Talk:Sefer HaRazim

untitled

I've linked to the Cairo Geniza, as it seems to have been discovered there, [1]. This article needs some expert attention. If anyone could specify the sources used for reconstruction, how many of them where known before the discovery of the Geniza (as some paragraphs from the book are being refered to elsewhere). Also, the status of the book as a book of 'Kaballah' is quite dubious if it was not known from around 400CE to the 1960s. Oyd11 02:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because the fragments were recovered by our culture in the 20th century, it doesn't mean that the book itself was lost for over a millenia. Missile Command Kid 11:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a Tom Noddy statement and should be avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.4.1.203 (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Kabbalah and the use of the term in this article

From a scholarly standpoint, we cannot really call this a "work of Kabbalah" or a "Kabbalistic text," as Kabbalah is understood in the academic world as being the mystical traditions emerging from the Narbonne school in the 12th century. If this is a 5th century text, it surely doesn't hold up to the definition. Additionally, the sentence in the article - "The text itself was once considered to be part of "orthodox" Judaism under the influence of Hellenism, but this text, along with other works of Kabbalah, are considered to be unorthodox at best and heretical at worst in modern Judaism." - needs reworking. From a general standpoint, accepted works of Kabbalah are not considered heretical in modern Judaism, as the sentence implies. RavMikha'el (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your academic points - "Jewish mysticism", pre-"Kabbalah", normative Kabbalah: Primary texts not heretical in mainstream/modern Judaism (Dor Daim is a minority view exception). I've corrected these words. It was very easy, and a lot quicker than your long post, so why didn't you alter it instead! Anyway, thanks for pointing it out, and giving me extra sanction/consensus (if it were theoretically needed) to correct these clear errors of terminology. I've also substituted "Category:Kabbalah texts" with "Category:Jewish mystical texts". 81.178.204.48 (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Sefer HaRazim.Clear concensus to move and the title by Number57 seems to be the most apt in the situation.(non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 16:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Sepher Ha-Razim → Sefer ha-Razim – "Sefer" is the usual transliteration of ספר (e.g., Sefer Torah, Sefer Yetzirah), and the article "ha-" should not be capitalized. Einsof (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Three of the four sources listed in the bibliography use the current transliteration and capitalisation. Timrollpickering 22:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• @Einsof and Timrollpickering: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• The Margalioth source is actually in Hebrew, and is transliterated as Sefer ha-Razim when cited elsewhere (e.g. 1, 2). The Levy source is completely untraceable as far as I can tell; all google searches lead back to various mirrors of this Wikipedia article. Einsof (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, the nominator seems to have made a good case, and the last dated source, from 2009, presents a lower-case title. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Worrying about minor transliteration differences for extremely obscure pages is not a very effective use of time or effort, IMO. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This is no rationale for opposing a move In ictu oculi (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Based on WP:HEBREW, it should be Sefer HaRazim (the "H" in "Ha" should be capitalised). This is not an uncommon usage in books. Number 57 12:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Sefer HaRazim per Number57  — Amakuru (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support certainly shouldn't have H capitalized In ictu oculi (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It should be capitalised – see WP:HEBREW#Formative letters ("In all capitalized words, he hayedi'a (ha, he) will be capitalized, as well as the word after it"). Number 57 15:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: I see a strong consensus to move, with the only question being whether or not the h is capitalised. But we need to resolve that. Andrewa (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Any further comments on the h? No consensus on this above IMO. Andrewa (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Now that I'm aware that there is a guide for Hebrew romanization, I agree with a move to Sefer HaRazim. Einsof (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

One (Sefer HaRazim) is in line with the WP:HEBREW naming convention and one (Sefer ha-Razim) is not (and several of the editors above did not seem to be aware of this convention at the time of their comment), so there should be a fairly clear winner here. Number 57 15:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.