Talk:Justin Martyr

Missing

Am I missing something (if so I apologize)? Where is the information on the martyrdom of Justin Martyr? I see nothing about his trial and execution here. --Daniel 12:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate POV

Having read and studied all of Justin's writings, this article has a point of view. I edited it about a year ago to add balance to it, but those edits were removed.

I also noticed that a couple of times during the year, others added a link to my article on Justin that was removed as well. Yet the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article always remains.

Justin clearly condemned mainstream Christians as well as distanced himself from the Judea-Christians of Asia Minor. This is either overlooked or glossed over in this article.

Is it possible that perhaps Wikipedia will one day be willing to keep edits to its early Christianity articles that will show the whole truth about the early Church?

One of the reasons I have not posted in about a year is that I believe that this will not happen with Wikipedia. Clearly many of its self-appointed police simply cannot consider that the way they want to portray early church history has a point of view, and a point of view that is not compatible with the facts of history.209.247.21.235 16:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)COGwriter

This morning I added quotes from Justin which I believe adds balance to the article and reduces the POV. Someone else apparently restored the link to the COGwriter article on Justin. Presuming my comments and the link remain, the article will better reflect Justin overall. HistoryThD 16:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The point of view remains. In its current form, the section that contains "controversial" quotes makes the matter worse, reading like a debate in which Justin's controversial statements are defended one by one drawing on scripture. This is not a neutral point of view. Durandir05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The controversial quotes section takes things out of context, misrepresenting Justin and possibly his challengers. One example is the statement about the eighth day having a mysterious quality. As reflected in this entry, JM appears to espouse an eight day week or something off-the-wall like that. In context, however, he trounces the import of the eighth day in his discussion on circumcision, saying that, from a Christion POV, the Jewish circumcision is obsolete. See: CCEL. If anything the controversial quotes section should be binned unless the precise points of disagreement can be shown one-by-one. Otherwise, this section simply serves to confuse readers. Therefore, I have removed the section part and parcel, posting the Wiki-code here for archiving and further consideration:

==Some of Justin's controversial statements==

It should be pointed out that Justin made a variety of statements that have been viewed by some as controversial.

"For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians."

Jesus said whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 10. "Christians who do not admit this truth" lines up with his words.

Concerning Christ, Justin taught, "And He was predicted before He appeared, first 5000 years before, and again 3000, then 2000, then 1000, and yet again 800; for in the succession of generations prophets after prophets arose."

Luke 24- Jesus said all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. The prophet Micah (5:2) stated that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and that his going forths have been from old from everlasting.

Justin also claimed, "And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan" It should be noted that there is no fire in mentioned in any biblical account of Jesus' baptism (see Matthew 3:1-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34).

The disciples on the day of Pentecost describe the Holy Spirit as Fire. Acts 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Justin wrote, "Now, sirs," I said, "it is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain mysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess, and which was promulgated by God through these rites..."

This quote is pertaining to the 1000 year millenial reign in the Book of Revelation.

Because of several statements that Justin made, Sabbatarian groups, such as the Living Church of God have considered that Justin was not a true saint, but a heretic.

Jesus himself was accused of being demon possesed and a blasphemer. Matthew 12 / Mark 14

Please do not repost this unless you can do it with fair balance to all sides of each debate. As a specialist in this area (Christian Origins and the Early Church), I shall plan to revisit this page. Alas, at the moment, I simply do not have the time to give it. I therefore count it better to have a slightly incomplete entry than to have a misleading one. //Alukasz 18:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Name of Article

Shouldn't this article be called 'Justin the Martyr'? As it is thus presented it appears to be his surname. I propose changing the name to what I stipulated. Doktor Waterhouse 10:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. "Justin Martyr" is the name used by every present-day historian and theologian who references him. I'm not sure why or how this name developed, but that is what it is. (I do agree, however, that it sounds a little confusing!) David aukerman ^talk 15:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Justin Martyr or Raymond Martini?

There seems to be some confusion as to whether the lost Midrash reconstructed by Saul Lieberman came from Justin Martyr or Raymond Martini. The currenct article on Justin Martyr says "Justin's self-perception of himself was that of a scholar, although his skills in Hebrew were either non-existent or minimal. His opposition to Judaism was typical of church leaders in his day, but does not descend to the level of anti-semitism. After collaborating with a Jewish convert to assist him with the Hebrew, Justin published an attack on Judaism based upon a no-longer-extant text of a Midrash. This Midrash was reconstructed and published by Saul Lieberman."

Yet the article on Saul Lieberman says his source for the Midrash was not Justin Martyr but Raymond Martini. "He also published a heretofore unknown Midrashic work that he painstakingly pieced together by deriving its text from an anti-Jewish polemic written by Raymond Martini, and various published lectures of Medieval Rabbis. This Midrashic text was lost on account of vigorous church censorship and suppression."

So which is it? Justin Martyr or Raymond Martini? Why all the confusion? The articles need to be revised and corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.239.94 (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to claim that Justin Martyr was a Saint in the first sentence?

The first sentence as of 2009-09-21:

Saint Justin Martyr (also Justin the Martyr, Justin of Caesarea, Justin the Philosopher, Latin Iustinus Martyr or Flavius Iustinus) (100–165) was an early Christian apologist and saint.

Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to declare somebody a saint? The first and second dictionary.com definitions include the idea that a saint is a person of great holiness. It seems inappropriate that Wikipedia would be claiming that anybody has great holiness.

I think the claim about sainthood should be removed and a short sentence added that states what religious entities recognize Justin Martyr as a saint.

As an aside this is not the only place in this article that seems to have a religious slant. Davefoc (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The leading "Saint" was incorrect per naming policy, as it was not required for disambiguation. I've removed it. As to stating that he is a saint, the pertinent definition is the one given in the linked WP article: "a human being who is believed to have been 'called' to holiness or has, consciously or unconsciously, fulfilled the criteria set for sainthood by a religious institution." JM clearly fulfills the second half of the definition. That said, I note that the descriptions of early Christian saints are rather inconsistent. It might be a good topic to bring up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Saints. Finally as to the article "having a religious slant" I'm not sure what you mean. A quick skim through the article didn't turn up anything inappropriate to me. It is an article about religion after all... so please be more specific. Mrhsj (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Mrhsj. I will defer to your judgment on this. The definitions of a word from a respected dictionary should have priority over what somebody has chosen to write about the word in a Wikipedia article IMHO. On that we may disagree. However, it turns out that the two dictionary definitions I looked at were not consistent with regards to saint. The dictionary.com definition tends to support my view. Its first definition is this: "any of certain persons of exceptional holiness of life, formally recognized as such by the Christian Church" and its second definition is even more supportive of my view: "a person of great holiness, virtue, or benevolence". But the Merriam Webster definition is consistent with the Wikipedia definition: "one officially recognized especially through canonization as preeminent for holiness". So while I disagree with you that the sentence is appropriate as written, the available evidence does not clearly support my view.

As to the religious slant: Here is the particular example I was thinking of when I wrote that:

"Flacius discovered "blemishes" in Justin's theology, which he attributed to the influence of pagan philosophers; and in modern times Semler and S.G. Lange have made him out a thorough Hellene, while Semisch and Otto defend him from this charge."

I thought that the use of the words defend and charge imply that it was bad that JM was a Hellene and this was a charge that could be defended in the way a person that commits a crime is defended from the charges. Davefoc (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

One more small argument against the use of saint in the first sentence:
I do not believe that the Catholic church or any other religious body had canonization procedures at the time of Justin Martyr's life. It seems questionable at least to give people titles that they couldn't have had in their life. But I think you need to be dead for the Catholic Church to declare you a saint so this is a bit of a weak argument since if that criteria was used nobody could be declared a saint in Wikipedia (but as noted above I don't think anybody should be).Davefoc (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK my apologies but one more argument against the way the word, saint, is used in the first sentence:
The statement is ambiguous. What does "JM was a saint mean"? A reasonable reader might interpret it either of these ways:

1. JM was a person of exceptional holiness.
2. JM has been recognized as a saint by a religious entity.

If it means that he was a person of exceptional holiness I think we both agree that it would be an inappropriate statement for a Wikipedia article. But if it just means that he is a recognized saint by a particular religious entity then what entity is that? Does it mean Roman Catholic? Greek Orthodox? And if it means either of those does that mean that Wikipedia is implicitly accepting the notion of Roman Catholic priority over other religions that don't recognize saints at all?

With respect the answer to all this is to just eliminate "and saint" from the first sentence and include a second brief sentence to the effect that JM is recognized as a saint by the major religious entities that recognize him as such.Davefoc (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The objection really seems to be "I don't want anyone called a saint because I don't agree with their religion." I don't think that is helpful to Wikipedia. Roger Pearse (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I thought the edit by Roger Pearse of the opening section was appropriate and well done. I am not sure I understand the comment by Roger Pearse above. In fact, I don't think anybody should be called a saint in WIkipedia without an explanation of what group recognizes that individual as a saint, not because I don't agree with their religion but because I think WIkipedia is a secular site that shouldn't have a slant to any particular religion. Davefoc (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Logos section

The Logos section of this article is rambling and poorly written. It also betrays a clear POV. It is a matter of scholarly debate whether Justin considers the Logos/Son to be God in the same way as the Father. The article currently argues that he does not, and deal poorly with his material on the Logos as Angel and Apostle sent from the Father– it is inconsistent with the structure of Justin's argument, and therefore quite misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.89.216 (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Merged MA material from the G12 article

I have merged the Memoirs of the Apostles material from the Gospel of the Twelve article into this article. It became clear, after some investigation, that the material did not fit in the G12 article. The section entitled Memoirs of the Apostles was originally the Name section that reported on Justin's use of the term "memoirs of the Apostles" to refer to the gospels generally, and more specifically to the fulfillment of prophecy. The Composition section describes Justin's use of two testimony sources - a "kerygma source" believed to be circulating within Justin's school, which contained scriptural proof-texts demonstrating the proof from prophecy of the life and career of Jesus, and a "recapitulation source" used by Justin to create proofs from prophecy of the divinity of Jesus. The second source is almost certainly The Disputation of Jason and Papiscus. It was used only in the Dialogue as the main testimony source to demonstrate a preexistence Christology. Ovadyah (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I moved the material on Charles Hill from the Scriptural Citations section and combined it with the opposing view articulated by Koester. The question is whether Justin regarded the gospels as being inspired writings on a par with the OT prophecies or accurate historical accounts of the fulfillment of prophecy that did not have the authority of Scripture. Hill says they did; Koester says no. Ignocrates (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Composition section

While I still have the books checked out from the university library, I may expand this section a bit. I was focusing on the testimony sources because they contain the scriptural proofs that Justin refers to as the "memoirs of the Apostles". However, there are other examples that could be included of Justin's use of sources which were circulating within his school. The most important of these are the catechal source materials that Justin's school used for ethical instruction. Another example is Justin's use of a source, which is probably The Apology of Quadratus, that compared heroes of Greece and Rome to notable figures in the Hebrew Bible. Neither of these sources contain scriptural proofs, and Justin never refers to them as "memoirs", but excerpts from both sources are contained in the First Apology and the Dialogue. Ovadyah (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I decided to be conservative and refrain from naming Justin's tracts comparing Greek mythology to OT prophecies and Plato's dependence on Moses. These may well be from a lost Apology, but there is nothing in Eusebius' report on the Apology of Quadratus to suggest it is the same work used by Justin. P. Nautin was engaging in pure speculation, which Skarsaune reported in a footnote without comment. Ovadyah (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The section on catechetical sayings sources is largely complete. It could be mentioned that the four logia in Dial. 35:3 probably came from a different sayings source than the catechism used to create 1 Apol. 15-17 and parallels in the Dialogue. However, this would only supplement the main point that Justin was dependent upon source materials that were already circulating within his school. Ovadyah (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I may write a bit more about the Christology of The Disputation Between Jason and Papiscus, if I have time. Aristo of Pella appears to have fused a Wisdom Christology (Wisdom as the first-born of creation) similar to the Gospel of the Hebrews with a Second Adam Christology (the first Adam was defeated by Satan, but Christ, as the second Adam, in turn vanquished Satan) similar to Paul in Romans. Both of these Christologies were used by Aristo to argue for the preexistence of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Ovadyah (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I added a bit more about the Christology of the Disputation. I didn't push any possible similarities to the GH or Romans 5, as these are very indirect at best. That completes the work on the Composition section. Ovadyah (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I created a new subsection for Scriptural sources (what Justin would have regarded as primary historical accounts) and consolidated the material on Koester's view of Justin's use of the gospels in the Scriptural Citations section to the new subsection. This subsection could be expanded by additional information on Justin's use of the individual Synoptic Gospels. For example, it's clear that Justin used source material from the Gospel of Matthew directly in the Dialogue and well indirectly as part of a gospel harmony. The evidence is much less clear for the other gospels. Ignocrates (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved from Jewish-Christian gospels

may be someone thinks worth including? moving rather than simply deleting In ictu oculi (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Love your enemies. Be kind and merciful as your heavenly Father is.
• "To him that smites you on the one cheek offer also the other, and him that takes away your cloak or coat forbid not. And whosoever shall be angry shall be in danger of the fire. And everyone that makes you go with him a mile follow him two. And let your good works shine before men, that they, seeing them, may glorify your Father who is in Heaven.
• "Give to him who asks, and from him that would borrow, turn not away. For if you lend to them of whom you hope to receive, what good thing do you do? Even the publicans do this. Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust corrupt and where thieves break through, but lay up for yourself treasure in Heaven, where neither moth nor rust corrupts. For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world and lose his own soul? And what shall a man give in exchange for it? Lay up, therefore, treasure in Heaven, where neither moth nor rust corrupts.
• "You shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy strength, and thy neighbor as thyself.
• "Swear not at all, but let your yes be yes, and your no, no; for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil.
• "If you love them that love you, what good thing do you do? For even the sexually immoral do this. But I say to you, pray for your enemies, and love them that hate you, and bless them that curse you, and pray for them that spitefully use you.
• "There are some who have been made eunuchs of men and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying.
• "If thy right eye offend you, cut it out; for it is better for you to enter the Kingdom of Heaven with one eye than having two eyes to be cast into everlasting fire.
• "He who looks on a woman lustfully commits adultery with her in his heart before God.
• "Whosoever shall marry her who is divorced from another husband commits adultery.
• "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
• "Fear not them that kill you and after that can do no more, but fear him who after death is able to cast both soul and body into hell.
• "Except you be born again, verily you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
• "The children of this world marry and are given in marriage, but the children of the world to come neither marry nor are given in marriage, but shall be like the angels in Heaven.
• "Many false Christs and false apostles shall arise and shall deceive many of the faithful.
• "Beware of false prophets, who shall come to your clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
• "And he overthrew the money-changers, and exclaimed, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you pay a tithe of mint and rue but do not observe the love of Most High and justice. You whitewashed sepulchres, appearing beautiful outwardly, but are within full of dead men's bones. Woe unto you Scribes, for you have the keys, and you do not enter in yourselves, and them that are entering in, you hinder. You blind guides, you are the Children of Hell times twice over.
• "The Law and the Prophets were until John the Baptist. From that time the Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. And if you can receive it, he is Elijah who was to come. He that has ears to hear let him hear.
• "Elijah must come and restore all things. But I say to you, Elijah has already come, and they knew him not, but have done to him whatever they chose. Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them about John the Baptist.
• "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the Pharisees and Scribes, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
• "Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that does the will of my Father who is in Heaven. For whosoever hears me and does my sayings, hears him that sent me. And many will say to me, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten and drunk in your name and done wonders? And then will I say to them, 'Depart from me, you workers of iniquity. Then shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth, when the righteous shall shine like the sun, and the wicked are sent into everlasting fire. For many shall come in my name clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly being ravening not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.
• "I give you power to tread on serpents and on scorpions and on all the might of the enemy.
• "They shall come from the East and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven.
• "There is none good but God only, who made all things.
• "No man knows the Father but the Son, nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son reveals himself.
• "An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign shall be given it save the sign of Jonah.
• "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
• "In whatsoever things I shall apprehend you, in those also will I judge you."

no idea about the source In ictu oculi (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I recovered the deleted references supporting the above quotations:

A soldier in the British Army in India Arthur Lillie (1893) (ref Arthur Lillie The Influence of Buddhism on Primitive Christianity 1893 section excerpted and retailed as The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005. pp 111 - 134 /ref) argued that when Justin Martyr is quoting from the Memoirs of the Apostles these sayings are really from the Gospel of the Hebrews (ref Rev. Sabine Baring-Gould, The Lost And Hostile Gospels, 1874 POD reprint Nabu Press, 2010. p 122 - 129 /ref) (ref Waite Burlingame (1824-1909) History of the Christian Religion, to the Year Two Hundred, 1881 POD reprint BiblioBazaar, 2009. p 278 /ref)

The above quotations were possibly excerpted from these 100-plus year old sources, but that is not clear from the content of the article. As it stands, they are devoid of any context, and therefore, useless for improving a biographical article on Justin Martyr. What would be more relevant to this article are modern reliable secondary sources that investigate how and why Justin utilized these sayings by understanding his aims and the organization of the material to achieve them. Ovadyah (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

'primitive eschatology'

Is this really an appropriate term for an encyclopedia? Who is in the position to judge an eschatology as primitive or not? I was under the impression that editors of Wikipedia were supposed to leave their personal oppinion on a topic out ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.196.171.210 (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved unsourced content to talk

Justin's attitude toward the Pauline epistles generally corresponds to that of the later Church. In this area, his polemics against Marcion were in accord with the emergent mainstream Catholic views. In Justin's works, distinct references are found to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy. It seems likely that he also knew Hebrews and 1 John. The apologetic character of Justin's habit of thought appears again in the Acts of his martyrdom, the genuineness of which is attested by internal evidence.

The remaining unsourced content from the Scriptural citations section has been moved here temporarily until reliable sources can be found (Wikisource is not a reliable source). At that point the material will be reintegrated into a Letters subsection of the new Scriptural sources section. There are also some pious OR editorial statements in here that need to be cleaned up. Ignocrates (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The main content of this section:

"distinct references are found to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy. It seems likely that he also knew Hebrews and 1 John."

appears to be copied directly from this blog. The same content is also found in Development of the New Testament canon minus the pious OR commentary. That article has the following source, which I will check out as a possible RS for this article: Everett Ferguson, "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) pp. 302–303; cf. Justin Martyr, First Apology 67.3. It's somewhat alarming to see how many Web articles have incorporated this unsourced commentary as though it were an obvious fact. Ignocrates (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A little more digging shows that the content was added on Dec. 7, 2001, and it was originally part of the Doctrine of the Logos section. It was copied directly from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religion, but it was never properly sourced in the article, so mystery solved. Ignocrates (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up the OR in this section and referenced it with Schaff as an encyclopedic tertiary source for now. I personally feel uneasy about relying on these old religious encyclopedias as sources, as they tend to be overtly POV. Consider this a placeholder until more current reliable secondary sources can be found. Ignocrates (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Justin Martyr was a Palestinian thinker?

Nishidani edited the first sentence so that it contained the claim that Justin Martyr was an "was an early Palestinian thinker".

The claim was deleted by Luke 19 Verse 27 and Nishidani undid Luke 19 Verse 27's edit.

I don't understand the purpose of adding the claim to the article. What did Nishiand mean by the term, Palestinian, and what was the purpose of his addition? The use of the word here seems problematic to me since Palestinian has a variety of meanings and exactly what is intended by the addition isn't clear to me. From the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Definitions of Palestine: "The term Palestine has several overlapping (and occasionally contradictory) definitions". If the purpose of this edit is to make clear the fact that Martyr was from an area that is part of present day Palestine, then it seems unnecessary since that fact is included only one sentence below the sentence in question.

I also question the addition of the word thinker to the opening sentence. I don't see how new information is added to the article with the addition of this term. Almost all humans are in some way, thinkers. The term in the context of the way it is used here has an informal connotation that Martyr was more contemplative about issues beyond normal life than the average person. That seems to be both a subjective judgment and something which is probably true just from the nature of the individual described by the article. I don't see any added value by describing Martyr as a "thinker".--Davefoc (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well said. I believe Nish is attempting to make a link between the modern day Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza strip, and Martyr. On the Palestinian People article he has been working to cement Jesus Christ and Martyr as "Palestinians." I don't think Matyr should be called that until the debate at the other page is complete. As it stands, it is POV pushing.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, gentlemen. I always edit according to reliable sources. There are two that describe Justin Martyr as a 'Palestinian thinker', and since experts on him use that language, the text reflects RS. All of your suspicions about my motives are just that. Address the edit, not the person. 'I' don't 'mean' anything by the edit other than enriching its narrative by precisely what scholarly sources say, and since they use that term, neither you nor me nor anyone else, as an editor, can exercise a right of censure. We follow sources, we don't sit, as many of you do, in judgement on them according to contemporary partisan misprisions about the meaning of words. I'm a classicist and have been reading on that area for 50 years, and 'Palestinian' means exactly what it is defined as meaning in the Oxford English Dictionary, i.e., it means a native or inhabitant of that area since Biblical times to the present day. You can try and gerryrig, as happened on the other page by the usual alerts off-line, a blow-in majority who give a thumbs down but unfortunately a majority of editors' opinions do not outweigh the primary importance of what scholars write. Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the definition of Palestinian from the on-line Oxford English Dictionary:
A native or inhabitant of Palestine, in ancient or modern times. In early use also: a Philistine (cf. Philistine n. and adj.). Now usually: spec. an Arab born or living in the area of the former mandated territory of Palestine; a descendant of such an Arab.

So Martyr seems to be a Palestinian by the first definition however the definition provided suggests that as per current usage a Palestinian is an Arab living in the former mandated territory of Palestine.

The point here, Nishiandi, is not that there aren't reliable sources that describe Martyr as a Palestinian thinker. The point is that what those words mean isn't clear without the context of the source that you retrieved the words from.

The wording in the second sentence is absolutely clear. Martyr was from a city that lies within the area described in standard modern terminology as Palestinian. The meaning of the claim that Martyr was a Palestinian is not clear without the context of the reliable sources that you mentioned. What beyond the fact that Martyr lived in a city that lies within the borders of present day Palestine did you mean to convey?

Despite the fact that you have found reliable sources that state that Martyr was a "thinker", the use of the term conveys no information about Martyr without the additional context of what the author meant by the use of that word. Thinker, as used in the context of your addition is generally used informally in English and is not generally useful in an encyclopedic context. Can you point to the article of another individual that is described as a thinker in Wikipedia? --Davefoc (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Some research on the nationality of Martyr:

• He was born in what is present day Palestine.
• He was probably pagan in a largely Jewish area
• He spoke Greek and it sounds like he was probably a descendant of the Greeks that conquered the area under Alexander the Great.
• Flavea Napolis where he was born and Epheseus where he moved to were areas that were formerly controlled by the Greeks but were now under Roman Control.
• He moved to Rome where he established a Christian school.

I see arguments there for describing him as Palestinian, Greek, or Roman. The winning argument, to me, is that without further information about what is meant by each of the terms he shouldn't be described as any of those nationalities since each of those descriptions would be misleading if used without further information.--Davefoc (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You are using WP:OR to challenge WP:RS. That is forbidden.

My native language is English. My profession is scholarship. I know that when a source writes 'Palestinian thinker' of some subject, and the OED writes that 'Palestinian' refers to a native or inhabitant of Palestine in ancient and modern times, that these texts say what they mean. I made the edit. If you have serious objections, state them. It is not our job to challenge sources because we disagree with them. 'I', if you look at my record, add information to articles exclusively from academic sources, I don't question them. My opinion doesn't count, neither does yours. The word Palestinian' in the same sense is used of numerous people from Maximus the Confessor, to Sozomen by academic specialists. This is no exception. Policy advises us to shut up about what we think, and just write articles according to the best available sources, with rigorous fidelity to their content and language. Blame the sources, not me.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

These are the exact same anachronistic, revisionist arguments made by Nishidani and already refuted at Talk:Palestinian people#RfC: Was Jesus a "Palestinian"? As pointed out in that article, in his book Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, the well-known Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi argues that the modern national identity of Palestinians has its roots in nationalist discourses that emerged among the peoples of the Ottoman empire in the late 19th century, and which sharpened following the demarcation of modern nation-state boundaries in the Middle East after World War I. He cautions against the efforts of some Palestinian nationalists to "anachronistically" read back into history a nationalist consciousness that is in fact "relatively modern" - of course, that is exactly what is being attempted here. Most other reliable sources indicate that the modern identity "Palestinian" emerged at some point in the late 19th to mid-20th century. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, also on this page the boys in the control room have emailed around and . . .By the way, you always accuse me of stalking you if I appear on a page you happen to have worked before I show up (the diffs aren't hard to find). So? What is your interest in this page? Please reread WP:RS and policy. The text is cited word perfectly, and no amount of wikilawyering or stacking, as on the other page, the talk forum alters the fact that one of our foremost experts on this man calls him 'a Palestinian thinker'. It's quite common, and is a scholarly convention for writing on this period. Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A lead is a summary of info from the body. The second sentence of the first body paragraph says he was born in Palestine. The rest of the paragraph makes plain that he spent a good deal of time in thought.

The lead does not need to mention this info. His birthplace is not an important part of his encyclopedic signifigance. Additionally, the body saying he was "born in Palestine" is far clearer than saying he "was a Palestinian."Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is in a primitive state. The lead needs, as does the article, development. So develop it. Articles aren't written by people making objections to additions. They are written by people reading up on the subject. I happened to read Justin Martyr for my course work forty-five years ago, and will oblige to do so provided you show some interest in reading a book on him and adding substance to the article, rather than showing an ideological unease with terms that are normal for that period. One can invent any number of objections for what one dislikes, but please try to restrict yourself to policy. Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, thank you for your responses, but with respect I think your reliance on the reliable sources argument in this instance is wrong. I have not argued that your sources are wrong or unreliable, I have just argued that without additional information about what your sources meant your edits have added ambiguity to the article without adding additional information. There are reliable sources that claim that Martyr was Greek and I am not arguing that those sources should replace yours. I think if Martyr is identified as Greek in the article it would be necessary to describe what was meant by the use of that description.

With respect, I think you failed to answer my principal question to you. What information did you wish to convey by identifying Martyr as Palestinian? Your reliable sources are not editing the article. You are the one that has taken their thoughts out of the context of their work. It is reasonable to ask you what information that you wished to convey. Did you mean to convey more information than that Martyr was born in an area of present day Paletine? If not why isn't the unambiguous sentence immediately below this sentence adequate to convey that information? If you wished to convey additional information what is that information?

You have also not dealt with why Martyr should be described as a thinker. What information is the reader supposed to take away from this article as a result of that description? Are any of the other early Christian writers described as thinkers in the articles about them? Is Martyr a thinker and they weren't? Did the reliable source that you used give you any idea about what particularly distinguished Martyr as a "thinker" from other early Christian writers or other notable people? --Davefoc (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is your textual evidence for your objections? On what policy do you base your evident intention to remove an impeccable reliable source. This is not a talk shop. We work, and work has guidelines. Please follow them.Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a fragment of information comes from a reliable source does not automatically make it appropriate for a Wikipedia article. That is just obvious fact and it doesn't need an explicit policy to make it so. What information from what sources goes into a Wikipedia article is at the discretion of the editors. I have requested that you supply the reason behind your edits in several ways. It does not appear that you intend to share with us what your reasons for the edit were. This is fine, of course, Wikipedia does not have any method to compel anybody to do anything, but hiding behind a misinterpretation of a reliable source argument is not useful if you are trying to support the idea that your edit to this article should be left in. I have made a serious effort to figure out what your intent was with goal of suggesting a compromise. You have not told us what information you meant to convey with your edit and as such I can't see any valid basis for a compromise. Your edit doesn't mean anything specific to me and as such I recommend that it be deleted.--Davefoc (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That a man is a thinker, or philosopher or theologian is not a 'fragment of information'. It defines his identity, and Justin Martyr, if you read sources, was not just a 'Christian apologist'. You ask my reasons for the edit? What are the reasons you or anyone else edits on wikipedia. That kind of question is not within the scope of wikipedian's remit. You have no right to ask 'what information' I meant to convey by an edit. Your remit, as mine, is to add verifiable information from reliable sources. Full stop. We all have our suspicions about what others are doing here, but they have no part in how we judge edits. Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It is reasonable to think you have a personal grudge in this decision. Your user page contains over a dozen uses of the word "Palestinian." You use it to triumph your opinions about the I-P conflict.

It is reasonable to think that you are an WP:activist here. You are taking a piece of info near and dear to your heart (people born in Palestine) and increasing the prominence of that info in a purposefully ambiguous way.

It is reasonable to think you are WP:edit warring here because you are doing it on Palestinian People too.

It is reasonable to think that the fancy pants classics degree you got 45 years ago means nothing. "That a man is a thinker... defines his identity" also doesn't mean anything.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears an acrimonious edit war is underway. I hope I have not contributed to the acrimony and I apologize if people think I have. I think anybody that has gone there might pull back a bit. However, from my perspective, Nishidani's edit detracts from the quality of the article and its removal should stand. If Martyr lived in a political division that was known as Palestinian or if Martyr had known ethnic ties to a Palestinian people then I think those would be relevant facts to article and it might be appropriate to include those facts in the article, perhaps not in the lede though. As it stands it seems like Martyr was born in an area that might have been in a province the Romans designated as Samaria. It also seems like his ethnic background was Greek or perhaps Roman so if Palestinian was intended to describe Martyr's ethnic background it might be wrong. Is there any information to support the notion either that Martyr thought of himself as a Palestinian or that he would have been described as such by others at the time of his life?

For what it is worth, I have seen acrimonious discussion before about the nationality that is used to describe an individual. This largely stems, I think, from the ambiguous nature of nationality terms. The solution is to specify exactly what is meant by the nationality adjective. This was done exactly in the sentence below where the meaning of Palestine is made clear by context. Again, FWIW, I am very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but I don't think using the term ambiguously, promotes the Palestinian cause.

Frankly speaking, the use of the term thinker is obviously inappropriate in the edit by Nishandi. The OED provides many definitions for the word so that it just can't be determined what is meant by its use in this context. It's use in standard English is almost always informal and I think its use in an Encyclopedia where formal language is the norm is strange at best. --Davefoc (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Other sources describe his differently for example "Roman provincial, from the province known as Judaea until its name was changed by Hadrian as a part of his policy of trying to crush Jewish identity in the terrible aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132" [1]--Shrike (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring. Since this is getting a lot of people, with unfortunately little familiar with the period, or its scholarship, upset because when they see the word 'Palestinian' they think of contemporary terrorists, could I ask you and a few other editors here to familiarize yourself with scholarly conventions on writing of that period. Sources count in wikipedia, not politics or personal opinions.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added two new sources so that readers understand precisely that scholars of Justin Martyr use 'Palestinian' to define his background. Only a moron, at this point, will be misled to think he was a member of the PLO, if that is the 'concern'.Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)