Talk:Notzrim/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You are very insulting. Have you ever thought that any one of us could have written EXACTLY the same sort of things about you? Hmmm?81.103.121.144 (talk)

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)

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)

Academic consensus is also one of the primary ways in which we determine weight as per WP:WEIGHT, one of our core policies. So far as I have seen, in the admittedly little work I have done in checking the tertiary and overview sources which have been immediately available, both of these groups are included in the single "Nazarene" article, although at least one mentions that there should be more work done relating to the topic because of the possible distinctions between groups lumped together under this name. And, for what it might be worth, I also note that some similar related words are used to describe Mandaeans, and such is mentioned in at least one of the overview tertiary sources. Given the apparently large number of possibly/probably disparate uses of the term, I tend to think that there would be some use for a dab page, listing all the variations, and, at least at this point, one separate article discussing the groups referred to in the Nazarene articles in the tertiary sources. Particularly considering that the groups mentioned by Epiphanius are not discussed at great length in the tertiary sources I've seen, individually or collectively, I cannot see why they should not both be able to be adequately discussed in a single article, given the length our articles are permitted to reach. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I for my part both agree and disagree with you. The history of how the Nazarene articles have been expanded and gradually eased away from their original purpose presumably by people with a very heavy Christian agenda not happy about what the evidence says. It is in the best interests of such people to confuse the issues and lump together. Yet only a very poor Encyclopedia will "lump" together. A good one clarifies distinctions and explains concepts. At the same time I like very much your other suggestions. The problem is, there will be no single suitable word to "lump" all the different words under as each of them stands for clearly distinct concepts. But I would like to read more about your suggestion on this if you could expand a little more please.149.254.218.241 (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning weight, remember that a fact (direct evidence) can never be outweighed by any interpretive opinion. Weight is only relevant in this case to the interpretive opinions. A good encyclopedia entry will outline the facts and follow them up by outlining various interpretations which have gained weight in academic circles. It sometimes means an entry on the facts can be very small but may also lead into another article (or even articles if there are more than one conflicting weighty interpretations) which might be very large discussing each interpretive opinion as a valid concept in its own right.149.254.218.241 (talk) 16:38, 26 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 Modern 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)

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

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)

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)

81.103.121.144, it isn't particularly "wet blanket" or "macho-master" to ask you a simple question; please indicate what WP:source have you contributed to this article? As regards "humble" your behaviour isn't noticably humble. A "humble" person does not take WP:ownership of an article insisting on his/her own view, while failing to provide any WP:source. And as regards "anon IPs", part of the problem with anon IP edits is that it is more difficult for admins to take action when you e.g. WP:3RR or delete tags and references, in this case you're hiding under the claim on your talk page that others use your account, while 212.219.231.1 is using a Cardiff City Council IP, and the other IPs I don't know. Given your editing behaviour and given your apparent sole interest in representing a certain Malabar Syrian Nasrani view, if you IPs wish to be "constructive" and "contribute" then register or at least start to abide by some of Wikipedia's policies. In particular please don't edit other's Talk you edited 212.219.231.1's lede suggestion, even when you're working together. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Friend, the only person guilty of trying to take WP:ownership of the article is you. Every single request for collaborative participation from you has been met with an aggressive and angry response.81.103.121.144 (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144 It is neither "aggressive" or "angry" that every revert you make to your version be followed by a request: please indicate your WP:sources, and had you not made 30x reverts to your version (of the lede for example), you would not have been asked 20x times for a WP:source. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That's an improvement in my opinion - it defines the subject as a group of people instead of as a word, which shifts it from dictionary to encyclopedia. It also seems pretty comprehensive. Are you sure about a reference in the Talmud 100 years before Jesus? - so far as I know the Talmuds date from around 300 AD at the earliest. PiCo (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pico, yes the Talmuds are from the date you mentioned. The reference User:212.219.231.1 made which I gather from the discussions over the past few weeks here is to a translation of Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 107b provided by User:149.254.61.35 where it mentions a certain Notzri who lived during the reign of Jannaeus Alexander.81.103.121.144 (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi PiCo. Yes, as a format for the lede it would be an improvement. Though the content of that lede draft as presented by 212.219.231.1 is still basically tilted to unsourced views rather than representing WP:sources such as Teppler, Neusner, Cambridge History, Oxford Dictionary, etc. And the question remains whether the IPs will allow content which contradicts this certain Syrian Malabar Nasrani belief to enter the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you are not going to put the references in where I suggested you can (and I know you can from the references you have provided) I suppose I will have to be doing that too as well. But this is not because i want to take ownership, it is because you are refusing to join in the team effort here. I will give you some time to cool off and change your attitude. You might think better of it later. I do hope you will join in rather than insist on going your own way.81.103.121.144 (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144, your behaviour - disruptive edits, 3RR reverts to your own version, calling people/sources "Nazis," amending text in front of WP:source references to say the opposite of the footnote, and so on is getting very tiresome. I do not have to, and in fact no one has to, rearrange the WP:sources in the article to slot into a tilted lede 212.219.231.1 and yourself have drafted. There is a more significant problem WP:sources will not fit in your lede - do you understand? You cannot just write a lede that expresses a particular Indian Nasrani view and then just "drop" mainstream scholarly WP:sources into the slots behind your views. These views you have are religious convictions, and as such they can only be sourced by a secondary source describing the religious views of a certain group. i.e. It's okay to say e.g. "India's Nasranis believe they are descended from a pre-Christian Nasrani Jewish group" and then give author/title/year/page, but it's not okay to write ones own religious convictions up as historical fact, no matter how strongly you may believe them, without academic sources. This is an encyclopedia not a blog. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

From reading this, I gather that the notzrim (Hebrew word) are identical with the nazoreans (Greek word). The Greek is mentioned first in Acts (1st century) and then in Epiphanius and Jerome (4th century). I gather that the Hebrew texts fall in the middle of that period. In between 1st and 4th centuries the nazoreans/notzrim changed their nature, from Jewish Christians to Christian Jews. They remained messianic throughout this period (naturally enough - they were Christians) but in between point A and point B they became alienated from the synagogues (meaning from community Judaism). Here's a good quote: "The notzrim of the rabbis were probably both Christian Jews within the fellowship of the synagogue (in the earlier references) and Jewish Christians outside (especially in later references up to the 5th century)." (see page 252 of the link). From that, I suggest changing the first sentence of the lead as follows: "Notzrim' (singular notzri') is the Hebrew term for the Nazoreans, a community mentioned in early Christian texts; they were probably both Christian Jews within the synagogue (in the earliest centuries of Christianity) and Jewish Christians outside (especially in later references up to the 5th century) - followed by the reference. PiCo (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sadly your suggestion is problematic for the following reasons. Apart from you apparently missing the answer to your Talmud question above (placing Notzrim at least 100 years before the Nazoreans), of course we need to remember that Greek is Greek and Hebrew is Hebrew. But if we are going to talk about greek terms then there are at least 4 which need consideration. Nazir, Nazuraiun, Nazuraioi, and Nasaraioi. Now, Epiphanius is very careful to distinguish between Nazuraioi and Nasaraioi. Nazuraioi are nothing more nor less than Torah observant Jews according to his report. However, Nasaraioi on the other hand according to him from existed before the time of Christ and were Samaritans who abandoned the Torah in favour of other practices. Nazuraiun are only mentioned for the first time in the book of acts and their practices are difficult to discuss because of so many conflicting different views on what this community should have been doing according to the various doctrines of the plethora of Christian communities world-wide who lay claim to that heritage. For this reason Nazuraiun must be left out of it and are worthy of their own mammoth entry (which is currently called Nazarene (sect)). Nazir is a term etymologically connected to Nazuraioi and Nazuraiun, but not to Nasaraioi. It is tempting to write one huge article about all these (and many other) groups all together, but it really does lead to obscuring of the relevant issues. Finally remember, in the Talmud, Notzrim were already remembered to have been a problem to the Jews long before Christ, meanwhile the conflict between Jews and Christians caused by the transition of Nazoraeans from Jewish Christian to Christian Jews is far too late for them to be precisely the same group. Of course we can dismiss the validity of the Talmud in accurately conveying a historical report, but that would be a bit imperialistic to do so (suggesting for example that only Christian sources are valid in their reportage). 81.103.121.144 (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, PiCo, thanks for taking the time on a flysized subject like Les nazaréens. Yes that chapter by Martinus C. de Boer, Vrije Universiteit-Amsterdam in Tolerance and intolerance in early Judaism and Christianity, and his conclusions (1) on continuity, (2) Tertullus' calling Christians "Nazoreans/Nazarenes" and (3) "For this reason, the Notzrim of the rabbis were probably both Christian Jews within the fellowship of the synagogue (especially in the earlier references to them) and Jewish Christians outside that fellowship (especially in later references up to the 5th century)" is a completely reasonable thing to have in the lede. The only problem would be that "up to the 5th century" would be "was" rather than "is" since we're in 2011, and de Boer's frame of reference is only 1st-4th C. when most Christians with whom Jews interacted were indeed ethnically Jewish also. The term notzrim very quickly passes in post-Talmudic Hebrew literature to primarily mean Gentile Christians, as per Amos Funkenstein, "Ha-T'murot B'Vikuah Ha-Dat She-Ben Y'hudim L'Notzrim B'Meah Ha-Yud Bet" (The Changes in the Religious Disputations between Jews and Christians during the Twelfth Century), Zion 33:3-4 (1968), and per the 3 dictionaries (Bantam; Oxford; Ben Yehuda) as sources in version of the lede under the Indian Nazarene IPs' reversions.

I note in passing that de Boer's conclusions illustrate what User John Carter and Jayjg in earlier article history pointed out; that an article on Notzrim is simply a duplication of either Nazarene (title) or Nazarene (sect), and that it doesn't make a great deal of sense to have duplicate articles for Greek and Hebrew spellings, any more than one on Les nazaréens. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I just made 2 edits

(1) adding in medieval Spain. on top of restoring version with John Carter's notability tag,

(2) disambiguating sublede with main|Nazarene (title)|Nazarene (sect) and some disamb comment supported by Schnabel ref pointing to main articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing the lead-in only so lets first settle the matter with the lead in only then move onto step two. No more unilateral action please. Show some respect for other editors. Thank you.81.103.121.144 (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Notzrim (singular Notzri) refer to an enigmatic group (or groups) of people described in Hebrew traditions((cite: Tanakh, Talmud, Toledoth Yeshu, Maimonides, etc.)). 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((cite: Martinus C. de Boer)) while standard Rabbinical and Modern Hebrew the word Notzrim (נוצרים) simply means Christians(()), although there are Christians who object to the word in preference to Meshiykhiyyim(()). The fact that they are mentioned in the Talmud(()) 100 years before Jesus of Nazareth(()) adds to the controversy. The folkloric Toledoth Yeshu builds upon this idea((cite: Goldstein)) making connection to the watchmen of mount Ephraim mentioned in Jeremiah(()). This description matches that of the Nasaraioi mentioned by Epiphanius in contrast to the Nazuraioi((cite: Ephiphanius on Samaritan Nasaraioi)). The following article will attempt to explain the concept in relation to its contexts.

Lets all work together on this :) In Ictu please put your Goldstein and de Boer citation in the parenthesis. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144 thanks but we'll stick with PiCo's suggestion. However what is your WP:source for "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." - where did you get this idea from? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What is your source that they are not? We have already been over this. You know very well that you could not respond to the challenge to find it spelled with a waw anywhere else other than after the 9th century Cairo Geniza. 81.103.121.144 (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Pico, which do you think?81.103.121.144 (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144 The source that they are not are the 3 dictionary sources in the article; Oxford, Bantam, and Ben Yehuda dictionaries, all of which list notzri "Nazarene" and the verb natsar "guard" as separate and unrelated terms. I repeat - what is your WP:source for "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." - where did you get this idea from? Please, what is the source? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't have deleted his answers, that was not good. I think you should both cool it a bit. Looks like we have three people happy to use this lead in and I make number 4 against 1 which makes a good enough majority consensus so it is going in now. User 81, your referencing is not good, I understand there may be good reasons for this. But your logic is sound. An Encyclopaedic entry should highlight such points not cover hem up.149.254.218.241 (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)