Talk:Nazareth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Old discussion

Modern Nazareth article?????? Not one line about Jesus or even Tourism or Christian pilgrimages. 3 full lines about THIS:

"The temporary walls surrounding the square were torn down by protestors the night that Haim Habibi, an Israeli Jew, and his Christian wife and daughter conducted an attack on the Church of the Nativity while worshippers were gathered in prayer for the coming Easter holidays. [2] [3]"

Really, is the temporary wall THAT important or were you using it to bring in propaganda to further your own agenda? Is an un-named undedicated newly built temporary wall worth four times this:

"The majority of Nazarenes are Israeli Arabs, about 35-40% of whom are Christians and the rest Muslims."

OH, MY MISTAKE. USER Tiamut added in order to clarify about the MOSQUE CONTROVERSY regarding building a NEW MOSQUE.

"changes to the introduction in light of recent developments on the mosque controversy"

Not only is the incident unrelated to the Mosque controversy, it isn't even directly related to the TEMPORARY WALL. The wall was destroyed by Arabs. Lets count the degrees of removal. Jew causes - Riot by Arabs - who destroy wall - around public square - in place of MOSQUE. 5 Degrees of removal in order to include bad news about a Jew.

Please, if you are going to add something, make it RELEVANT information on IMPORTANT topics. I'm not even going to take it down, I want everyone to see Tiamuts brilliant work involving 5 degrees of removal.

• First of all, that addition was directly relevant to someone else's posting on the Mosque controversy which was included in the introductory section and did not to seem to bother you then. Second of all, the tearing down of the wall surrounding the plaza which was finally constrcuted in place of the Mosque was directly relevant to the conclusion of that controversy. It is no longer a controversy in Nazareth, thank god. Finally, please sign your posts. It is very rude to make unfounded accusations, assuming bad faith, without providing the accused (me) a chance to reply to you directly, unless your only purpose to slander me. Thank you! Tiamut 12:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Question? Why are "Jack Finegan" and "Anonymous of Piacenza?" hyperlinked? Nothing comes up in Wikipedia on those two names? And why is there such an emphasis on Jack Finegan's work (the huge citation)? There are many other notable archaeologists with competing theories. I will be re-working the history site, removing some things that there now and adding other sources, with a focus evidence, not propagandizing one person or another's claims to Nazareth, which this article in its present form seems to be doing. But if someone can answer the question above so I know if I can remove the hyperlinks, that would be great. Tiamut 15:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As my research into the history of the early Christian Church and The Bible gets deeper the more it appears that Nazareth did not exist until more modern times and that Nazareth is a distortion (deliberate?) of Nazorean/Nazarene, a word used to describe a certain set of beliefs different from the mainstream Jews.

Where did you read this? Please say "Not in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, nor in The Messianic Legacy -- I didn't get it from Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln." Mirv 18:30, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To clarify: The claim in the first paragraph above is one of Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln's The Messianic Legacy (p. 46; '96 Arrow Books paperback), and also in Holy Blood, Holy Grail (p. 341, p 411; '96 Arrow Books paperback); neither book provides any kind of citation for this claim, natch. If either of these are the source for a claim that Nazareth didn't exist in Jesus' time, or that Jesus never lived in Nazareth, don't bother. (If you have a more reliable source, then feel free to chew me out, but don't cite conspiratorial crackpots as factual sources.) --Mirv 18:52, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Youre obviously further into this than I. My primary reference is from the Rosecrucians and I dont yet know if they are crackpots or not. As regards the orthodox mistakes about Iscariot, they do suggest something similar to Schonfield's reference in The Passover Plot: Jesus wasnt dead when lowered from the cross, for what that is worth, and Schonfield is the one who writes that Nazareth was an area, not a town, where a small number of people lived without temple. Given the plethora of contradictory writings about that time, and the apparent authenticity of the Nazarae/Nazarene distinction, I am stirred to follow that information to find more about Nazareth's history. There are a number of references to that area being occupied by Essenes, as well, and of course lots of folks suggesting Jesus was an Essene or was trained by the Essenes.

There are something more interesting about this old discussion than Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln. I consider that for a christian person who takes the bible as the most reliable source, it is quite clear that to argue that Nazareth was not a city in the time of Jesus, seem counterbiblical. It is quite clear that Nazareth is refered to as a city also in the Greek text[1]. Before I go on, I must say, that I don't find it "unscientifical" to hold the Bible as a more, or at least as reliable historical document as any other historical document. The nature of a text as canonical is on the other hand a very curious phenomenon, to me. Biblically concerned christians should though be aware that translations into the different languages tend to be quite conservative in regard of the different nations theological traditions, or traditions of translation, in ways that need continuous scrutiny. One thing is the sacredness to consider, in regard of the holy Bible as such, another thing is that the old languages of the Greek (or Latin and Hebrew for that matter) were in themselves regarded with much more reverance, e.g. sacredness, than language tend to be regarded with in our days. Language and grammar was profoundly tied to cosmology, as is for instant still attested by the vedic traditions and Sanskrit. The question in matter is what it meant to be a nazarene? What was the meaning of the prophecy attested to the matter of Jesus being a Nazarene in the scripture. In the Gospel of Matthew it says of Joseph, Maria and Jesus who during the reign of the Herod lived in Kairo, Egypt: Matthew chapter 2 verses 22 and 23: "But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in the place of his father, Herod, he was afraid to go there. Being warned in a dream, he withdrew into the region of Galilee, [23] and came and lived in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene." I find that people who are very conservative, or defensive in their views of the Bible, read the Book of their imagination rather than the words actually there, and refusing to understand the depths of it also. Sometimes christians defend a christianity that are at odds with even the Book they hold sacred. Of some strange reason it is controversial to teach that Jesus was Messiah, even among christians today, as if his political position as claimant to the thrones of Israel and Judah was contesting his position as Son of God. Even though the fundamental claim by the so called "conspiratorial crackpots" also is that Nazarene very well may refer to that Jesus came from a Jewish backround pertaining to the nobel Nasi, meaning prince in Hebrew, it is not necessarily unbiblical. The more interesting question, especially since my day of writing this is the first day of the Hanukka, is whether Jesus comes from the House of Shammai or the House of Hillel, if not a third lineage? Thus we may find new platforms for interreligious dialogue. I found the book "The Holy Grail and the Holy Blood" very interesting when I read it as a teenager twenty years ago. I was a bit disappointed with it in the end, I recall. I then thought that they're conclusion, in regard of the meaning of the holy grail, was somewhat materialistic. That sort of irritated me. Today I find that they are also quite totalizing in their attempts to identify their view onto what was or not. But I'm not sure that they should be excluded as a reference. It smells a little bit like burnt books to argue like that. And I hope that we can avoid that. I would rather suggest that we in these discussion fora make decent comments on the quality of the references we use. I'm saying this in spite of being very critical in my views on the book here in question. I agree that it is a book with possible dangerous elements. some would say it draws on anti-semittism because of how it uses the protocols of Zion as source material. But as I recall it (?) many years later, the authors were actually dealing with the problematics of 'the protocols' in the book itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xact (talk • contribs) 05:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nazareth vs. Nazarene

I've inserted the word some into the following passage before the word historians:

However, historians have called this into question,
suggesting instead that it is based on a mistranslation
of Greek sources. Such historians argue that Iesou
Nazarene was not "from Nazareth", but rather that his
title was "Nazarene."

As it was, the passage suggested that there is general agreement among historians that this theory is correct. Also, I reccomend that at least one historian who supports this theory be sited or the entire passage be deleted.

• It is a somewhat garbled rendition (it is not a mistranslation issue, because "Nazareth" and "Nazarene" each appear in the Greek of the New Testament [naturally in Greek letters]) of a view held by, among others, Alfred Firmin Loisy. I have cleaned up the reference and added the name of Loisy. --Peter Kirby 12:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What the hell is up with this article?

Why is this article mostly devoted to arguing that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century AD? (Also, don't, well, the gospels mention Nazareth as existing, and weren't they, um, written in the 1st century AD?

Matthew 2:22-23 "But when [Joseph] heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:/And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

Mark 1:9 "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan."

Luke 2:4 "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem."

John 1:46 "And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see."

It seems most unlikely that the gospel-writers would have made up a non-existent city, doesn't it? john k 23:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

And I suppose you know exactly when the gospels were written because you are the original editor..? they could esily have been written in the 2nd or 3rd century. Besides, they are full if contradictions. Druworos 06:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Gospels don't have many contradictions... and they all agree on this point. --24.147.128.141 00:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is not just religiously, but also historically inaccurate and not up to date on the most recent archaeological finds in Nazareth that support a heavy Roman presence at the time of Jesus. I have added one article, but the entire thing needs a rewirte. Nazareth is a real life city today and not just some Bible myth. It would be good to include some more facts on the present and less on trying to prove Jesus did not exist. He's not the only thing to have come out of Nazareth. Tiamut 19:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You try to prove that your so-called Jesus from the so-called town of Nazaret existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.66.208 (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Some info about history of Nazareth

you guys should do research before posting anything Here is the link check this out http://www.inisrael.com/tour/nazareth/history.htm

This link does indeed provide references to other work, which would prove that Nazareth wa ssettled at the time. What's interesting about it, however, is that it states that the region had many Jewish towns and villages, setled 'by Hellenized Syrians'. Surely, Hellenized Syrians are not Jews. Indeed, it would seem to corroborate another somewhat conspiracy-ish theory, that Galilee in general was inhabited by non-Jewish populations, as the name would allegedly stem for Galil-ha-gojim, and thereby, Jesus either wasnt Jewish, or wasnt of Nazareth. I cant really provide any reliable sources on that, but I certainly find it intersting that the above link clearly states 'Hellenized Syrians'. Not to mention that this might also explain links between Jesus's teachings and Epicurian and Platonic thinking. Druworos 06:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for pushing a particular interpretation over others, or original research. I have no idea what the mainstream historical view on the existence of Nazareth in Biblical times was, but I do not believe that it is that Nazareth does not exist. (I think I would've heard about that.)

As it stands, this article is POV and needs improvement. For the nonexistence claims, could we find a source that doesn't obviously have an axe to grind here? I am hardly going to take the American Athiest Press as a primary source when it comes to a question on the origins of Christianity. --Saforrest 20:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Judea, and Jerusalem in particular was put where the two parts of the Hellenized world met, The Ptolomeic and the Seleucid Empires, that followed from the Conquests of Alexander the Great. Judea was also hellenized. The Book Hellenistic Religions[2] by scholar Luther H. Martin is quite convincing --Xact (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Added historic quotes and archaeological data

The greatest flaw in my edit is that a full paragraph is quoted from Jack Finegan (an expert in archaeology of the NT). If some wordsmith has the patience to refactor that paragraph, without plagiarism and without dropping important information, that would be appreciated.

A few errors and infelicities of expression were corrected, such as the fact that the Caesarea inscription was found in 1962, not 1961. I have found a book referencing the quote from Epiphanius, which is from the Panarion Haereses, or "Medicine Chest Against All Heresies." I possess the translation of that work (it is not online) and can check it when I return to the office.

People who believe that Nazareth did not exist in the first century may not be thrilled with the edit. The argument that there was no Jewish settlement there because tombs are found in the surrounding area is faulty; by the same logic, Jerusalem did not exist in the first century. The quotes from Jack Finegan and Richard Carrier, and of course the archaeology itself, provide some evidence of a first century settlement at Nazareth. I have replaced the weasel-word references to "some historians" and placed references to two particular writers, Loisy and Zindler, in their stead. Zindler's principal arguments for the non-existence of Nazareth are given, and Loisy's position is described.

Aside from that, ancient quotes from Julius Africanus, Conon, Jerome, and the Anonymous of Piacenza are added. --Peter Kirby 12:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Date Clarification

In the Nazareth In History section the following sentance is used

"In 1962 a Hebrew inscription found in Caesarea, dating to the late 3rd or early 4th century"

Are we talking about 3rd century CE/AD or BCE/BC? Enigma 07:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This is still whacked out

Archeological sites on Nazareth have found Roman settlement there around 50 AD. More to the point, Jack Zindler's arguments don't make much sense. Jesus' birth in Nazareth was one of the biggest inconsistencies that early Christians had to deal with, since the prophets said that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Thus you have two totally different stories (in Matthew and Luke) that explain how Jesus got from Bethlehem to Nazareth in his early life. If the Christians wanted to invent a Messiah, it seems likely that they would have invented someone who was born in the right place.

Zindler has been cut down to a minimum in this article, but as it stands it's rather like reading a decent article on the Jesuits with one paragraph representing the views of Jack Chick in the middle. That paragraph should simply be dropped. Atterlep 23:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think his views can be mentioned in a short paragraph inside the descriptive text with archaeological and historcial finds as a counter-view to those, but not a whole section. Do you want to do it? Or should I? Tiamut 18:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous verses in the gospels stating unambiguously that Jesus was from Nazareth. Even the Jesus Seminar acknowleges that Narareth was his hometown. Zindler's theory is based on is the fact Jesus is often referred to in Gospels as a "Nazorean," (usually translated as "of Nazareth") which is nonstandard form in Greek. But surely the Gospel writers had a better understanding of what this word means than Zindler does. In contrast with, say, the Bethlehem nativity story (required to fulfill a major prophecy), there is no motive to claim that Jesus was from Nazareth if this was not in fact the case.Kauffner 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bit of a rewrite

As so often happens to me, I went into an article I was just browsing for fun, intending only to fix a few obvious typos... and wound up shuttling huge swaths of text all over the place, rewriting a good deal, and even introducing my own text. *sigh* I'd just like to point out that I worked about 2 hours at being unbiased and NPOV; I'd like to think my edit history shows I have little other agenda when editing.

Obviously, there's a bit of debate over the existence of Nazareth as such in the first century. I've tried to make this an article about the history of the town, with due weight given to arguments over it's name. Also, I'd point out that the section on the Easter murder rampage and the 1948 happenings need work - the first should be better integrated, perhaps with more information about other interesting things that have happened in town (surely some have), and the second is from a controversial source, Verso Books.

Being certain I've offended all interested parties at once, I apologize, and assure you my only concerns are balance and accuracy for Wikipedia (as I perceive them). At the very least, I feel the structure of the article is now improved. Ya'll keep on debating the relative merits of those two guys named Jack. :) (BTW, as a technical aside, all the archeological evidence in the world does not attest to the actual name of the town) Eaglizard 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rocket Attack

If you watch TV you know there was a rocket attack in Nazareth today, I suggest after enough information has come through and been comfirmed this be included.Tjb891 16:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent reorganization of article and pending deletions

This first set of changes does not totally correct NPOV problems in this article, but I think it is some improvement. Primarily, the focus was reorganizing the article chronologically, but the edit also included the following changes:

• The reference in the first paragraph to disputes about the Biblical events associated with Nazareth is much too prominent for a poorly supported idea. As someone else noted, the American Atheist Press isn't the best qualified to make historical judgements, especially not when the texts also concern religious matters. I think the current initial paragraph accurately points out why Nazareth is noteworthy without taking a stand on the truth or falsehood of the New Testament.
• The religious mixture of the population is an emotionally charged issue, but the numbers seem accurate based on tourism sites without obvious axes to grind. I moved this information away from descriptions of current events into the new "Geography and Population" section to avoid the perception of taking sides on the settlement issues.
• The extended quotes related to archaelogy unbalance the article, so I replaced them with their (apparent) intended conclusions about the presence of Jews in Nazareth, and kept the references for anyone who wants to read extra details.
• The new "Ancient History" section combines the old "Historical references" and "New Testament" parts. I think their original separation violates NPOV, since it indicates the New Testament text is not historically accurate, unlike the Old Testament, Talmud, and Josephus. I think the new arrangement depicts all texts equally without asserting a specific religious viewpoint.

• The claim in the old "Historical references" section that references to Jewish settlement don't occur until 300 A.D. contradicts even the non-biblical sources cited in the article, so I removed the sentence. The remaining argument about the name of the town is still preserved, though moved to the archaeological section.
• I think the description of events in March 2006 definitely violates NPOV guidelines in the apparent connection to the controversy over the construction of a mosque near the Basilica of the Annunciation. It fails to mention that the construction was proposed in 1999 and refused in 2002, so it's of extremely doubtful relevance to occurrences four years later. I plan to rework or delete this entire item.
• Also still to come: some events in Medieval histories, and brief description of the major shrines, which are significant tourist attractions in Nazareth.

Comments or suggestions are welcome.

--StephenMacmanus 12:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed text from "Modern History" section

The description of the capture/surrender of Nazareth during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War included the following text:

The surrender was formalized in a written agreement, where the town leaders agreed to cease hostilities in return for promises from the Israeli officers including brigade commander Ben Dunkelman, the leader of the operation, that no harm would come to the civilians of the town. A few hours later Chaim Laskov gave order to Dunkelman to evacuate the civilian population of Nazareth. Dunkelman refused to obey these orders. In sharp contrast to the surrounding towns, the Arab inhabitants in Nazareth were therefore never forced to evacuate (Blaming the Victims, Edward W. Said and Christopher Hitchens, Verso Books, 2001, p. 86-87).

I think this claim isn't entirely appropriate for two reasons. First, I think the comparison of Nazareth's population to other towns is off-topic and more appropriate for an article on Palestinian refugees. Second, using Hitchens and Said as the only citation is not neutral, since both the authors are well-known opponents of Israel's current occupation of the disputed Palestinian territories. At the very least, I think a more neutral source regarding this order is necessary to restore the text to the article.

--StephenMacmanus 03:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

First: thank you for trying to clean up this article; it was was much needed. However, I´m not in agreement with your removal of the above paragraph. First: it is the Israeli journalist/translator/writer Peretz Kidron that is the source of the story (as is clear from the Ben Dunkelman article), the story is just most available to the English-speaking audience in the above book (which is a collection of articles, edited/collected by Hitchens and Said. And the comparison of Nazareth's population to other towns is really not off-topic, indeed, if anything it should be expanded. This because before 1948 the population of Nazareth was mostly Christian. During the 1948 war many of the villages/towns in the surrounding area were "depopulated". Most of these towns/villages were Muslim. Many of the people from these places escaped to Nazareth. This changed the the population from a Christian majority to a Muslim majority. I will therefor reinsert the above inf. -but it should probably be expanded with something about the consequences..i.e. that the forced evacuation of surrounding villages changed the population in Nazareth to a Muslim majority. Regards, Huldra 23:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed tone of "Current Events" section

I removed the more inflammatory statements related to the March 2006 events in the Basilica of the Annunciation, and replaced the references with working links. Likewise, I deleted the reference to Hezbollah's public statement, and supplied the most straightforward article with no opinions stated. Responses to the events seem more appropriate for the existing article on the 2006 conflict, which is already linked.

--StephenMacmanus 06:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

yahhhhh

Common or Christian Era?

Throughout the article both "CE" and "AD" are used sporatically to refer to years in the post–Jesus era. According to the MoS, only one notation is to be used for an article. Instead of reverting to the original era notation used here, I will post discussion as to what method of era notation the general Wiki–public thinks should be used here. Since this is the birthplace of Jesus I will vote for "AD", but I welcome discussion. If no discussion ensues, I will revert to whatever the original notation was (I have not yet checked to see what it was) — OLP 1999 01:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, AD/BC was the first notation used in this version [3]. (BC was in a quotation, but the AD was in article text.) Earlier versions did not refer to specific years early enough to require distinguishing the two eras. (Nazareth was Jesus' boyhood home, and the place where Mary was living when Jesus was miraculously conceived. His birthplace is traditionally Bethlehem.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Given TCC's information, if no further comments supporting "CE" arise within the next little while, I will make "AD/BC" the only era notation in this article, as per MoS— OLP 1999 03:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Palestinians

User:Noon objects to this template going on the article because, in his words, "Template is linked to *everything* related to Palestine, therefore not appropriate for an israeli city". I don't think this really follows, but I sympathise to a certain extent - the template is certainly very broad. Yet Nazareth is one of the most important centres of Palestinian cultural and political life anywhere, not just inside Israel. While I'm still tending to the view that the template should be included, can anyone suggest a third way? Palmiro | Talk 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no third way. The template is completely valid here particularly since it mentions everything. The history section includes mention of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, etc. Most Nazarenes identify as Palestinian. The template does not challenge that Nazareth is an Israeli city (that is written at the top of the page so no one can be confused into thinking this is not the case) and it helps readers understand the interesting position of Palestinian citizens of Israel who are both "Palestinian" and "Israeli". I am going to revert. Excluding just because this is a city located in Israel is POV pushing. The identity of Nazareth's inhabitants cannot be disputed. Speaking as one myself of course. :) Tiamut 00:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Palmiro | Talk 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to use the template to organise topics related to the historical/geographic entity, as opposed to the current political/cultural grouping, then it would have to be totally remade. We've all been around a while and gone through all these debates before, do we really need to rehash them? Tewfik^Talk 04:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik. The template does not assert that Naareth is part of a geogrphical entity called Palestine. It is named "Palestinians" for god's sake. Nazareth is a town of over 60,000 people, most of whom identify as Palestinian; i.e. part of the Palestinian people, a national/cultural grouping. I know this fact intimately since I live in Nazareth, carry Israeli citizenship and identify as Palestinian myself. Including this template on the page is not a POV move. It is important in order to highlight the cultural/national identity affiliations of the people in Nazareth. There is no question that Nazareth is currently a part of Israel and this is stated clearly on the page with the geographical Israeli template there to underscrore this point as well. There is equally no question howvever, that Nazareth's inhabitants overwhlemingly identify as Palestinian. The template definitely merits inclusion to reflect this interesting paradox. The reader benefits from such information. Do not make this into a political debate when it is in fact about reflecting a rather complex reality. Tiamut 11:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs and Palestinians are not identical, regardless of your personal views. Nazareth is a city in Israel, an Israeli city, not a city in "Palestine", the Palestinian Authority, the West Bank, or Gaza. Have you decided to put all sorts of Lebanese, Syrian, and Jordanian cities into this category as well? What next, will Dearborn, Michigan be in category "Arab cities"? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs and Palestinian are of course not identical, but most non-Bedouin and non-Druze Israeli Arabs self-identify as being Palestinian. I would think this would include the Arab population of Nazareth? I'm agnostic about whether a Palestinian related template should go in this article, though. john k 01:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your interpretation of my motive and the menaing of the template is totally wrong. No one is claiming that Nazareth is a city located in Palestine. That it is an Israeli city is beyond dispute and well reflected in the disambiguation sentence at the top and the template for Israel at the bottom (beyond the many references in the main body of the text). There is however, a people living in the city of Nazareth. They do not call themselves "Israeli Arabs". That might be what you call them, but being one of them, I know for a fact that most of them call themselves Palestinians. Indeed, they are Palestinians, they are related to the Palestinians in the West Bank, gaza, the refugee camps and in the wider Diaspora. This is a fact that should not be ignored or downplayed. The template, entitled "Palestinians" correctly was placed in this article to illustrate that fact, not make geographical claims. Also, if you noticed, the template includes the history of the many different empires that ruled the geogrphical area formerly known as Palestine and now known as Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. It also provides links to culture, music, food all of which are relevant to the Nazareth article since all Nazarenes are Arab Palestinians who eat, listen to the same music, and do the same dances as their Palestinian brothers and sisters elsewhere in the world. Making this out to be some kind of war over territory violates WP:AGF. Neither myself, nor Palmiro are claiming Nazareth as part of a Palestinian state. Those are intentions you, Tewfik and Noon have attributed to our inclusion of this template. Please try to understand that its inclusion is to enrich the readers experience and not make some kind of political point, as you are asserting. And by the way, if there were a large section in a Dearbon, Michigan article on the sizable Palestinian population there, I might try to include the template too. If its directly relevant to the article's content and enriches the readers understanding, I don't see why not. Respect.Tiamut 23:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary placement of this template on various cities is not logical; you might think that Nazareth is a Palestinian city, but it is an Israeli city. The situation of Arabs in Nazareth differs from that of those in Palestinian refugee camps in almost every way, and your personal experience is not really admissible as a source. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely it is possible for something to be both an Israeli city and a Palestinian city. Jerusalem, for instance? That being said, Nazareth is not like Jerusalem. It'd probably be best to leave cities in Israel proper as, well, Israeli, even if they are largely inhabited by people who see themselves as Palestinian. john k 01:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside the nauseating arrogance of User:Jayjg's remarks, it should be obvious to most people that living in a refugee camp is not a condition of being Palestinian. As John Kenney says, it is possible for something to be both an Israeli and a Palestinian city. Nazareth is a city which has played a major role in the Palestinian historic experience and in the creation of a Palestinian identity in general, and most notably inside Israel, since 1948. One need only think of the work of Emile Habibi or Tawfiq Zayad, or the role of the Israeli Communist Party in the city, for this to come to mind. I would like to think that editors acting in goodwill might try to see how Wikipedia could attempt to relfect this reality rather than positions imposed by ideology. An approach based on encylopaedic principles rather than the dictates of political stances could surely find some way of reflecting Nazareth's role as a Palestinian cultural and political centre of the first importance as well as its position as one of the main cities of the Israeli Galilee. Palmiro | Talk 02:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How about you leave aside the uncivil personal attacks instead? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this, but templates are a very rough tool. I wonder if this might better be accomplished by material in the article text, rather than a template which is bound to generate controversy. Moreover, the template itself is incredibly broad, and doesn't really seem all that useful. I think a small template that was something like "Israeli Cities with important Palestinian Heritage," or something like that, might be better. john k 03:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone. A few comments: Jayjg, my personal exprience was not the main thrust of my argument. I merely mentioned it so as to indicate that I deeply familiar with Nazareth, its inhabitants, and their identity construction process due to the fact that I live in Nazareth, both my parents are from there and our ancestry here goes back hundreds of years. That aside, I am not claiming that Nazareth is a Palestinian city; i.e., as in a city located in a geogrphical entity known as Palestine. Nazareth's current geographic location is arguably in Israel (I say arguably considering that Israel has no defined borders - but that is another discussion). The template name is "Palestinians", as in a people known as Palestinians. That Nazareth is composed of people who call themselves Palestinians is beyond any doubt. See the following examples:

1) The Arab Human Rights Association, a local NGO based in Nazareth [4], the section on "Palestinian Citizens of Israel";

2) Journalist and writer Jonathan Cook, who lives in Nazareth and is married to a Palestinian woman explains the difference in his perspective from other foreign correspondants based in Israel writing that, "From Nazareth, the capital of the Palestinian minority in Israel, things look very different. There are striking, and disturbing, similarities between the experiences of Palestinians inside Israel and those inside the West Bank and Gaza. All have faced Zionism's appetite for territory and domination, as well as repeated attempts at ethnic cleansing. [5]

3)Overlooking Nazareth by Dan Rabinowitz covers the topic of Palestinians in Israel [6]

The main point (and this is addressed to all involved in the discussion, hi Palmiro, welcome john k) is that the identity of Nazareth's population is largely Palestinian. This identity coexists with their identity as Israeli citizens living in a city within Israel's (yet-to-defined) borders. They lived in this city as Palestinians before Israel was created and they continue to live in the city, identifying largely as Palestinian, after it was created. This is a significant fact and it is related to complex historical and political processes over the course of many centuries, arguably millenia. People may be very confused by this information. Luckily, a group of people went to the trouble of creating a template called "Palestinians" to address this very kind of confusion. The reader can peruse the historical links, cultural links, political material, read up on current geographical realities, and even explore the Kingdom of Judah and Israel in that template. I don't see how including it misleads the reader in any way, nor can I understand the opposition to its inclusion by Jayjg, Noon, or Tewfik. Assuming good faith, I will ascribe this to a conflation of the term "Palestinians" with the contentious issue of a "Palestinian state". Putting the template here is not some kind of attempt to create a virtual Palestinian state, it is merely an honest effort to reflect Nazareth's complex reality and provide the reader with options to explore further should they wish to. Respect. Tiamut 05:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, the template is a very rough tool for doing this. Isn't there a better way to accomplish the same thing? john k 11:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that some consider Arab-Israelis to be Palestinians. That's certainly a valid opinion. Others don't agree. Moreover, the identity "Palestinian" post-dates the creation of the State of Israel; indeed, it owes much of its existence to the create of the State. The template itself is a typical, though more subtle, form of propaganda. I'm not objecting to its inclusion in all sorts of articles, thought I really should, but at a minimum it really won't do to assert that Nazareth is a Palestinian, not Israeli, city. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't see who it was who asserted that Nazareth was not an Israeli city. Tiamut explicitly remarked that "The template does not challenge that Nazareth is an Israeli city (that is written at the top of the page so no one can be confused into thinking this is not the case)"; I suggested that we should "find some way of reflecting Nazareth's role as a Palestinian cultural and political centre of the first importance as well as its position as one of the main cities of the Israeli Galilee"; the first paragraph of the article as it stands makes no mention of the city's Arab population but refers pretty clearly to its being in Israel. Am I missing something? Palmiro | Talk 11:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, most Israeli Arabs consider themselves to be Palestinians. That's not really the same thing as "some" considering them to be such - national identity is normally considered to be a matter of self-identification, so it's really a matter that only Israeli Arabs themselves get to have a view on. That being said, Nazareth is not an article on Israeli Arabs. It is an article on a city in Israel, which happens to be inhabited mostly by Israeli Arabs. Perhaps it would do to have some kind of "Israeli Arab" template, or something similar, in articles on Israeli cities with majority Arab populations. john k 11:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a useful solution. Palmiro | Talk 11:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Arab citizens of Israel (and what an odd title that is), there are 9 cities in Israel in which Arabs are a majority, of which Nazareth is the largest (it doesn't list the others). john k 13:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks John K for concisely reminding us that identity is not bounded by boundaries or citizenship, but rather self-crafted, in everyone's case.

As for Jayjg, it is historically inaccurate and just plain insulting for to say that Palestinian national identity "post-dates Israel" and "owes much of its existence to the state of Israel". It's quite amazing how patronizing you can be. Millions of refugees disposessed, a nation stillborn and still not yet free because of Israeli intransigence and we're supposed to thank Israel too for making us a "nation". Give me a break. If anyone is spouting propaganda, it is you. Read Rashid Khalidi's, "Palestinian Identity: The construction of Modern National Consciousness," and get back to me.

John K, I appreciate your efforts to find a compromise solution here. I was trying to think of an alternate template, but honestly, it's just not feasible. A template entitled "Israeli Arabs" would be inaccurate since most Palestinians with Israeli citizenship reject that term. One called "Palestinians in Israel" would be confusing. And both would divorce this population artifically from the Palestinians in the occupied territories and in the Diaspora. Similarly, I thought about a template entitled "Diaspora Palestinians" or "Palestinians in the Diaspora", but that would not cover Palestinian citizens of Israel because while they are located in place known today as Israel, they are Palestinians living largely on the same land they were before the state changed around them, so they cannot be in the Diaspora. What I don't understand is the reticence to include this template. If we were talking about a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, could we not use it? Would people say it was inappropriate? No. I don't think so. And there are "refugee camps" in Israel in a sense too. Nazareth itself has a qarter called the al-Safafira quarter where the internally displaced former Palestinian residents of Saffuriya, now Tzippori live. Why can't we alert people to the fact that they are Palestinians? Is it technical then? Just too big? Or too controversial. It's a good template that helps people understand the connection of Nazareth to the Palestinians, as a people, still living inside of it, with a new citizenship, Israeli. Why can't we let people know the facts? Tiamut 17:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, why not a template entitled "Arab citizens of Israel" as per the article title? The Palestinians template is indeed very broad - and also very large. I am not sure that it is well-suited for pages such as this. Palmiro | Talk 02:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that Palmiro's suggestion is a good one that we could probably all agree with. That would be the best venue for organising these articles - anyone who follows the link to the main page would see quite clearly the different identifications existant in that population. Tewfik^Talk 02:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As I explained above, it's an artificial distintion that glosses over the fact that Arab citizens of Israel are Palestinians, connected to same group of people in the West Bank, Gaza and the Diaspora. I would be willing to work on such a template to see how it develops, but I stress that it should include planty of information that highlights this connection so as not to mislead the reader into thinking this is another group of people entirely. Tiamut 10:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been reflecting on this issue a lot and am going to have to withdraw my approval for the seperate template idea. The template "Palestinians" has been successfully appended to the Arab citizens of Israel article where there are no objections to its inclusion. I do not see why it should be objectionable to place it in this article, considering that the vast majority of the population identifies are Arab citizens of Israel who identify as Palestinian. I feel the strongest objections raised so far are based on personal political considerations, rather than encyclopedic or NPOV bases. The exceptions to this are John K and Palmiro whose points are more based on logistical issues due to the size of the template. So, I have a technical question. Is there a way to collapse parts of template that would expand when clicked on so that the template does not take up half a page? Thanks. Tiamut 16:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed my mind. If it's the name that bothers people, I have drafted a template called Template: Arab citizens of Israel. It contains some of the same links as the Template:Palestinians (which is partially why I am against the idea, it seems redundant). But I encourage you to take a look at it. I would like to link it to this an other articles as soon as possible. Tiamut 17:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a template could be more narrowly tailored to the subject of Arab citizens in Israel, as opposed to Palestinians more broadly. I think the links to history before 1948 should be removed, for instance, and that there ought to be links in the template to cities like Nazareth that are majority Arab. There ought to be a link to the general article on Palestinians, but I'm not convinced that there ought to be one to various things that are Palestinian. That kind of thing. john k 18:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

While acknowledging your opinion, I have to counter that it is tailored to Arab citizens of Israel. They have a shared history, culture, religious diversity, etc., with Palestinians. Making a template on Arab citizens of Israel defined as narrowly as you have suggested would be redundant since the article Arab citizens of Israel already covers much of that information. I eat Palestinian and Arabic food, listen to Palestinian and Arabic music, my relatives live all over the world, some as refugees, some in the occupied territories, some in Palestine. I don't see why this information cannot be provided to the reader regarding the inhabitants of Nazareth. Shouldn't people be aware that they are not some ahistorical entity known as Arab citizens of Israel, but in fact share common characteristics with the wider Palestinian people? Their experience as Palestinians is just as valid as that of others, even if they do hold Israeli citizenship. Frankly, I would vote to delete a template on Arab citizens of Israel if it attempted to forge an artificial distinction between this population and those of their wider national/cultural group. I was against creating the template for that very reason, but thought I would give a try as a compromise position. But it's very frustrating to be told that the largest Palestinian inhabitated town in Israel should not be identified with Palestinians via a perfectly legitimate template that people with strong POVs attempted to delete 24 hours after it was created and now try to prevent people from using. (This is of course does not describe your actions) Respect. Tiamut 18:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If at all any additional template is appropriate, I would be inclined to agree with john k's idea for a specific Arab citizens in Israel template. The confusion and inaccuracy of adding the "Palestinian" template is highlighted by one of the statements you made above: "my relatives live all over the world, some as refugees, some in the occupied territories, some in Palestine." The complex relationship between "Arab citizens in Israel" and "Palestinians" is discussed on its appropriate page, and tagging this as if that discussion didn't exist would be extremely unhelpful. Tewfik^Talk 17:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I mistakenly wrote "Palestine" instead of "Israel" in that last quote, thanks for pointing that out. As for the template on "Arab citizens of Israel" as I wrote above I have already created it, and you can edit it to reflect the points you are raising. My point to John K was merely that I found such an exercise redundant given some of the overlap in information that is bound to occur if the template is faithfully constructed to provide an overview of who "Arab citizens of Israel" really are; i.e., Palestinians (nationally, culturally) who are Israeli citizens. Tiamut 17:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is worthwhile not to conflate "Arab citizens of Israel" with "Palestinians who are Israeli citizens." As I understand it Bedouins and Druzes in Israel have not traditionally considered themselves Palestinian, or been considered Palestinian by others. Beyond that I think the question is "what will a template accomplish?" The idea should be to allow readers to find useful articles on similar topics, not to mark out a topic for some nationality. john k 01:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think John K's points here are useful and I would support them. Palmiro | Talk 19:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily questioning that this author made this claim about an Egyptian origin of the term Nazareth, but in view of evidence elsewhere in the article that the town came into existence long after Egyptian hegemony in Palestine this seems far-fetched. Is this one of these crank theories? PatGallacher 17:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Events section- edited

I edited the section describing the disputed land issue from the late 1990's. The new text i entered, appears below, aiming to clarify this issue.

This site used to be the home of a school built during the Ottoman rule. The school was named al-harbyeh (in arabic means military), and many elderly people in Nazareth still remember it as the the school site, never the less, the same site still contains,the Shihab-Eddin shrine, along with several shops owned by the Waqf (Muslim community ownership.This means the land is partly waqf (Islamic religious endowment)land. The school building continued to serve as a government school until it was demolished to allow for the plaza to be built. The initial argument between the different political factions in town (represented in the local council), was on where the borders of the shrine and shops starts and where it ends

K. Suleiman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khalil.Suleiman (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Nazareth photos & review

I recommend that an external link will be added to biblewalks.com/sites/nazareth.html The site adds an overview, and maps to various sites that are reviewed in Nazareth. Each site contains many original photos, information, references, which will be useful for the readers. Biblewalks 18:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC) --82.11.180.7 18:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC){| class="wikitable" |- Insert non-formatted text here yo yo by conner wu |}

New Testament Times and Associations

Around line 55 it states:

In John 1:46, Nathaniel asks, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" The meaning of this cryptic question is debated. Some commentators suggest that it means Nazareth was very small and unimportant. But the question does not speak of Nazareth’s size but of its goodness. In fact, Nazareth was viewed with hostility by the evangelists, for it did not believe in Jesus and “he could do no mighty work there” (Mk 6:5). emphasis mine

I cannot figure out what "it" is describing, I am pretty sure Nazareth as a place couldn't believe or disbelieve in Jesus. I was going to somehow rewrite this to make sense but I am not even sure what it is trying to say. Dureo 07:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

self-published passages

I just reverted these edits pushing a novel point of view which seems to be based on a self-published website (in the diff). If other sourcing which meets the policies on Reliable sources and Attribution cannot be produced, these passages cannot be reinserted. Tewfik^Talk 04:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of non-scholarly sources like Shahin

Stop deleting the edits I have made that have updated the history section to be in line with the most recent archaeological discoveries made in Nazareth. A newspaper article from the Guardian on the discovery of Mary's Well and Shahin's "Palestine: A Guide" are sufficient enough sources for the changes I have made. There is no specialty knowledge necessary to say that there is a bathhouse in Nazareth and that archaeologists who have visited it say it is a Roman era bathhouse and that this has implications for the understanding of NAzareth's history. Further, you deleted (once again) many unrelated edits I made for clarity. The section had contradicted itself over and over previously due to Renejs (talk · contribs) rather one-sided interpretation of Nazareth's history (i.e. her thesis that it did not exist at the time of Jesus and that therefore Jesus did not exist). Tiamut 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, I've asked you to stop reverting my edits. I've made a number of changes, but nothing seems to good enough for you. The version you are restoring is internally contradictory. My edits helped clarify the contrasting information there. The paragraph on etymology you keep restoring is completely unsourced and you keep removing the fact tags I placed there (after putting Shahin as a source and you rejecting here validity as such). Could you just stop it? It's really very disruptive. Tiamut 14:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What is actually disruptive is to source stuff to Shahin, or to write stuff based on Shahin that is unsourced. Please stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's hypocrticial for you to claim Shahin is a not a valid source and then restore unsourced material in the etymology section and delete the fact tags I appended after your objections to Shahin's info on the subject. It makes it seem as though your objection to poor sourcing is not based in policy, but rather in a selective vendetta against Shahin and my edits. Tiamut 14:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be frank, Tiamut; I've had it with your continual use of bad sources, justifications for doing so, uncivil comments because I don't like your bad sources, etc. How many times must we repeat that romantic books written by amateurs in the 1920s don't count as reliable sources?? And yet your continually repeated response is "I don't understand why that's a bad source", as you do with all the bad sources you have used. I'm taking a stand, here; no more messing around with books written in the 1920s, or travel guides written without one footnote. Did you notice that your edits on Palestinian people finally started sticking when you started using reliable sources? This isn't rocket science. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be equally frank Jayjg. I've had it with your obfuscation, and incivility, your disruptive editing that deleted everything I add when you take issue with one source, mass reverting, rather than respecting that it takes time to add things to articles. Placing fact tags on sentences you think need better sources or just deleting the sentences that use those sources while retaining other unrelated edits would do wonders for our editing relationship. I have asked you about this repeatedly. Also, as I have stated above, you have yet to explain why keep restoring completely unsourced material in the etymology section and removing the fact tags I placed there. Please stop hurling insults yourself and listen to what I'm asking you so that we can actually work together without spitting at one another. Please. Tiamut 23:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The "mass reverting" was in response to your continual use of multiple bad sources, even when it was explained again and again why they were bad. When someone deletes a poorly sourced statement because it is dubious, the solution is not to insert the same sentence with a "fact" tag on it, which is exactly what you did with the etymology section. Instead of speculating, find what reliable sources say, then insert it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I realized this debate has probably died down now, but I'd like to call attention to the etymology section again. In my mind, it lacks citations. From the discussion above, citations from "Sahin" are unacceptable. Thus I have chosen to use Paul Carus (1901), which specifically references the etymologies of both "Nazareth" and "Nazir." Hopefully this will be a valuable contribution to the article. Ronocdh (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, since the Carus source does not agree with the meaning in the current version of the Wikipedia article (i.e., Carus states that the two etymologies cannot be related), I will not make the change to the page yet, and will instead wait awhile to see whether anyone replies on the discussion page. Input welcome! The source I am referring to can be viewed here: http://books.google.com/books?id=mPIaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=nazir+nazareth&source=bl&ots=c6Be19NZt7&sig=o25XJrbhJJnlQsVyHolXZfHpTPI&hl=en&ei=fblBSu3KN8-Ltge46aiWCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5 Ronocdh (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the additions you are talking about would be valuable. You should go ahead and add them and we could edit things out afterwards. The current version is unsourced so there would be no problem replacing it with sourced text. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Jewish anti-Christian violence during the Persian conquest

Renejs added text based on an article by C. Kopp, who quotes Eutychius (876-940) about a massacre of Christians by the Jews in 614. I was loath to trust the words of a German text written in 1938 alleging massacres of Christians by Jews. Renejs, who I am sure is an expert on this topic, assures me that C. Kopp, or Eutychius at least, is a trustworthy source for this.[7]

According to Elliot Horowitz, [8], the reason I've never heard of the Byzantine sources that describe the Jews as killing tens of thousands of Christians after they allied with the Persians in 614 is because modern Jewish and Israeli historians have been very biased on this point. I want to know what other people think about the text. nadav (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Our article about the Jewish alliance with the Persians is Revolt against Heraclius. nadav (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation reverts

A revert war over this would be a perfect candidate for WP:LAME. This version [9] is fine. nadav (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Emmett material

Much material from Chad Emmett's book has suddenly been included in the article "Nazareth" at Tiamut's insistence. I think this material is inappropriate for two reasons: (1) Emmett is a sociologist, and his book is about modern Nazareth and relations between Muslims, Christians, and Jews living there. His cursory remarks about the early history of the town have no place in a contentious section entitled "Earliest history & archaeological evidence," one which must rely on the evaluations of experts. If Emmett's expertise is included at all, it would be in the section on "Current events." (2) Emmett's views on ancient Nazareth, though largely traditional, are contradicted by a careful review of the primary sources (Bagatti, Viaud, and more recent studies) as shown by the references I have added to his statements. Those references, plus the necessary rebuttals, have resulted in the tedious and unfocussed article as we see it now (mid-July 2007).

It is my opinion that the section on "Earliest history & archaeological evidence" would be best served by dropping all the Emmett paragraphs entirely. The views of this sociologist have no place in this section. However, if Tiamut insists on including Emmett's views, then I must insist upon including referenced rebuttals to those views.Renejs 04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Serious revision

This article is in very bad shape. It is garbled, confusing, and full of contradictions and unsourced statements. There is way too much name-dropping of researchers. This information belongs in the reference, not in the body of the text. This article does not deserve a B-class rating (even if it once did). It needs major revision.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Emmett15" :
  • {{cite book|title=Beyond the Basilica:Christians and Muslims in Nazareth|author=Chad Fife Emmett|year=1995|publisher=University of Chicago Press|page=xvi|isbn=0226207110}}
  • {{cite book|title=Beyond the Basilica:Christians and Muslims in Nazareth|author=Chad Fife Emmett|year=1995|publisher=University of Chicago Press|page=15|isbn=0226207110}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Doubts regarding Nazareth's existence at the turn of the era

The doubts exist, and they should not be removed from the article. This sentence is well sourced with three citations, and other doubting scholars could easily be cited. However, perhaps a better place for the sentence is in "Contrary views" at the end of the article. The article does require tightening (abbreviating).-- Renejs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renejs (talk • contribs) 03:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The "doubts exist" in the minds of some amateurs with their own axes to grind. No actual archaeologists have any such doubts, which is why I've added a note to this effect at the end of the Zindler section. Exactly why an amateur and non-archaeologist like Zindler gets such billing in this article when his criticisms are a joke and there is NO controversy on the subject amongst properly qualified scholars and professionals is a mystery. I have footnoted my addition with references to three scholarly peer-reviewed works that show that Zindler's armchair criticism has no basis in reality. Let wary readers decide who they should listen to: a kooky amateur with no archaeological experience or qualifications or professionals who have excavated First Century sites in Nazareth. Incidentally, in case anyone is wondering, I kept my references to the Jewish archaeologists - we wouldn't want accusations of some kind of bias, now would we? Thiudareiks (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki policies re: "only credentialed scholars"??

For whomever you are- - deleting referenced information from this article, not signing in, and trying to set wiki policies instead of reading them- - here are the wikipedia guidelines re: contributors and credentialing: "Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles. Most of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal." See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About> In any case, the sentence under contention is well credentialed and thus is not "substandard." Cheyne and Eisenman (referenced) were/are published academics & PhD's. The third, F. Zindler, has published a book in the field. His views are the subject of the last part of this article ("Contrary Views"). Of course, the sentence under contention is disputed- - but so is much that has to do with Early Christian history.Renejs (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Don't make me laugh. The wiki policies isn't an excuse to promote lunatic fringe views like a non-existent 1th century Nazareth or the Jesus-myth. Cheyenne is somebody from the late 19th century, Eisenman some Dead Scrolls conspiracy weirdo and Zindler's qualifications are totally irrelevant (a biologist). I'm removing this pseudoshistorical nonsense until its backed up by credentialed sources.

Madiggan 12:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no controversy about whether Nazareth was inhabited in the First Century amongst archaeologists. None. The "lunatic fringe views" here are those of Frank Zindler and Rene Salm - one of whom is a Jesus Myther with an anti-Christian axe to grind and the other has his own private theory about Jesus coming from India. Zindler is a biologist. Salm is a former piano teacher. On the other hand we have objective Jewish archaeologists who have actually excavated or surveyed First Century sites in Nazareth, like Zvi Gal, Richard Freund and Nurit Feig. If the actual archaeologists have no doubt the place was inhabited, why should anyone pay attention to a biologist and a piano teacher? What were you saying about "lunatic fringe views" again? Thiudareiks (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Section "Nazareth & the Messianic Claim"

This proposed section adds nothing to the already long discussion of Nazareth. It repeats information regarding Mt. 2:23 (see section "Contrary Views") and also has a number of misspellings. The Jewish view of Jesus might be included in a Wiki article on Jesus, of which there are many. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#See_also for an initial list.Renejs (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)