User talk:Jerm

Jerm729

Consider redirecting (the talk page) to this account. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Anna, but I'll just have to leave it as dead as it is. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ecclesiastes

I guess I've see enough of where your priorities as an editor truly lie to regard any further discussion through this medium as pretty much pointless. Feel free to pack the entry you clearly regard as your private domain with as many further arbitrary references to bogus "scholarship" as you see fit, and enjoy the shabby illusion of objectivity that comes with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.193.132 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Your opinions and beliefs don't apply to Wikipedia article standards. I'v given you multiple warnings, and a chance to discuss your view on this. You ignored my warnings and continued being unconstructive. That is your fault and yours alone. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Book of Isaiah

You seem to have misinterpreted my comments in that discussion, but I assume that the article issue is now resolved amicably, so if there is anything more we need to say, we should probably move it over to here or my talk page. Evensteven (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Your response was very sarcastic, so I decided to point it out in the discussion as the appropriate response. Enough has been said already. -- Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. Would you be willing to say why it is sarcastic? Evensteven (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Barnabas

Hello there. Concerning your message, I had explained why I removed some content under the Barnabas page right there in the edit summary: "→‎Other sources: Removed unrelated information. Gospel of Barnabas is discussed under alleged writings." It's up there on the revision history, check it out. --Khomaniak (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

1) It is under the wrong header 2) Its very same content is already explained under "alleged writings" (last paragraph), and with more reputable sources 3) It's not even formatted properly --Khomaniak (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The only reason the news in the given source is newsworthy is because the Gospel found is reported to be in Syriac. The section I removed doesn't mention that. Considering there have been other Gospels of Barnabas (in other languages) found in Turkey no less than 500 years ago, the information given therefore becomes moot, out of place, and useless. I didn't remove anything because of the "information itself", please stop making baseless accusations. Thank you.--Khomaniak (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I believe I already the explained the reasons why this is not a matter of subjectivity. At its current form, it needs organizing and at least some rewriting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas#Possible_Syriac_manuscripts is a much better written section about the same matter with more diverse sources and new information, and it can be used to edit after. Anyway, let us stop arguing. Cheers. --Khomaniak (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

JudeccaXIII, I have reverted edits of yours on the Gospel of Barnabas page; specifically as relating to the persistent news stories speculating that a prolematic manuscript of Cypriot provenance formerly being held by the Turkish police and now lodged with the Ethnography Museum in Ankara, might constitute a lost Syriac/Aramaic manuscript of the Gospel of Barnabas. You will find that the question of how these stories might be reflected in the Wikipedia article, has been batted back and forth on that discussion page quite a bit (and I think there is more now archived). By all means join that discussion and propose your edits there - but it would probably be better to take account of the the current stage of debate before making substantial changes to the article itself. The main point is that there is absolutely no authoritative evidence from anyone who has been able to examine the Ankara manuscript itself, that it corresponds in any way to the text (known in Spanish and Italian versions) that is commonly denoted as 'The Gospel of Barnabas". TomHennell (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm very aware of your revert. I changed Syriac to Aramaic because the source reads so, and I wasn't sure of the non-English source. A user was complaining about some information on the article Barnabas. You can see the article's history to see more what I did because of the other user. I'll discuss the revert later as it is not a big deal for me -- Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments JudeccaXIII. The problem here is that almost all information circulating on the Ankara manuscript is simply reporting other people's speculations; which in turn are largely wishful thinking. If the note by Assad Sauma is correct in identifying the Ankara manuscript with the extract pages on which he had been requested to report, then the writing is Syriac (written left to right) and the texts a mixture of Syriac and 'neo-Aramaic'. There are some photographs circulating of the manuscript cover, on which the writing is modern Syriac. What this means is that - in the absence of an authoritative or scholarly description, we need to be highly selective in what we take from the news-media sources. For instance, the claim '1,500 years old' is without any basis at all, as too is any correspondence between this text and the known Italian and Spanish texts. Equally, however, we need to be wary of those who are dismissing the manuscript as a forgery. It almost certainly is a modern forgery, but that does not at all preclude its transmitting a genuin medieval text; which could indeed be an otherwise unknown apocryphal gospel. TomHennell (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Format

Sure, go for it! I think I copied it from someone else years ago. But thanks for asking. StAnselm (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Gospel of Matthew. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Biblical manuscript

The reference I provided is a legitimate reference, the source being the personal website of the author, thus it is verifiable that the author made the statement in question and endorses its content. It is relevant to the material in the article, and, once again, represents a legitimate edit. Please stop tampering with legitimate edits for your own personal reasons, causing an "edit war" to ensue. Kanbei85 (talk)Kanbei85

Perhaps you should start a discussion yourself explaining why you felt the need to censor a perfectly valid, concise and appropriately-notated citation, rather than leaving well enough alone. The citation provides a conservative counterpoint to the overtly liberal, anti-Christian views of Bart Ehrman, also referenced in the article as an authority. Kanbei85 (talk)Kanbei85

Please provide specific details regarding your allegation that I have violated Wikipedia policy; My edit was not in violation, and, in fact, I would argue that the article was more in violation of the "Neutral Point of View" policy *before* my edit, which is a verifiable reference to an authority in the field. Please do not tamper with legitimate edits. Kanbei85 (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Kanbei85

Book of Elchasai

Hello TomHennell, I just created my first article ever on Wikipedia: Book of Elchasai, and I would like for you to expand this article as much as possible. I used this site as a reference: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/elchasai.html, but within the site contains many references for sourcing by scholars and church fathers. Perhaps this may give you some interest as this article is around your editing field -- Thnx & Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well done for creating the article; but I'm afraid I can offer little in the way of help. In general the existing Elcesaites article (to which your article links) provides pretty much all that is known. In particular, it is not at all certain that the author of the book is named Elchasai, many scholars think that is the protagonists name; and that the author is Alcibiades. But as I say, this is a bit far from my field. TomHennell (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are looking for an up-to-date scholarly treatment of the book of Elchasai (it is a continual problem in Wikipedia articles, that material tends to be lifted form the XIth edition of the Britannica, and from the Catholic Enclyclopedia, simply because these are readily avaiable on line), then you may find useful matter in Patricia Crone's book on Nativist Prophets in pre-Islamic Iran. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LderHOzgLPUC&pg=PA283&lpg=PA283&dq=patricia+crone+elchasai&source=bl&ots=9roboseZuI&sig=FFsACryryzc5H1xvyXtBNEoTv6M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ESUsVOCyEuLN7QbhjIC4Cg&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=patricia%20crone%20elchasai&f=false. I should warn you that Crone's views are by no means the scholarly consensus; and her underlying thesis that some Islamic teachings originate with Judeo-christian sects such as the Elcesaites is one that scandalises many Muslims. But still you may find it useful in developing your article. TomHennell (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice ONe

Way to be quick to accuse me of edit warring, when you reverted 3 times and I did only twice. And creating a new user account, is not sock puppetry. That's called taking the advice of wikipedia and creating an account