the pre-Christian and post-Christian group separate, and then providing a link between them? I am attempting to clarify the above article (Notzrim) by doing minor editing, adding authentic material, and providing external links and references. This may take awhile to get it right--help from others knowledgeable about the subject will certainly be appreciated. Firecircle (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that anyone is monitoring this article (since Feb. 2007), so after attempting to clarify it and supplying ample citations, I took it upon myself to remove the warnings. Forgive me, if I'm out of line. Firecircle (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Proposed Merger with Mandaeism' (that someone replaced the above one with in the merge statement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not merge into Mandaeism. -- ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 08:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article (and a few others) should be merged with Mandaeans.82.6.29.26 (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These groups don't seem that closely related, and both have enough references and information to support separate articles.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, then I started the next section.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mandeans seem to be related to the Cainites as contrasting gnostic sect, and one should relate John the Baptist with Simon Magnus, because there is no documentation ever relating the earliest gnostic sects with John the Baptist. There is too much speculation from the footnoted source.

Firm Disagree. These groups are distinct, if suffering from marginalisation and risking eradication. We should not attempt to artificially crunch together their distinctiveness and thereby eradicate it further.- Peter Ellis - Talk 23:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firm disagree. They are not the same group. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 08:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This whole article is a disaster. It makes no mention at all of the possibility, to say nothing of the likelihood, that Notzrim originated as a term for the earliest Christians. As it states in the article Jewish view of Jesus:

Ha-Notzri, which has been variously understood as a person from Nazareth or a person belonging to a group called Notzrim (Guardians, or watchmen).

I would argue for a simple refferal to the article Nazarenes. Barrett Pashak (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is a disaster. IMO the first thing that needs to happen is a disambiguation of terms, so that those who deny Yeshua is deity (such as Ben David's organization) can have their own term, while those who believe Yeshua is Elohim (G-d) can have theirs, without an ensuing tug-of-war. I would like to help with cleaning this page up, but need help adding to the cites before I can do that. They changed the link with regards to adding cites. Can anyone please point me in the right direction? Much thanks, Norman Willis, servant@nazareneisrael.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazareneisrael (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) :)[reply]

[...]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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)^{[citation needed]}.

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

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)^{[citation needed]}. " 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

> 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]