Jump to content

Talk:Eleazar Avaran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eleazar Avaran - NOT - Eleazar Maccabeus

[edit]
NO ACTION
Nothing has come out of this discussion. WP:RM should be used if editors wish the title of this article to be changed.

The following discussion 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.

The page Eleazar Avaran was renamed Eleazar Maccabeus. I believe that there is no justification for such a move and is based on a misunderstanding. Eleazar was indeed a Maccabean and could rightly be called Eleazar the Maccabean, ie, a member of the group of brothers originally led by Judas Maccabeus. However, Eleazar's name is not and never was Eleazar Maccabeus.

The most obvious source for Eleazar's name is the the (apocryphal) biblical book "I Maccabees". In 1 Maccabees 2:1–5 and 1 Maccabees 6:42–46, Eleazar is called (in greek καλούμενος) - Avaran. Maccabeus is not a family name. It was the a name given only to Judas. Each of the brothers had a different name - John Gaddi, Simon Thassi, Judas Maccabeus, Eleazar Avaran, and Jonathan Apphus - all sons of Mattathias son of John son of Simeon, a priest of the family of Joarib. Nowhere in the biblical sources can the name Eleazar Maccabeus be found.

Interestingly, britannica.com has an entry for Eleazar Maccabeus. However, it is not a biographical entry, but rather a lead to the article about the Maccabees. In that article, Eleazar is called Eleazar Avaran , not Maccabeus.

This article should be reverted to its original name "Eleazar Avaran". --@Efrat (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions on WP for the Maccabees

[edit]

In response to the above:

  1. The type of naming you like is referred to in the Jewish Encyclopedia[1] as "Aramaic-sounding cognomens, which have not been fully explained, were probably given them by their father, with reference to contemporary events or to the respective characters of the sons themselves."
  2. The problems with those names is that they do not tie the people named into a dynastic or familial whole. Like describing royalty by the nicknames they may have gotten rather than by the correct dynasty or class they belong to and are known by historically and in the case of Jews religiously for millenia.
  3. Another not so subtle problem is the clash between the classical Jewish view and the adoption of this subject by Christian scholars, and lately secular ones too, where the obvious direction of the latter is to somehow or other denude the Maccabees of their Jewish context.
  4. Now, while Judaism may not have adopted the official books of Maccabees, yet Judaism DID retain a way of naming and identifying the Maccabees AS Maccabees and not by their individual names per se, thus it is Shimon the Maccabee (i.e. Maccabeus=Latin), Yehudah the Maccabee etc.
  5. The current emphasis appears to give an un-Jewish and pro-Christian spin on the subjects, while downplaying the traditional Jewish view, which after all should the starting point since this is a Jewish event not related to Christianity.
  6. Jews and Judaism collectively and subsequently individually refers to Matityahu and his five sons as "The Maccabees" -- this is a typical example: "Mattathias and his five sons (Jonathan, Simon, Judah, Eleazar, and Yohanan--the Maccabees)."
  7. Indeed, as you affirm, the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to Eleazar Maccabeus, and the Jewish Encyclopedia refers to the Maccabees as: MATTATHIAS MACCABEUS; JONATHAN MACCABEUS; SIMON MACCABEUS; JUDAS MACCABEUS etc.
  8. In fact, Rabbinic Judaism does not even refer to the Maccabees as such, rather by the generic dynastic term "Hasmoneans", see WP about Hasmonean dynasty: "The dynasty was established under the leadership of Simon Maccabaeus, two decades after his brother Judas the Maccabee ("Hammer") defeated the Seleucid army during the Maccabean Revolt."
  9. This is more than just semantics and terminology, it is about the best way to convey who these people are and how they have been known for the last 2,200 years among Jews in particular, regardless of what pet names they may have been assigned at one point in their lives -- they have taken on a larger than life nomenclature in the passage of time.
  10. Probably a wider discussion would be required to arrive at the best possible names for the Maccabees, which I have started below.
  11. Finally, WP is not bound to Latin verbiage when the English or acceptable Hebrew transliteration is also accepted and can do the same job as ancient Latin or Greek in this case. E.g., it does not have to be "Judas" but rather "Judah" Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: How should the original Maccabees, the father Mattathias and his five sons, John (Johanan), Simon, Judah (Judas), Eleazar (Elazar), Jonathan be known on Wikipedia?:

  • PROPOSAL A: Individual names such as "John Gaddis or Caddis (Johanan Gadi), Simon Thassi, Judas Maccabeus, Eleazar Avaran, and Jonathan Apphus should the names of the articles"
  • Support leaving the long-standing personal names with the epithet (John Gaddi, Simon Thassi, Judas Maccabeus, Eleazar Avaran, and Jonathan Apphus) given by their father, Mattathias son of John son of Simeon, a priest of the family of Joarib, based on the one biblical source (albeit in Greek, but the oldest surviving version), 1 Maccabees 2:1–5. In the introductory sentence, I would like to see the inclusion of the words, "the Hasmonean", along with the fact that the brother was one of the "Maccabees". This combination, I believe, would most succinctly satisfy points 1-11.
P.S. As for Judas vs Yehuda, Shim'on vs Simon, etc. - I believe this also need to be discussed. I'm not sure if we should mix it all into one stew or focus on each issue one step at a time. I have no preference for English or Hebrew transliteration, as long as redirects are created for the variants. --@Efrat (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the long-standing article names, since (1) they make good sense, and (2) they should never have been moved arbitrarily. Indeed, per WP:BRD, all articles should be moved immediately to status quo ante until there is a consensus to move them. -- 101.119.14.212 (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • PROPOSAL B: All should be named using Latin names and Latin suffix of "Maccabeus"



  • PROPOSAL C: All should have the names of the Maccabees in English, deferring to reasonable transliteration from Hebrew, with the English suffix "...the Maccabee"
  • Comment: I am concerned about the irregularity of the procedure being followed here - this is neither an RM nor and RfC. I am also concerned that WikiProject Judaism was informed, but not other relevant projects. Finally, if I understand things correctly, it seems that the third proposal is (possibly) suggesting moving Judas Maccabeus to Judah the Maccabee. I note that that article receives 10 times the page views that this article does, and it seems very strange to be discussing its article name here. I note that a message has been posted at Talk:Judas Maccabeus, but that doesn't seem to me to be enough for such a significant discussion. (Usually for change of article names, there is a requested move template on the article itself.) StAnselm (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the original move was not controversial, because the names originally chosen were highly archaic and not used by anyone today. If you feel strongly that the pages should be retained under their old names, how about we list the current discussion on WP:RM and move on? JFW | T@lk 19:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:My first choice is as stated above for Proposal A based on the names in 1 Maccabees 2:1–5. This is the from the Greek Septagint which is a direct translation of the (now lost) Hebrew I Maccabees. Are there any original sources calling all of the brothers Maccabee? If the consensus is for Proposal C, I will defer. However, I think that the names should include the definite article, ie, Elazar HaMaccabee or Elazar the Maccabee. The Hebrew Wikipedia articles include the definite artcle.
W a  i  t    a    m  i  n  u  t  e  !     I just noticed that only Yehuda and Elazar are called HaMaccabee in Hebrew as in Proposal C. However, the Hebrew articles for Yonatan, Yohanan, and Shim'on use the epithets as in Proposal A. What a mess!!!
We need to turn this discussion into a formal WP:RM. --@Efrat (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the confusion has come from User:IZAK voting for a different name than he had suggested in the initial move. Anyway, I think I will reserve my response until there is a formal move discussion. StAnselm (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Atefrat and StAnselm. In my initial moves I moved them to the Latin usages i.e. "Maccabeus" because they had those names on the article pages, but but my preferred choice at this time is to go with rational clear English names that are really nothing more than the way the Maccabees are referred to common in Hebrew or in common references. In my "Proposal C" I am only giving examples of what they should all be called as one family, one dynasty, one united group. Among Jews no one uses either the archaic Latin or the "nicknames" that you seem to prefer. IZAK (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These would be my preferred choices at this time for the six main Maccabees, as per www.myjewishlearning.com
  1. Mattathias the Maccabee (would also agree to Mattathias Maccabee), and his five sons:
  2. Jonathan the Maccabee (would also agree to Jonathan Maccabee),
  3. Simon the Maccabee (would also agree to Simon Maccabee),
  4. Judah the Maccabee (would also agree to Judah Maccabee),
  5. Eleazar the Maccabee (would also agree to Eleazar Maccabee),
  6. Yohanan the Maccabee (would also agree to Yohanan Maccabee).

All from the common Hebrew/Jewish usage of "HaMaccabee" as User Yoninah (talk · contribs) points out. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: A few users have been suggesting going to WP:RM before discussion has run its course. Why? Seems to me it is just a defensive move or a search for a "quick fix" to avoid serious discussion that is very common on talk pages like this often leading to reliable conclusions. This would short-end the issues that are being raised here that need a fuller debate before going to WP:RM where one admin will come along and deliver a "karate chop" deciding on 2,200 years of history and prematurely ending the discussion which is not what is needed at this point. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No admin is going to make a karate chop ... the same criteria would apply. As it is, the consensus so far is C. But an official discussion is the difference between Parliament and yelling in the streets. It's simply the civilized Wikipedia way. As for C, we must use the definite article. The brothers are members of one group, but Maccabee is not there family name which is what would be implied in English. --@Efrat (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just in terms of procedure, I have strong objections to your suggestion, IZAK. It sounds like you don't think you will get the result you desire if we go through WP:RM. And that means this discussion is already tainted, and is useless for obtaining a meaningful consensus. StAnselm (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Atefrat&StAnselm: "yelling in the streets"?? "civilized"?? "already tainted"?? "useless"?? Now lookee here who's being vitriolic?! Your words sound like two guys who are desperate to impose their POV that ignores the way these names are used in Judaism and by Jews. My reason for delaying is to see how much more prior input their could be since not everyone is in agreement that WP:RM should be the first port of call merely because Atefrat&StAnselm can't get over their case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and worse, a serious case of WP:OWN it seems, and using hyperbole bordering on WP:NPA and WP:LAWYERING to stall things here, since as you can see that right off the bat Users Jfdwolff (talk · contribs); Alansohn (talk · contribs), Yoninah (talk · contribs) (three of the most experienced, active, knowledgeable, and reliable Judaic editors on WP) all agree with me. Nothing is "tainted" here, and no one is yelling in the streets, this is just something that should be obvious to any editor familiar with how the names of the Maccabees are in current use among Jews to whom this is important. If anything, the correct family name for the Maccabees should be the Hasmoneans, that is how the Book of MACCABEES is known in Hebrew and among Jewish scholars: "Sefer CHASHMONAIM" (Literally: "Book [of] Hasmoneans") and that is also how the Al HaNissim prayer, printed in every Jewish prayer book, recited on Hanukkah by Jews refers to them. But that will blow your circuits too much, so let's stick to the more basic name of Maccabees, which after all is what the Book of Maccabees is about and is known as because it's all about the Maccabees and obviously it is not a case of it being their "surname" any more that sticking them with the names you like, but which (i.e. your choice of names for them) are not the final say by a long a shot. IZAK (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not WP:LAWYERING to point out your flagrant disregard for established procedure. Either you use WP:RM, or you follow the procedure listed at Wikipedia:Article titles#Proposed naming conventions and guidelines. StAnselm (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I, @Efrat, am desperate to impose my POV? Read again my comments regarding Proposal C. I am ready to defer to C providing that "the" is included so as not to imply that Maccabee is a family name. Ignoring the way these names are used in Judaism? What are you accusing me of? I hope it is not what I think. Please feel free to assume from my Wikipedia User name that I am concerned with how these names are used in Judaism and by Jews to whom this is important.
The problem, as I see it, is the way in which this renaming process has been conducted. Look at those 11 Naming conventions on WP for the Maccabees. Placing this before the 3 proposals vitually predetermines the outcome. You made a fine argument even before the argument began, IZAK. Accusing me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OWN? You doth protest too much, me thinks! It is not WP:LAWYERING to ask that a renaming process goes through WP:RM. That is the accepted method in our Wikipedia world.
Unacceptable are the misdirected and incorrect accusations as to my motives and my sincerity in resolving this issue in an accepted Wikipedia manner. Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Atefrat&StAnselm: In spite of all your protestations to the contrary, this discussion has been eliciting important views and discussions that in the main support me and my moves. The discussion will remain here for the meantime, and when the time comes we will have to take to the next level unless you stop your stonewalling and word-games. Thank, IZAK (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why not just take it to the next level now, and post a requested move? StAnselm (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, IZAK. If you are so confident about the outcome that you expect, let's make this an official name change and copy all of the comments into it, minus your insinuations about my motives. --@Efrat (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Atefrat&StAnselm: Today is the 13th of November, the discussion I posted only started on the 7th of November a mere six days ago, in that time four expert Judaic editors have supported me and not you; the Jewish Encyclopedia supports me (albeit with the archaic name "Maccabeus" for most of them); and no one Jewish I know calls them by those preferred Christian-usage names that you WP:LIKE, so what's the rush? I have never agreed that a RM is the only route to go, but if it has to come to that we will get there if need be. If you two take up another cause, then an uninvolved admin could just move them to what I advise based on the discussion here. It's done all the time, not every move must go through WP:RM, otherwise pages would not have the "move" feature on every page and this is NOT a controversial topic, it's just about a naming convention, as to who do you follow, the Christian WP:POV or the Jewish tradition? Simple, isn't it?! IZAK (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for an apology. --@Efrat (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, now that's a new tactic, especially that I don't have a clue what you are referring to. We can only go by the way people edit. IZAK (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You, IZAK, insinuated that I care not for how these names are used in Judaism and among Jews to whom this is important. You accused me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:OWN, WP:LAWYERING, none of which is true. The stalling is a result of your insistence to avoid WP:RM which, in any case, would fall in your favor! Why do you resist. Just do it already and put an end to all this. --@Efrat (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that information is readily available in the page history. Most of them were created under "Maccabaeus" around 2005, and were moved because The name Apphus is the only one that was ever actually attached to Jonathan (the name Maccabeus was only attached to his brother, Judas) and The name Maccabeus (Greek spelling of the Hebrew, 'ha'Makabi' (the Hammer)) was only historically attached to Judas (Simon's brother). Simon's 'nickname' was actually "Thassi" (See 1 Maccabees 2). StAnselm (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Gaddi, on the other hand, was created with that name in 2010. StAnselm (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
StAnselm: you have conveniently overlooked (to suit yourself) the fact that the original articles came from and the names were based on the authority of the Jewish Encyclopedia (it's not the most religiously Jewish either) that refers to the individual Maccabees in the scholarly, albeit now archaic, Latin as: 1 MATTATHIAS MACCABEUS; 2 JONATHAN MACCABEUS; 3 SIMON MACCABEUS: 4 JUDAS MACCABEUS, that makes FOUR of them a MAJORITY, and together with the fact that in Hebrew they are known as the "MaKabim" collectively and "XYZ HaMakabi" in the singular, not to mention that their history is in the original book written in Hebrew Sefer HaMakabim (Book of Maccabees in English), and not the "book of this one, that one, and the other one etc" as many religious books are named, and the length of time those articles existed, then what you have is a consensus both of time and about naming conventions that does NOT agree with you. All I am trying to do is to update the naming conventions from Latin to English and call them by the names they are known by in common current usage among Israelis and Jews. IZAK (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. I have not stated my opinion here - as I noted above, I am reserving my response for the RM when it comes. But it concerns me that you are going by "common current usage among Israelis and Jews". You should be going by "common current usage in English-speaking sources". In any case, the existence of the current titles for three years means you will need consensus to change them; something you do not yet have. StAnselm (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
StAnselm this may come as a shock to you but the Maccabees were not "created" by "English-speaking sources". They were Jews, who lived in Judea about 2,200 years ago and fought to uphold Judaism and defend their country against the Greek invaders. So the original situation is all Jewish, and if you like, one can talk of how the Greeks fought the Jews -- and lost, which is what the festival of Hanukkah celebrates -- so that whatever is said "in English" must reflect the primary reality and historical events, therefore what Jews and Israelis practice in this regard is crucial because they are the ones that uphold what the Maccabees fought for: Judaism. Thus, this is a Jewish subject, about Jews, that continues to this day as a heritage about Jewish people and Jewish history. No one would claim that WP should adopt the Greek view of the Maccabees any more than WP should accept the Nazi views about Jews, or what any other group, such as latter-day Christian theologians or secular atheist thinks about the Maccabees because only the Jewish narrative and tradition counts here. There can be no Hanukkah without the Maccabees, and it is impossible to understand the Maccabees without respect for the rabbinically-decreed Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. I think that our problem here is that you are viewing this from a latter-day Christian perspective while I am trying to frame the discussion in its original authentic historic context and the way it is still seen and practiced by Jews, Israelis and in Judaism. IZAK (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2013 (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.

Death of Eleazar in the Scroll of Antiochus

[edit]

Here's the text from the critical edition of the Aramaic original of the Scroll of Antiochus,[1]

וְאַלעָזָר הְוָה מִתעַסֵק בֵקַטלָא דפיליא וּטבַע בִפוּרתָא דְפִילָא׃ וּבעוֹהִי אְחוֹהִי בֵין חַיַיָא וּבֵין מִיתַיָא וְלָא אַשׁכַּחוּ יָתֵיה וּבָתַר כֵין אַשׁכַּחוּ יָתֵיה טְבִיּעַ בְפוּרתָא דְפִילָא׃

and here's the text in the medieval Hebrew translation of the above:

וְאֶלְעָזָר הָיָה מִתְעַשֶׂק לְהָמִית הַפִּילִים וַיִּטְבַּע בְּפֶֽרֶשׁ הַפִּילִים וְכַאֲשֶׁר שָֽׁבוּ בִּקְשֽוּהוּ בֵּין הַחַיִּים וּבֵין הַמֵּתִים וְלאֹ מְצָאֽוּהוּ וְאַחַר כֵּן מְצָאֽוּהוּ אֲשֶׁר טֻבַּע בְּפֶֽרֶשׁ הַפִּילִים׃

and here's Hirsch Filipowsky's English translation of the Scroll of Antiochus from the Aramaic, as published by the Jewish Antiquarian Society (London, 1851):

El’azar while engaged in killing the elephants, sank in the dung of the elephants. And when they returned from battle they sought him and found him sunk in the dung of the elephants.

Therefore, for all the reasons I've cited in the primary source, I believe the details of Elazar's death according to the Scroll of Antiochus be changed, to "suffocation in elephant dung." Aharonium (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aharonium Yes, Eleazar did die from an elephant, but not by being stuck in elaphant dung. Yes, you sourced it based on what?...A scroll? So far, majority of source say he was smashed by an elephant he killed with Antiochus on top of the elephant.
  • The Bible in History by Robert B. Waltz [2],
  • Ancient Christian Martyrdom: Diverse Practices, Theologies, and Traditions, The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library by Candida R. Moss, Yale University Press, 2012[3]
  • Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, Astrid B. Beck, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000[4]
  • All the People in the Bible: An A-z Guide to the Saints, Scoundrels, and Other Characters in Scripture Richard R. Losch, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008[5]

I'm telling you right now that your version of his death does not even show as a minority view or even on online search — JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also Aharonium, you are using your personal website as a source. This is not allowed per WP:OR. Under WP:OR via your website means your source/your website is considered not reliable, therefore, I am going to revert under these grounds. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the sentence that I edited in this article concerned how Eleazar died according to the Scroll of Antiochus (otherwise known as the Megillat Antiochus), a work composed in late antiquity sometime between the 2nd and fourth centuries. I didn't refer to "a scroll" -- I referred to the Scroll of Antiochus -- the primary source at hand. Respectfully, none of the sources you cited concern how Eleazar died according to the Scroll of Antiochus. I'm not certain whether you can read Aramaic or Hebrew, but Filipowsky's English translation is faithful to the text. The source I cited is Menaḥem Tzvi Kaddari “The Aramaic Antiochus Scroll,” (Bar Ilan 1, 1963, p. 81-105). A transcription of this text is available at the Open Siddur Project, an open source project involved with transcribing Jewish liturgy and related work in the Public Domain. Since you haven't read the source text of Megillat Antiochus, may I direct you to the English translation by Hirsch Filipowsky (London, 1851) which I linked to above? I'd very much appreciate if you reconsidered and stopped blocking my edit. Aharonium (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone to the trouble of uploading the page of Menaḥem Tzvi Kaddari “The Aramaic Antiochus Scroll,” (Bar Ilan 1, 1963, p. 99) in which the death of Elazar appears. This is the source transcribed and cited above. If you would like another scholarly translation, see this one by the scholar John C. Reeves (Blumenthal Professor of Judaic Studies, University of North Carolina Charlotte). The relevant translation is on page four of the article, "His brothers searched for him among the living and among the dead, but they could not find him. They however afterwards discovered him pressed down in the excrement of an elephant." I really don't want to have to bring an arbitrator into this. Please discontinue from blocking my edit. Aharonium (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Aharonium Wikipedia is not based on religious views, values, personal views, beliefs, ideals, personal website etc. like your site: http://opensiddur.org per WP:OR, and sources are to be based on modern scholars consensus and "majority" and "minority" views if necessary as my sources are based on modern scholars. Also, you are still advertising your website, "A transcription of this text is available at the Open Siddur Project, an open source project" etc. Please read WP:V and WP:QUESTIONABLE as I contact an administrator to resolve this issue. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You claim this is a minority view, but this isn't even a matter of disagreement among scholars -- it is the plain reading of the text of Megillat Antiochus (a/k/a the Scroll of Antiochus) that explains how Eleazar dies. I'm not making a religious claim here -- no scholars or readers of the Megillat Antiochus dispute this such that a claim needs to be made. It is the plain meaning of the text (and it's apropos to this article since it disagrees with 1 Maccabees 6:43-46 which has Eleazar crushed to death by the elephant he had slain). Meanwhile, none of the sources you cited in opposition to my edit concern themselves at all with how Eleazar dies in Megillat Antiochus, so how could they be relevant to our discussion. (Please, take another look at them.) For that matter, you have ignored the primary source texts I have made reference to. Rather, you have dismissed them as being personal and/or religious views sourced from a personal website, when they are simply provided online as a reference to the primary source under discussion. Wikipedia requires that I cite sources, and I have. I have also gone to the trouble of making those sources available online, and in doing so, they have quixotically been dismissed as personal/religious. I have no more words. Thank you for contacting an administrator to resolve this. Aharonium (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aharonium I'm going to explain to your all the wrong reasons of your edits, sources, and replies etc. I'm going to start with your sources. First of all, http://opensiddur.org is your website based on your thoughts via unreliable and violation of WP:OR, which you are persistent on adding as a primary source and trying to advertise, "A transcription of this text is available at the Open Siddur Project, an open source project": [6]. Your PDF source John C. Reeves doesn't really discuss that the scroll is the legit death of Eleazar Avaran agreed upon scholarly consensus and basically a encyclopedia article in PDF format which is no different from the article: Megillat Antiochus. And yes, controversial articles do in fact require scholars sources per WP:RS. You said your not trying to make a statement, yet you stated this, "but this isn't even a matter of disagreement among scholars -- it is the plain reading of the text of Megillat Antiochus (a/k/a the Scroll of Antiochus) that explains how Eleazar dies.": [7]. This in fact is a statement, and so far, all your replies are nothing but statements based on your personal views and not a single source. I don't have to provide any more sources for you. You can google his death yourself. You have violated plenty of polices, and some I have note even mentioned to you yet. Either way, I have contacted an administrator to resolve this issue. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Dr. Reeves isn't discussing the "legit death" of Eleazar. I'm not making a historical claim, nor is Dr. Reeves. He's translating a work of religious literature from late Antiquity. I'm describing the content of this work (Megillat Antiochus). I'm not making a historical claim, I'm only correcting what this wikipedia article says according to this source. The Megillat Antiochus says that the body of Elazar was found under elephant excrement. In making this statement, I'm not disputing anyone. This isn't controversial. This isn't my opinion -- this is plain to every translator of Megillat Antiochus in the numerous languages to which it's translated. It might be unfamiliar to someone who only knows the story of Eleazar from reading I Maccabees. It might not be familiar to you, but that's not my concern. If you think I'm arguing how Eleazar actually died, then you're fundamentally misunderstanding me. (I don't even know whether Eleazar actually lived!)
You've set me in a position where I have to explain what I've done to try and (so far unsuccessfully) convince you, possibly transgressing Wikiepedia policies. So I'll lay it out. When I first came to this article I noticed an error in how it claimed the Scroll of Antiochus (a/k/a Megillat Antiochus) describes the death of Eleazar. There was no citation to bolster the claim made in the article as I found it. The error would be obvious to anyone who had read the actual work. After correcting this error to the article as I found it, and after your first revision, I provided my sources, initially here on the Talk page (see above) and afterward, in the article itself. Here on the talk page, you mentioned a number of sources none of which discuss how Eleazar's death is discussed in the Scroll of Antiochus. The sources I cited are Kaddari's critical text of the Megillat Antiochus in Aramaic (Bar-Ilan 1963), Tzvi Fillipowski's transcription and English translation from 1851 (hosted at hebrewbooks.org), and Dr. John Reeves' translation. These are sources that can be located online and at any academic library with a good Judaic Studies collection. I only provided a URL to the scanned source material and transcriptions at the Open Siddur Project so that skeptical wikipedia editors such as yourself had an online source to review and realize that I was not inventing something that wasn't already written in the Megillat Antiochus. Aharonium (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kaddari, Menaḥem Tzvi (1963). "The Aramaic Antiochus Scroll". Bar Ilan. 1: p. 81-105. {{cite journal}}: |page= has extra text (help)

Page title

[edit]

Please see the discussion I just initiated at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Eleazar_Avaran --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eleazar_Avaran&oldid=1196662880"