Talk:Ebionites/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Eusebius and the Gospel of Matthew

On the article, it makes reference to how Eusebius spoke of the Gospel of the Hebrews. I was reading Ecclesiastical History, and came across this reference: As to these translators it should be stated that symmachus was an Ebionite... Commentaries of Symmachus are still extant in which he appears to support this heresy by attacking the Gospel of Matthew. (Ecc. Hist. Book VI. Ch. XVII.) Use this reference you see best.24.125.102.206 (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

RelHistBuff's comments / criticisms

• Comment: After reading the current version, I am afraid that I must reaffirm my vote to Remove. The Ebionites of which we have so little in terms of extant writings are used by modern scholars to push interesting, if not controversial views. For this reason, I believe the article really needs more depth in the History, Views and practices, and Writings sections. I write below some criticisms which I hope will help in improving the article.

• In the lead, mention is made of two opposing views, the traditional view that the Ebionites were offshoots of mainstream Christianity and a modern view that the Ebionites were “more faithful to the authentic teachings of Jesus” and that they were “marginalized by the followers of Paul of Tarsus”. The latter modern view which is presumably more controversial is not explained at all in the article. Why were Ebionites considered more faithful to the teachings of Jesus? What is considered the “authentic” teachings? What group were the “followers of Paul”?
• The lead mentions that they regarded James as the head of the church, while the article only says some scholars claim this. The rejection of Paul comes from Patristic sources. Putting the two together appears like a synthesis which is WP:OR. The text in the lead needs to be rephrased and cited.
• The assertion that the earliest reference of the group uses a cite to Justin Martyr’s writing, a primary source. But surely it wasn’t Martyr who said that this is the earliest reference! Some scholar must have said that. Who? Please cite the secondary source.
• Similarly, Irenaeus supposedly was the first to used the term “Ebionites”. But the cite is again to the primary source of Irenaeus. Who made the assertion that Irenaeus was the first to use the term? The secondary source cite is missing.
• In a previous version of this article, there were more explanations on why Epiphanius’ account was questionable. I would suggest putting this back in or expanding the current text (and again giving the cite to the secondary source).
• Related to all this is that there is a heavy use of primary source citations and use of tertiary sources such as Schaff and other encyclopaedias and websites. Secondary sources should be mainly used especially for featured articles. And for articles on the history of religion, preferably printed books or journals.
• The line "Many scholars link the origin…" should be cited.
• One paragraphs starts with “According to these scholars…”. It is not clear which scholars. Is it the “Many scholars…” from the previous paragraph?
• Under the writings section, the definition of the grouping of writings is from the Catholic Encyclopedia which is again only a tertiary source and one that has a certain POV on the Ebionites. Probably a better source should be used. Again, the cites tend to use primary sources that does not really cite the assertions made in the text. There is a mention of Ebed Jesu. Who is he? Without the explanation, that line adds little value.
• If the Ebionites reject the gnostic doctrines within the Book of Elchesai, then why is the book considered part of Ebionite writings?

With some work, I am sure this can be brought back to FAC. --RelHistBuff 14:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I copied RelHistBuff's comments from FARC to the talkpage to preserve them for future editors. Whoever takes over editing the article would do well to take them seriously, or they will be back in future reviews. Particularly relevant to any cleanup are the misuse of primary and tertiary sources and his comments relating to WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Ovadyah 13:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I reapplied the expert-verify tag that I had placed in August. That is certainly appropriate for an article that has been demoted from FA to B status. I'll leave it to others to decide about cleanup. That's it. Good luck. Ovadyah 13:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Question. I believe the one encyclopedia entry I used cited primarily non-English sources. Would it be preferable to try to find the non-English sources, even if they would be less easily understood by the average reader? John Carter 17:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee found that MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained edit-warring and is subject to an editing restriction for one year, he is limited to one revert per page per week and must discuss any content changes on the article's talk page. Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 04:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

traditional portrayal

If we have to go back 50 0r 100 years to find a scholar that supports the traditional view, can we just cut it as not contemporary?

Some scholars agree with the substance of the traditional portrayal as an offshoot of mainstream Christianity attempting to reestablish [[Halakha|Jewish Law]],<ref name="Uhlhorn">G. Uhlhorn, "Ebionites", in: Philip Schaff (ed.), ''A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology'', 3rd ed. (1894), p. 684–685 (vol. 2).</ref><ref name="RGG">O. Cullmann, "Ebioniten", in: ''Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart'', 1958. p. 7435 (vol. 2).</ref>

Leadwind (talk) 03:26, 8 March 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 :)

• "Wace 1911" :
  • {{cite book | author = Henry Wace & William Piercy | title = A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography | year = 1911 | url = http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Ebionism%20and%20Ebionites| accessdate = 2007-08-01}}
  • {{cite book | author = Wace, Henry & Piercy, William | title = A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography | year = 1911 | url = http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Ebionism%20and%20Ebionites| accessdate = 2007-08-01}}
• "Maccoby 1987" :
  • {{cite book| author = [[Hyam Maccoby]]| title = The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity| pages = p. 172-183.| publisher = HarperCollins | year = 1987 | id = {{ISBN|0062505858}}}}
  • {{cite book| author = [[Hyam Maccoby]]| title = The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity| publisher = HarperCollins | year = 1987 | id = {{ISBN|0062505858}}}}
• "RGG" :
  • [[Oscar Cullmann]], "Ebioniten", in: ''Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart'', 1958. p. 7435 (vol. 2).
  • O. Cullmann, "Ebioniten", in: ''Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart'', p. 7435 (vol. 2).
• "Arendzen 1909" :
  • [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm "Ebionites"], ''[[Catholic Encyclopedia]]'', vol. V (1909).
  • {{cite book| author = Arendzen, J.P. | title = Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V.: Ebionites | publisher = Robert Appleton Company | year = 1904}}
• "Uhlhorn" :
  • G. Uhlhorn, "Ebionites", in: [[Philip Schaff]] (ed.), ''A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology'', 3rd ed. (1894), p. 684–685 (vol. 2).
  • G. Uhlhorn, "Ebionites", in: ''A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology'', 3rd ed. (edited by Philip Schaff), p. 684–685 (vol. 2).

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision Needed

This article needs a lot of work! - Ret.Prof (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

Yes, and it needs even more work now that the lead section has been demolished! --Ovadyah (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ebionites and Jewish Christians and early Christians

How do Ebionites compare to Jewish Christians in general and (prior to Paul) to Christians in general? Were all Christians prior to Paul also Jewish? Were all Jewish Christians Ebionites? If not, how did Ebionites compare to other Jewish Christians? Leadwind (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed ad nauseum on this talk page. Check the archives for well-documented primary and secondary sources, now blown away by clumsy editing. --Ovadyah (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to Neo-Ebionite groups

Look, I have no problem with neo-ebionite groups. The problem is a lack of notability and verifiability. The editors that put much time and effort into this article have been through this many times before. If you add content to the article or an external link that advertises your group then the burden is on you to prove it should remain. --Ovadyah (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed Neo-Ebionite bit

There was no attempt to show significance. Look, on the internet it is simple to find a group of people that profess to believe just about anything you can think of, and they often like to use ancient names. So, I've got to say "so what?" You need to show why a group rises to the level of significance to be worthy of note. If we let every half-baked internet religious group have space, we may as well let every garage band have a page.Ekwos (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ebionite Jewish Community

When I click on the ebionite jewish community mentioned in the article it redirects me to the Ebionite page. Why is it even mentioned if it does not have a page itself? Maybe this EJC mention and redrect should be removed like the other neo-ebionite advertisments have been?

The debate on the nomination for deletion of the EJC article resulted in a consensus to merge. The EJC article was merged with a redirect to the Ebionites article (see top of talk page). The merged section was subsequently deleted anyway. --Ovadyah (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is blantantly unfair. The consensus was merge, not delete, yet now they have been deleted.--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the deletion was a well-intentioned mistake. An inexperienced editor, happening by, responded to what they thought was an advertisement placed in the article by a fringe group. --Ovadyah (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight to Fringe theories

According to the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The Jesus Dynasty, it seems fairly obvious that the consensus of uninvolved editors consider this work to be a work putting forward a fringe theory. On that basis, given wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, without additional substantial support from other academics, there is insufficient cause for Tabor's book, which is apparently regarded as "fringey", to receive substantive discussion in this or any article. Eisenman's book, which had previously been determined to be "fringey", seems to be only supported by Tabor's fringey source, and two fringe sources do not make something non-fringe. I am therefore being bold and removing text and citations relative to these books in articles where it seems to be the above policies and guidelines apply. I believe any attempt to restore more content to those articles, without explicit consensus from editors, would likely qualify as edit warring, and will be responded to as such. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A minority view doesn't make it inadmissable. I'm reverting. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between a "minority" view and a fringe view, as the above editor well knows. These sources have both been indicated to be "fringey" as per WP:FRINGE. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. An editor cannot unilaterally decide what is "mainstream" and then use this self-designated authority to delete whole paragraphs of sourced content while suppressing any disagreement by flogging it as edit warring. This is POV-pushing at its worst. The paragraph in question is supported by multiple sources. I have requested informal mediation to get some oversight for this process and try to calm things down (see below). If that fails or is rejected, I think a trip to AN/I is warranted. Ovadyah (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I call to the attention of any outside intereted parties that there has been a request for input at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories noticeboard, that both of the above parties had indicated that their own biases toward including this information earlier, without providing any valid reasons to support its inclusion, and that at no point did either party do anything to assert or even indicate that there was any evidence to indicate that the Tabor/Eisenman theory is not fringe, and that previous discussion indicated the Eisenman theory, on its own, counted as fringe. I would welcome a review of the entire history of this matter, including possible indications of conflict of interest on the part of one or both of the above parties regarding this subject. I also call to the attention of any interested outsider that both of the above seem to be well aware of the requirement that they produce substantial evidence that the material does in fact fall within the mainstream for it to be included, and that despite being aware of that obligation, no such evidence has been forthcoming from either party. The above declaration that the material is supported by multiple sources seems to be specifically ignoring the fact that both of the current sources have been apparently determined to be fringe. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for informal mediation

I contacted Jayjg to request informal mediation for restoring this article to FA quality. I considered an RfC, but this effort may require more intervention than just commentary. Jayjg is one of the most experienced admins on Wikipedia, and I will leave it to his judgment to find neutral mediators with enough background in this subject to be constructive. Ovadyah (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

restoration of Content

I believe that the "James Vs. Paul" section including the Eisenman/Tabor material is a clear, explicit, and blatant violation of our policy WP:VALID. There is comparatively little material discussing what seems to me to be the majority views that these conjectures have apparently no outside standing in the academic community. Unless both this section is substantiated by any sources independent of Tabor and Eisenman within seven days, and sufficient material regarding the opposing viewpoints is added, I believe I will be completely justified by the policy indicated above to reduce the content, possibly even outright removal. Particularly considering these work's relevance has been under serious discussion for three years now, and the individuals who added the content still haven't apparently found independent acadmic sources who give the proposal much credit as per the above referenced policy, given that they haven't indicated any during the time these sources have most recently been in discussion, I have every reason to believe that there is a very serious possibility that these works have received no particular support in the academic community. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A new source has been added to the disputed section, John Painter (1999) "Just James - The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition", therefore, this section is substantiated by a source independent of Tabor and Eisenman. In fact, Painter is critical of Eisenman's methods and gives a detailed rebuttal of his work. This scholarly publication was well received in the academic community. Ovadyah (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you only seem capable of providing reviews written by religious dogmatists, here's an academic review to get you started [1]. This review appeared in Heythrop Journal 40, (1999), pp.481-482. Ovadyah (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ovadyah, thank you for finally, after three years of support for this sourcd, finally providing an independent source. Would that you had bothered to do so earlier. And your above statement seems to ignore the fact that I have provided several sources, based on academic sources, above.

And, if you are going to violate talk page guidelines by impugning others, in the future please do so when there is not clear evidence on the page on which you make your accusation which proves it to be inaccurate. It makes you look very, very silly, and raises all sorts of questions regarding your own motivations, some of which have already been asked on your talk page and ignored by you.

And, as I'm sure you know, that single source you have thankfully finally provided still does not necessarily provide sufficient information to believe that that section deserves such a disproportionately long section comparable to other sources, which have specifically ignored Eisenman/Tabor and/or made statements which indicate that, for instance, the Ebionites cannot by sources be effectively differentiated from the Nazoreans (or maybe even the Essenes, who called themselves "evyonites") and that any attempts to differentiate them are often found by other academics to be insufficiently founded on fact. I hope everyone knows that the only way to prove a negative is by quoting the entirety of the source, which would be a violation of copyright. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My own motivation is that I left this article behind in October 2007, until you recently contacted me about bringing the article back up to FA quality. I tried to make it clear to you that I have moved on to other things, and I am no longer interested. If I have been slow to respond to your repeated and insistent requests, it is because I have a busy professional life outside of Wikipedia, and I am not that interested. I am also not interested in colluding with you in any schemes to provoke Michael C Price into an edit war that you can then bring to AN/I, so please stop sending me emails to that effect. Frankly, I am sick of your behavior, and I would never collaborate with you on this or any other project again, unless I felt that you were doing something completely inappropriate and I had no other choice. Ovadyah (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, for all the comments you have made, it would have been quite easy for you to actually follow any of your previous "final comments". If this time you actually intend to abide by your word, I think it would be welcome. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, John Carter. You may strike out my remarks but you cannot delete them. Here, I'll do it for you. Ovadyah (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments which clearly violate WP:NPA, as yours did, do deserve striking. And, I wonder, considering you have made "final comments" at least thrice now which were proven to not be such, I wonder why you persist in claiming that they will be. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

At last John Carter's true colours are exposed, trying to provoke an edit war to get me blocked at AN/I, just as he did the previous time. No surprises there, however it ain't going to work. Admins take note of his nefarious emailing. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And the above editors true colors have been exposed by his previous ban from the topic for one year, his refusal to address the issues of sourcing and WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, and other long-term misconduct. And, of course, there is the still the question of whether one, single, well-received work is sufficient to address matters of WP:UNDUE, WP:VALID, etc. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As usual, John, your facts are not straight; I was not topic banned. But good luck with your usual strategy of fling dirt around as a smokescreen to cover your own unethical behaviour. Not very subtle. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I learned it from you. I cannot imagine ever encountering anyone who was as full of words which have little if any relation to policies, guidelines, and actually useful conversation than you. And, frankly, others noted that well before I myself did. 96.35.141.2 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

POV template

Given that the article has been plagued for years by individuals who have, possibly, had COI problems, and have sought to add and keep material which even noticeboards seem to indicate qualifies as fringe as per WP:FRINGE, and the long-term failure to include information regarding what may well be the only documents which deal with individuals who seem to have refered to themselves as "ebionites", there is more than enough reason to believe that this article has been, to some degree, been plagued with problems as identified by WP:PLAGUE. On that basis, I have added the POV tag to the article, and, given the fact that the article has apparently almost always possibly deliberately omitted references to the Dead Sea Scroll "ebionites", I have reason to believe the article is far less than complete or balanced and have downgraded its assessment rating to C on that basis. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it seems likely that a total rewrite would be preferable. When real historical sources are apparently abused to support fringe theories which have clearly been recognized as fringe theories, and still argued for inclusion by apparently non-neutral editors anyway, when clearly relevant information is apparently excluded, and when the article contains what are at least apparent softening of criticism (sources have clearly stated the Ebionites and Nazarenes are the same, not just attempted to identify them), the article would apparently need a total rewrite. Frankly, I think it probably should qualify as "Start" class, but am willing to give a little benefit of the doubt. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibility of bringing the article back up to FA

Basically, it seems to me that maybe the best way to go to bring the article up to FA again might be to at least consult the sources cited in the more recent reference works regarding the topic, maybe add citations from them if desirable, and then maybe citations or content from any demonstrably relevant works which have appeared since those articles were written. More or less, I think most of us would agree that content in other current encyclopedia articles probably should be here as well, and, although I am in no way saying we should specifically adjust the content to reflect those other sources, checking to see what they have gotten from their own sources would clearly make sense. And if, of course, the other encyclopedia article contains some information which can't be found in their own cited English sources, then I think it would be considered acceptable to cite an encyclopedia as a source, as the possibly only really useful English language source for that information. Would that make sense to the rest of you? John Carter (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You might start by contacting the two reviewers that picked the article to pieces during FAR. Maybe they are also capable of doing something constructive. I doubt that the original contributors would be willing to waste more time on it. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I consulted the Encyclopedia of Religion (2005), The Early Church by Thomas Robbins (1993), Encyclopedia of Early Christianity edited by Everett Ferguson, 2nd ed., (1997), The Early Christian World by Philip Esler (2000), Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana, and Man, Myth, and Magic (1995), all of which are in the reference section of the local Catholic university. With the exception of World Book Encyclopedia, which had no article on the Ebionites, they were all the sources which it seemed likely to me might have separate articles on that group. I found a total of eleven English language sources referenced in all of them. MMM has a rather complicated topical bibliography at the beginning of the first volume, whose "Religion" section does not include Eisenman. He is included in none of the other bibliographies either. The MMM article, which reads more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia in general, refers extensively to a theory involving James, Saint Stephen, and Paul, but seems to have a definite axe to grind. I am asking Dab, who had been previously involved, for any input he might have, including specifically information on the reception of the Tabor book. However, based on what I have seen, any reference to Eisenman is based solely on the Tabor source. There are some other matters raised by the sources in the bibliography, regarding the objectivity of the church fathers, the possibility of the Nazorene/Ebionites possibly being interchangable names among the church fathers, and possibly even the adherents, etc., but I intend to consult the cited sources before going to greater depth regarding those matters. Otherwise, the sources consulted above tend to say, like in the Encyclopedia of Religion article referenced some time ago by me, that the various references to "Ebionites" are likely/probably to groups unrelated except for the name, and that on that basis there is at best a weak claim to use them collectively to assert any alleged commonalities. I find 6 reviews of The Jesus Dynasty, and am in the process of consulting them to see how the work was received. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Of the six reviews of Tabor's book, I have not yet gotten to those in the Literary Review of Canada, the Biblical Archaeology Review, or Library Journal. However, based on the three I have seen, there is very serious question whether this book itself might not itself qualify as putting forward, as it were, "Fringe theories."

• The review in "Choice", pp. 662-663 of December 2006, indicates the book "recalls" The DaVinci Code. The book "hypotheses deserves scholarly debate, yet it sidesteps scholar and appeals directly to the nonspeciailist public with a style often recalling Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code and that it's strategy "guarantees this volume both general interest and scholarly frustration, being simultaneously the cause and symptom of the book's inconsistencies." "Tabor practices the uncritical act of assuming the complementary intertextuality of gospel birth narratives", while, without explanation, assumes the critical consensus in grounding his characterization of Jesus in the Q sources. Scholars will likely conclude that ... convenience alone motivates the book's acceptance of the traditional attribution of the former and rejection of authority of the latter."
• Booklist on page 4 of the 4/15/06 edition remarks on the book's "startling claims", comments that it's "structure ... seems scattered," and that "Tabor begins with several exciting archaeological finds [including a cave which may have been used by John the Baptist and some ossuaries which might be related to Jesus' family] but remarks on its having problems, one of which is "his emphasis on the genealogies of Jesus presented in Matthew and Luke, which are discounted by many scholars.
• Publishers Weekly, March 13 2006, p. 63, indicates "Tabor not only challenges Christian dogma, he also makes some assumptions with which not all scholars will agree: he places a great deal of emphasis on the hypothetical text Q, calling it "our most authentic early Christian document." It goes on to say that the book is "accessible and sure to be highly controversial."

In light of the above, a cynic might see that the book might be an attempt by an academic to cash in on a popular phenomenon. The claim that the Q source, whose very existence is a matter of deep conjecture, is "our most authentic early Christian document" can hardly be said to indicate that this source reflects anything like current scholarly consensus. I have not been able to consult the book itself, because the library here at Saint Louis University, which Gordon Melton counted on of the best religion archives in the United States, does not have a copy, indicating that they never bought it in the first place, which itself can be seen as being another strike against its reflecting anything like consensus.

On the basis of all the above, I have to say that, at least in my opinion, that even a brief mention of this book in this article might be too much of a promotion of a fringe theory, certainly in light of the statements in other, more highly regarded sources, which seemingly ignore the claims of Eisenman and Tabor and advocate options which seem contrary to them. This includes, by the way, Brill's Religion Past and Present, 2007, Volume 4 p. 252, which makes no mention in either text or bibliography of either book, and concludes with "So "Ebionites" cannot be further historically specified than being one name, among others, for ancient Jewish Christians."

I very definitely believe that the present academic view of the archaeological sites Tabor was involved in, which seem to be involved in the formulation of his theories, is relevant to this article. I would check myself, but this library, evidently, didn't think the book worth purchasing. I have also contacted the Fringe Theories Noticeboard for any input the editors who frequent it might be interested in making. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll offer my two cents then stay out of it. Play it safe and leave Tabor out. Achieving NPOV is not possible on a topic like this. However, please don't use the tired argument that these are "fringe theories" being peddled by a "fringe scholar". Tabor is the department chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC-Charlotte. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, no one is saying Tabor is a fringe scholar. There is a difference, however, between a "fringe scholar" (which he definitely is not) and a fringe theory as per WP:FRINGE, specifically including this direct quote from the "identifying fringe theories" section: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." The reviews I have seen indicate that this book could be reasonably described as a collection of at times contradictory opinions, based on at times beliefs which are definitely not part of mainstream thinking, like the belief that a theoretical document no one has ever seen, and whose very existence has been seriously disputed, is somehow the most reliable source on early Christianity. Also, I have to belief that theories which are not even mentioned in the standard reference works on a topic, and which seem to, at times, be based on ideas which are directly contradictory to those supported in such reference works, pretty much by definition qualify as at least contrary to the mainstream, and very likely as "fringe" as per wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your "standard texts" are all from "the reference section of the local Catholic university", right? That's called confirmation bias.--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Such off-topic responses are of no use whatsoever. And if the above editor believes there are any similarly reliable sources independent of Eisenman and Tabor themselves which support their beliefs, I believe we would all welcome seeing them. And if the above editor considers any of the sources cited above inherently biased, including the three independent reviews which have indicated that the book is very likely "fringe" as per wikipedia guidelines, I would once again request he produce such information, which is much more useful than simply refering to pages unrelated to any wikipedia policies or guidelines. Frankly, I have seen no "independent confirmation" of those theories being mainstream at all, "biased" or not. Discussion which would be useful would be discussion which indicates that the theories fall within the accepted mainstream. I have seen absolutely no evidence to indicate that these theories do, and a good deal of evidence in reference works like Encyclopedia Britannica, the Encyclopedia of Religion, etc., which indicates that the theories do not. I sincerely hope that in the future responses deal with the substantive questions asked, regarding the mainstream acceptance of the theories in these books or lack of same, rather than in off-topic commentary. Independent sources indicating the opinions are within the academic mainstream, as per wikipedia guidelines, is what is sought, not arguing over semantics. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If my response is so "blatantly off-topic" then why not just ignore it and let it speak for itself? I don't believe it was off-topic but highlights the problem here; everyone, it seems, has an axe to grind on this subject - there is no single mainstream. I wonder if a unitarian library would yield a different assortment of reviews? --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, please read WP:FRINGE, which is a content guideline. It is a standard for all content. It seems I must once again ask the above editor to actually address any of the reasonable concerns raised above, rather than indulge in rhetoric. Several encyclopedic sources have been referenced, and as I have indicated none of them refer directly to Tabor or Eisenman. Instead of indulging in rhetoric, maybe the above editor could actually try to find some sources such as those he hypothesizes? John Carter (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Raising the possibility of confirmation bias is not rhetoric. Interesting that you should characterise it as such, though. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Even more interesting is your refusal to provide the requested sourcing, and apparently trying to deflect attention from this failure on your part. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also for what it's worth, the editor's task is not to decide on what is "mainstream" but to ensure that articles are balanced and maintain NPOV. Achieving NPOV is a difficult task on controversial topics and content disputes should be resolved by community consensus. The main problem with Tabor's book is that many of his conclusions are speculative. Is an author entitled to speculate beyond what can be learned from his primary sources? I would say that is what constitutes scholarship, beyond merely citing primary sources or reporting what others have said. Cheers. --Ovadyah (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - sourced speculation is not a problem. We just report it here. I also agree we shouldn't be wasting time on trying to decide on all the wrinkles of what is mainstream (which doesn't exist here anyway).--Michael C. Price ^talk 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The main problem with Tabor's book, as indicated in the reviews, includes the fact that his conclusions are speculative, but is not limited to that. It also includes that his sourcing for such speculation, as indicated in at least one of the reviews, seems to be based on how convenient those sources are to him in substantiating his theories.

I also think that there is a mainstream opinion regarding this subject, if only one of a negative kind. Specifically, several of the encyclopedias consulted have indicated that any attempt to draw clear distinctions between the Ebionites, Nazoreans, Elkeasites, and Symmachians (I hope I spelled them all correctly) will be challenged, and that based on the likely bias of the historical sources, the comparatively few references to any of them in literature, and the often large physical and cultural distances between them.

In any event, I stand by my previous statements. It is, as I'm sure Michael will remember, the task of the person who seeks to include or keep in material to provide sources which indicate that the material falls within the mainstream of academic opinion. I have seen no such sources identified yet. As per wikipedia policies and guidelines including WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, content which has not yet indicated it either falls within the mainstream or deserves the weight it receives can be challenged, and that challenge is now here explicitly made. I repeat my request that the sources required to indicate that this source falls within the mainstream be produced, as I explicitly have the right to do. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

the task of the person who seeks to include or keep in material to provide sources which indicate that the material falls within the mainstream of academic opinion. No, since there is no mainstream consensus about Ebionites. I agree with Ovadyah's statement on his talk page that "The article as it stands is very biased toward a conservative Catholic point of view.". That is something you can't or won't see. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your statement takes as an implicit fact that there is no of general mainstream consensus about the Ebionites, which, of course, has itself not yet been demonstrated by any citations. I note you have still completely failed to cite any sources other than Tabor to support the inclusion of Eisenman. In fact, your own comments over all the time you have been pushing that opinion have rarely if ever displayed any real knowledge of the subject beyond that book, and, later Tabor. And, as demonstrated, there is apparent academic consensus, based on the silence of encyclopediac references on Eisenman and the commentary yet found on Tabor's book that, at least, there is some consensus that certainly Eisenman, and possibly Tabor book, fall outside the area of consensus as well. You have demonstrated a great fondest for engaging in all sorts of commentary which completely and utterly fail to address the matter of finding additional sources to support the inclusion of Eisenman. As per that guideline you yourself cited, I think it can, demonstrably, be stated that Eisenman has not been demonstrated to be in the acadmic mainstream. I am bringing questions regarding The Jesus Dynasty on the RSN as well. In any event, the challenge remains in place, and the continuing refusal to find any other sources is itself a serious question. Regarding the allegations of Catholic bias, I have to question why Ovadyah, who has historically been one of the greatest contributors to this article, apparently never raised the issue of Catholic bias before, and that I, as an individual with an alleged Catholic bias, have rarely if ever edited the article at all. In any event, still waiting for other sources regarding either Eisenman and Tabor to confirm that they do not fall outside the mainstream.

And, for what it's worth, these are the sources indicated in the encyclopedias found to date, followed by the name of the source citing them:

• Bethune-Baker, J. F. - An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine to the Time of the Council of Chalcedon (The Early Church)
• Beveridge, H. - Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. Hastings, 5:139-45 (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
• Crehan, J. H. - "Ebionites," Catholic Dictionary of Theology (Encyclopedia of Christianity)
• Elliott, James Keith - The Apocryphal New Testament (The Early Christian World; Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls)
• Fitzmyer, J. A. - "The Qumran Scrolls, the Ebionites and Their Literature,' Theological Studies 16 (1955)
• Gorenson, S. - "Ebionites", Anchor Bible Dictionary (Encyclopedia of Christianity)
• Goulder, Michael - "A Poor Man's Christology," New Testament Studies 1999 (Encyclopedia of Religion)
• Hort, F. J. A. - Judaistic Christianity (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)
• Howard, George - "The Gospel of the Ebionites" in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen welt (The Early Christian World; Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)
• Keck, L. E. - "The Poor Among the Saints in the New Testament," Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 56 (1965)
• Keck. L. E. - "The Poor Among the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Qumran," Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 57 (1968)
• Klijn, A. F. J. - Jewish-Chrsitian Gospel Tradition (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)
• Klijn, A. F. J. & G. J. Reinink - Patristic Evidence for Jesish Christian Sects (Encyclopedia of Christianity; Encyclopedia of Early Christianity; Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
• Neander, A. - Christian Church (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
• Neve, J. L. - History of Christian Thought (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
• Pritz, Ray A. - Nazarene Jewish Christianity (The Early Church; The Early Christian World)
• Schaff, P. - Christian CHurch (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
• Schoeps, H. J. - Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church (Encyclopedia of Christianity; Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)
• Schoeps, H. J. - "Ebionite Christianity", Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 4 (1953) (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)
• Streckerg - "On the Problem of Jewish Christianity," in Walter Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (The Early Church; Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)
• Teicher, J. L. - "The Dead Sea Scrolls - Documents of the Jewish Christian Sect of Ebionites," Journal of Jewish Studies 2 (1951)
• Teicher, J. L. - "The Teaching of the Pre-Pauline CHurch in the Dead Sea Scrolls," Journal of Jewish Studies 3 (1952) & 4 (1953) (Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls)
• Vielhauer, P. - "The Gospel of the Ebionites", New Testament Apocrypha by Hennecke
• Wilson, Stephen G. - Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70-170 CE (The Early Christian World) John Carter (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm only going to say this once. Stop linking to or lifting comments from my talk page and pasting them on article talk pages. My comments there were copied selectively and then taken completely out of context. If you read the full text of my remarks, you will see that I said the article is not deliberately biased. However, there is a bias that results from incorporating the material of certain editors (completely appropriate) while removing the contributions of others (a matter yet to be resolved). The version of the article that was promoted to FA, and featured one day on the Wiki homepage, was more NPOV than the current version. The problem with that version was factual accuracy - incorrectly reporting or conflating material from secondary sources. --Ovadyah (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I shall copy what I like, when I like, where I like.

I did not take your comments out of context - not did I imply that the bias was deliberate, as you seem to be implying with your response here. Most biases are unconscious. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have found two academic reviews of the Tabor book, although I cannot provide links to them from this location. The first is from the Review of Biblical Literature, V10, 2008, pp. 352-355. To quote, "In his "The Jesus Dynasty' James Tabor presents a reconstruction of the Jesus movement from a perspective that purports to be a neutral view of facts. Unfortunately, Tabor's views are not neutral and his "facts" are not facts." This is a rather extreme statement to be found in an academic review. Also, Robert M. Price, apparently on his page, has stated regarding this book, from his page, "As it is, Tabor's case is a chain of weak links soldered together by supposition, possibility, and "what ifs." Tabor often simply asserts "I believe that". That is a matter of hunches, not evidence.... Everything is wrong with this." These are the only two academic reviews I have yet found, and both give the impression that this is in fact, not an "academic" view per se, but the opinion of a biased party. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

New Ebionites

I very much get the impression that this article has been altered for the worse by the intention of trying to introduce material related to Modern Ebionism or whatever it is called. Personally, I would have to think that it would benefit if reliable sources for such material were to be found, and either a separate section, or, preferably, a separate article on Modern Ebionism or whatever created. Has anyone found sources which would meet WP:RS standards and might help create such an article meeting WP:NOTABILITY? It would not have to be about any particular church, but could rather deal with the "movement" or whatever the name might be, basing itself on, at least initially, only what independent reliable sources say. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"The poor" in Judaism

I have found a very good encyclopedic source regarding this subject which has a 30 page article on "the poor", the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Perhaps understandably, I have not attempted to summarize a 30-page summary of a subject in a similar work at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, like I have with the other reference works I have found. However, it does seem to me that there is sufficient basis to think that the content presented in this source, in some form, could be included perhaps in some other article. I am contacting the the Judaism and Jewish history WikiProjects on their talk pages to ask them for any input they may have on this matter, as well as any other input they might have on the recent, acknowledgedly one-sided, discussions. I do get a definite impression that this particular period of history, when Jews and Christians were not as theologically "divided" as they are today, might be one more Jews than Christians are knowledgable about, and that their input would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A White European Jesus?

The Ebionites REJECTED the works of Paul surely this image is the ulitmate in mockey...

Proposed restructuring

To my eyes, given that this is an article based, primarily, on a small number of early sources, all of whose objectivity has been apparently questioned, it strikes me as being, maybe with Donatism, a similar article about a group about whom we know, basically, bloody little from few sources, as being one of the easier articles to bring up to FA. Logically, given the nature of the content, I would suggest the following format for the article:

• 1) Discussion of early sources - including the Pauline references, the "evyonites" mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls not currently mentioned in the article, and the 3 earlier extant references
• 2) the later extant early references
  • references to books which have been attributed to the Ebionites would be mentioned in conjunction with the extant sources mentioning those books, particularly in relation to the Ebionites, and/or included in the relevant chronological section
• 3) discussion of the theories relating to the Ebionites prior to the more recent advance and development of archaeology and scholarship (the past few hundred years)
• 4) more current discussions.

As I have indicated above, the majority of the academic sources I have found, including at least one Jewish encyclopedia, have indicated that, in the eyes of modern scholarship, there is insufficient reliable discernible difference between the Ebionites, Elkeasites, and Nazoreans for anyone to be able to really make any differentiations. Basically, the references from the so-called "church fathers" are so short, so distant from the sources they were describing physically and temporally, and written by clearly biased individuals, that their reliability is open to serious question. However, that does not mean that academics will not continue to refer to these groups by their historic names, and I found in an academic journal of the past year or two an article about the Ebionites and the pseudo-Clementines to prove that. Therefore, I think it might make sense to include in the Jewish Christianity article, which might be more clearly renamed Early Jewish Christianity, a brief discussion of the various relevant groups/names involved, summary sections about each which "see also" headers to the relevant articles, and a short discussion of the academic view that differentiation of them is difficult and that a substantive number of scholars dispute any such differentiation. And, yes, I found at least one Jewish encyclopedia of recent years which said at the article title "Ebionites (also known as Nazoreans)". If it isn't in use, I should be able to find it in the next few days at request, and I imagine there will be such a request. And, although it still isn't finished, and I can't swear I actually have access to all the sources listed, I think in conjunction with the comparatively few journal articles about the Ebionites under that name, the books now and yet to be listed at Bibliography of Jewish Christians (like I said, it ain't done yet) should be sufficient, particularly those which are referenced in current encyclopedias, which are listed by me above. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It is The New Encyclopedia of Judaism (2002) edited by Wigoler, p. 223, where the entry starts "Ebionites (also known as Nazarenes). It is I believe also worth noting that the featured article version of this article seems to basically ignore the fact that the name "evyonim" is used frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls, seemingly potentilly identifying them with the Dead Sea Sect, despite the fact that such sources as The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (1997) edited by Werblowsky and Wigoler, on page 213 explicitly refers to the numerous references in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The fact that what may be the only documents which may include self-identification of "evyonim" was apparently ignored by the writers of the article is I believe disturbing and cannot help but to call into question the nature of the article as they prepared it. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant to add some pointers to this discussion a few days ago, but my off-Wiki life (e.g., going swimming with my wife & daughter, working in the yard where I am learning in great detail the meaning of the term "virgin soil") distracted me from doing so. I'd like to do so now.

First, Elkeasites are clearly a different Jewish-Christian sect from the Ebionites, for they included a number of gnostic beliefs, whereas the sources I have at hand -- Fred Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha; Jeffrey J. Bütz, The Brother of Jesus; Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities -- assume that the Ebionites are a group who self-identify as Jews, yet embrace an adoptionist Christology. (The Nazoreans, considering their name alone, most likely self-identified as Christians, but otherwise were very similar to the Ebionites. Another Jewish Christian sect would be the Johannine community proposed by the research of the late Raymond E. Brown. However, two other sects mentioned in the current version of this article -- the Carpocratians & the Cerinthians -- are commonly thought of as purely gnostic sects.)

Second, I agree that in restructuring this article there needs to be a careful distinction made between what the primary sources say & what more contemporary scholars state. For example, the etymology of "Ebionites" which derives their name from a Hebrew word is modern; one of the earliest attestations of the Ebionites, by Tertullian, derives their name from their supposed founder, one Ebion. Bart Ehrman writes that Origen is "probably closer to the mark" by linking it to the Hebrew word for "poor" -- but only after admitting that no one knows "for certain where the name comes from". (p. 98) Thirdly, any mention of James the Just in connection with the Ebionites -- or any Jewish Christian sect -- must needs explain why contemporary scholars associate him with this branch of Christianity: in such anomalous & pseudographical works as the Clementine writings, James is portrayed as the hero opposed to a vilified Paul of Tarsus. James is only relevant if the theory that only Jewish Christians held to this history of Christianity is valid -- which may not be the case. Pre-Constantinian Christianity was made up of countless contradictory traditions, only a few of which are preserved in the historical record, & it is possible that Christians who weren't of the Jewish-Christian spectrum may have believed this, & at least Jewish Christians didn't.

Lastly, the importance of the Ebionites is that they were the best known Jewish Christian group: not the largest, the most influential, or the most long-lived; the ancient heresiologists seem to have stuck the label "Ebionite" on any Jewish Christian group for which they lacked a better name. As Lapham notes in his book I mention above, "Epiphanius's belief that the Ebionite sect arose form the Nazaraeans is generally rejected today, because, apart form their common attitude to the law, there is little to link the two groups. That the Ebionites appeared considerably later than the Nazaraeans is not often questioned; but few would now claim that the one group was an offshoot of the other, or that the Ebionites represent a continuous development from Jerusalem or Pella Christianity." (p. 86)

It is regrettable that progress on this article was blocked for so long due to the use of two controversial authors, when a fresh approach based on other modern students of the early Christian church would kept this article at FA level. -- llywrch (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

These are all very good sources, and I for one, wish you would stick around to add them and improve the article. The article needs new blood. Not just new people, but editors that actually know something about the subject matter beyond what they can glean from online literature reviews. Eisenman's first book is useless. "James The Brother of Jesus" has a lot of controversial things to say about James The Just, but practically nothing about the Ebionites, that is unless you are into the conspiracy theory that Essenes = Nazarenes = Ebionites. We hashed this out on the article talk page long ago. Eisenman's second book "The New Testament Code", however, while an equally difficult read, has some important things to say about the Flight to Pella. As you probably know, Aristo of Pella and Julianus Africanus are the second century witnesses to the Desposyni. Eisenman covers them in his second book. The more secondary sources you can muster to establish this the better. I also agree with you that the pseudo-Clementines are a bit late (probably third century), and Epiphanius' fourth century testimony, which relies on the Homilies, has internal contradictions, so that it's hard to know which group or groups of "Ebionites" are in view here. However, the primary source for the testimony about the Ebionites regarding Paul to be an apostate from the Law is Irenaeus in the second century. That is a piece of hard data that is covered by multiple secondary sources. Anyway, I hope you choose to stay. I have already done my penance on this article. Ovadyah (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ehrman is a wonderful source, by any standard. Some of the other questions I agree with as well. My own approach, still in the offing, is to find all the "reference" works which discuss the subject in any depth, and I am starting with those which give the subject its own article. The Encyclopedia Judaica does not give it its own article. Anyway, so far, the sources I've accumulated can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites. It is my intention to use the "main" page User:John Carter/Ebionites as the draft form of an article based on those sources. Anyway, I acknowledge up front that I haven't gone through all the sources yet, but if anyone knows of any other highly regarded sources, like textbooks or Ehrman for example, feel free to add them, preferably in something like the existing format. I might of course remove them anyway, because, for instance, I am less than sure that The Complete Idiot's Guide to Christianity is necessarily a really great source, even if you disagree. Something like Bob's Guide to the Ultimate Nature of Reality would, of course, have an even smaller chance of being kept. I very much would welcome if anyone can get ahold of the doctoral thesis by G. Koch which apparently challenges the accuracy of much of Epiphanius' material. It is referenced by several encyclopedias, including some I haven't added to the page yet, and seems to be essential to F. Stanley Jones' contention that the church fathers, apparently particularly Epiphanius, are not particularly deserving of trust. Both Koch and Jones's material are I believe directly relevant, particularly given the number of encyclopedia articles Jones has written recently. Encyclopedias tend to try to get articles written by experts in the field, and if Jones is the writer of some of the more recent ones, that is a very strong indication that he is one of the leading experts in this area.

The one question which I still haven't found any sourcing for is what, if any, relationship may have existed between the Ebionites (whoever they were) and the Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, and/or Assyrian Churches. I would assume that material relating to the Eastern Catholic churches would be covered by material from Catholic sources, but the other three groups are comparatively little spoken of in English, and tend to be lumped together into journals without any real distinction. This would, of course, tend to give even less attention to the lesser known Syriac and Assyrian Churches. I find this particularly unfortunate because, at least to me, the fact that the Assyrian Church was outside the Roman Empire (maybe the Syriac Orthodox was too, I dunno) would make it a place Christians seeking to flee the Roman Empire might run to. If anyone has any sources relating to these bodies, they would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

My own proposal, for what it might be worth, would be as follows. The one thing that is agreed on, even if it is an absurdly simple statement, is that the name Ebionites was used by early Jewish Christians. That probably should be the basis of the article. The first section(s) would mention in passing the places and ways the name was used through the time it was associated with Jewish Christians. The next sections would discuss the various academic opinions regarding the sources, and the conclusions which had been arrived at. Given the number of quotations, I think a Wikiquote page might be the best place to put them all. If anyone knows of a way to link to Wikiquote like some articles do to other sites containing Biblical verses, I think that would wonderfully ease the situation. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I definitely do think that we need to establish some article as being the central article for the topic. Jewish Christianity seems to me to be the least objectionable central article. One additional reason for moving much of the content to a central article is a statement from David A. Rausch's book Messianic Judaism: Its History, Theology and Polity, on page 39. It refers to a group of Jewish Christians which existed in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. This group is described as being similar to the "Nazarenes" which refused to be assimilated into mainstream Christianity, instead choosing to keep the name and customs of their race. This group, which is described as being similar to the Nazarenes, was, according to the footnote on page 48, referred to at various missionary conferences in the early 20th century by the name "Ebionites." It is somewhat hard to see how any material regarding this apparently notable group would fit easily in either the Nazarene or Ebionite article, but would make sense in a more neutrally titled main article. The name "Messianic Judaism" seems to be most frequently used to describe the current group(s) which use that name, so "Jewish Christianity" would seem to be the preferable default name for the main article on the topic. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Christian Jewish Ebionites?

Several sources support the contention that the name "Ebionite" was one which was going to be used by Christian groups, giving the theological underpinnings of the word. Oskar Skarsaune indicates that the word was used in a similarly "theologically loaded" way in the Hebrew Bible, and on that basis asserts that the name may likely have been used by pre-Christian Jews as well. Should the lead of the article be changed to indicate this as well? Also, there is, unfortunately, a question regarding the potential historical order of the use of the word (Jews, Dead Sea sect, Christian) and the way that the history of the concept seems to have developed (Christian, Dead Sea sect, Jews). Would the article better be structured according to the first or the second orders listed above? Personally, I would favor the first, because the background in Judaism and the Dead Sea sect seems to not necessarily directly have any independent subsequent history, and it is useful in establishing the possible background for the Christian usage. I would however welcome other opinions as well. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the first usage. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Qumran sectarians used evyoni in the first person singular - The Poor One - to refer to a specific person, presumably the Righteous Teacher. This is true in the Thanksgiving Hymns, which were composed in the first person, as well as the Barki Nafshi. Ultimately, all of this goes back to Jeremiah who used the self-designation Poor One. This was all discussed ad nauseum on the Talk page. Check the archives for well-documented secondary and primary sources. Ovadyah (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

First, no one was discussing the Qumran Covenanters, despite the obvious assumption to that effect, but rather the Oskar Skarsaune source indicated, published in 2007, which doesn't seem to be be mentioned in the archives. I realize some people "don't have time" to read things before they respond, and I acknowledge I didn't specificy where the sourced material is to be found, but the Skarsaune source is included in User talk:John Carter/Ebionites and specifically refers to the numerous times the word in all its forms is used in the Hebrew Bible, roughly 50, and, allegedly, never to refer specifically to the economically disadvantaged other than the Books of Moses. Skarsaune, writing in 2007, basically said that the comment found in other extant encyclopedic sources, also on that page, said that if it was inevitable that Christians refer to themselves as Ebionites, then it was probably just as likely that the term would be used by other pre-Christian Jews. And, frankly, the "discussion" of a limited number of people, some of whom may have serious POV or COI problems, is not sufficient cause to say that it cannot be revisited again. John Carter (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ireaneus, heresy and gospels

Two points, basically dealing with the word "heresy" and the claim to use of only one gospel.

First, I think we are more or less obliged to use the word "heresy", even if I personally don't like the word much myself. The word is an explicit part of the titles of some of the relevant works, and having the word at least twice in the article, once in the lead (preferably in a subordinate position to a less objectionable word, maybe like "unorthodox beliefs, which some have called heretical") and once in the later part of the article seems to me indicated. But that should be enough use of the term outside of titles and maybe quotations. In addition to something like the proposal above, the other use might be at the start of the section dealing with the patristics and say something like "Irenaeus's book Against Hereies includes in its catalog of what Irenaeus calls heresies a description of the Ebionites". And, of course, if the word is present in titles or quotes, those we more or less have to take. But the sources I find, even academic ones, use words like "heresiologists" and "heresiology", to my surprise actually, so I assume that loaded as the word is, it is still considered an academically acceptable term. Part of this might be because using "orthodox" or similar words might be misleading, given the existence of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, while no groups call themselves "heretics" in their name. At least, none I know of. Anyway, I think two uses, along the lines I indicate above, would probably be best for the clarity of text and ease of understanding.

Also, several of the sources indicate Irenaeus in his book is the first known source to say that all four gospels should be used. Considering he wrote around 150 CE, only about 80 years after the first gospel was written, it probably was not unusual for not all four gospels to have been even obtained everywhere, let alone accepted and used. That being the case, using less than all four may have been rather common, even for at least a few "mainstream" groupings, and it could be a bit misrepresentative to say that "(X) doesn't do this, and that makes them heretics" when at least a few people other than X did the same, but weren't necessarily seen as "heretics". John Carter (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

James paragraph

Michael, feel free to add the consensus wording for the James paragraph that we worked out on the mediation page. We should also incorporate the additional references. Let me know when you are ready to get started on JTB. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph of James vs. Paul is all based on primary sources. We have to either remove it or add references to secondary sources and reword it. Any thoughts on how to proceed? Ovadyah (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

My preference is to retain the primary sources provided we add secondary sources. My main problem with the paragraph and the rest of the section is the chronological sequence. I considered swapping the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs but that doesn't completely work. I think we have to carefully merge without losing any information (including sources). --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue of the observance of Mosaic law by Gentile converts remained unresolved (Acts 21:21), with Paul agreeing to James' request to lead a group of Greeks in carrying out Nazarite vows in order to for Paul to prove his adherence to the law. James reiterated (Acts 21:25) the four points of the earlier council, saying that Gentiles were not required to perform the Nazarite vows. The uproar that followed ended with Paul being rescued from the people of Jerusalem by Roman centurions (Acts 21:30–35).

I copied it over to the talk page. I don't see what Paul taking a Nazarite vow has to do with the Ebionites. This seems more relevant to the article on the Council of Jerusalem. Ovadyah (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Where possible we should hive stuff off to other articles. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph for a lack of reliable sources. Once this material is properly sourced, it can be moved to the Council of Jerusalem article. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the James section is entirely dependent on the Oxford Dictionary. This paragraph needs more and better sources. The content is fine, but reliance on tertiary encyclopedic sources only weakens an article. I will do some digging. Ovadyah (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What is an Ebionite?

The above question seems to me to be the most essential aspect of the current discussion. We have a large number of patristic sources which refer to groups by this name, and give at least one book this name. However, there seems to be a very large disagreement in the academic community about whether, for instance, Epiphanius' Ebionites and Irenaeus's Ebionites could even possibly be the same group, given the huge differences between them. Some even say Epiphanius's Nazoreans were Irenaeus's Ebionites. And one Eastern Orthodox dictionary, published by the church itself, has separate entries on "Ebionites" and "Ebionite gnostics", the only such encyclopediac source I have yet found which itself clearly discriminates between the two. This isn't counting the later academic views that all Jewish Christians were Ebionites or that Ebionites was a name which might have been used pretty much by anybody of a Jewish Christian leaning for any reason.

I do think that the most reasonable and encyclopedic structure of the article would be to first, (1) discuss the patristic sources in depth individually, perhaps with material from Klijn & Reinink and the like about how they are or are not any new pieces of information in them, then (2) going into the academic discussions about which ones seem to be most clearly and frequently regarded as separate entities and why, including the "all Jewish Christians were Ebionites" and "any Jewish Christian might have called themselves Ebionite" theories. This would give the reader a solid understanding of the current consensus academic opinion. At this point, we are, basically, finished with discussing the patristics per se and to an extent their times, and are now discussing the academic views and subsequent developments. Then, (3) we could discuss specific proposals of how one or more given citation of Ebionites have been linked by others and, maybe, some of the conclusions they've drawn, and (4) theological and other points of interest somewhat based on these associations. Finally, (5) the historical influence all the alleged Ebionites had on other groups would be discussed. Butz is another source I've written out and not yet added, but he points out direct and "grandfatherly" relationships to a number of groups. It is, I hope, understood that this is just a preliminary proposal, and that there probably would be some deviation from it in practice.

One last comment. Stupid as it seems, I seem to be having difficulty getting ahold of a copy of Irenaeus. This could be important, particularly in relation to (5) above. I know he faults the Ebionites for not viewing Jesus as divine, but don't know if any of the other groups he mentioned held the same sort of opinion. If none of the others did, then I think that we might be able to say that the Ebionites may be the first Christian group specifically noted for not seeing Jesus as divine, acknowledging that there is no clear and unarguable evidence about what the opinions of the apostles and their contemporaries were. If such were the case, I have to think that that distinction would be itself worthwhile of notice. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you have a look at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library website? A quick Google search brought me to here -- scroll down to the bottom, past several other translations of his contemporaries. While it's an older translation, it will give a reader enough of an idea of what Irenaeus thinks about what. Another useful tool -- which I have found almost misses as often as it yields a result -- is the collection of etexts at archive.org; if it's not on their website, but its available online, their search engine will have a link to it. -- llywrch (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That would probably work. I should clarify that the book is available, in Latin (which I don't read) in several copies here, but the full English translation is only available here on a subscription database and a single book which seems to not be in the stacks where its call number would indicate it should be.

To clarify my comments above in this section, I have to say that I think the Ebionites of Irenaeus, Eusebius, and the "main" Ebionites of Epiphanius should be discussed primarily in this article, because at present this is the obvious main article for that content. However, the comments about the Nazoreans and the Gospel of the Ebionites could easily be primarily included in those articles. This is not to say that these two entities/groups should not be discussed at least in summaries here, because I think it is partially on the basis of them that some recent scholars have concluded what they have about the word Ebionite being used to describe all Jewish Christians or any Jewish Christians. Having a section discussing the patristic citations, including these two named entities, would be reasonable. However, in a "Beliefs and Practices" section, I think it would be best to just have separate short summary sections of the beliefs and practices of the Nazarenes and the Gospel of the Ebionites, with links to the main articles on the subjects. The later part of the article could reasonably discuss all the beliefs and practices which are today called "Ebionite" in some way, but, as some of the sources themselves indicate, it should be made clear that these are not necessarily referring to any specific acknowledged "Ebionite" groups but based on comments and/or theories about "Ebionitism" in general. I hope that makes some sense, anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Potential connection between the Qumran community and the Ebionites

It seems to me likely that the supposed connection between the Ebionites and the Qumran community does deserve mention in this article. It has been raised, almost from the beginning, by Teicher, and Eisenman more recently has put forward a remarkably different theory which still postulates some sort of link. The question which would arise would be how much material to give to the theoretical connection, what the content of that material should be, and so on. And, it seems to me that there is very likely a good chance that there are a number of editors who will know something about the topic, that being the editors who deal with the articles on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Eisenman seems to have been championing James as the Teacher of Righteouness since at least 1977, according to a reference to a paper he wrote then he made in one of his books. On that basis, I assume that the editors who have worked with the material regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls will likely have some degree of knowledge of the subject. I myself think that perhaps starting an RfC on the matter, and adding links to the discussion on the talk pages of the relevant Qumran related articles, would probably get at least some editors who have some acquaintance with the subject. Also, I think that there is almost certainly more material being published on Qumran than on the Ebionites per se now. That being the case, and academic consensus being what it generally is, I would also assume that if there is a clear consensus academic opinion of the Ebionite/Qumran theory in the Dead Sea Scrolls academic community, that same view would almost certainly be held as the consensus view of the Ebionite academic community. If there is no clear consensus academic opinion, that might make it harder. But there does seem to be, according to what I've seen, "little support" for Teicher's theory when it was first put forward, and I think that should be indicated in the article in reference to Teicher's theory. I myself at this point am not familiar enough with the state of the academic consensus regarding Qumran today, but will try to find materials.

In any event, I think an RfC on the subject may very well be the best way to get informed, previously uninvolved, input on the subject, which is more or less what we seek. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The majority of the available evidence calls into question the existence of Ebion, and he seems to be exclusively mentioned in some of the early patristics. I cannot see any reason the information in the Ebion article should not be merged into this one. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It is already covered in this article. Ovadyah (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.Glorthac (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

An error I found on the Article

The article says: "Epiphanius of Salamis is the only Church Father who describes some Ebionites as departing from traditional Jewish principles of faith". That is absolutely false. St. Methodius of Olympus wrote: "With regard to the Spirit, such as the Ebionites, who contend that the prophets spoke only by their own power." (Symposium 8.10).

Since St. Methodius died in 311 AD, and St. Epiphanius was born in 311 AD, St. Methodius is just as reliable of a witness as St. Epiphanius is, so saying St. Epiphanius is the only Church Father who says the Ebionites weren't typical Jews is false. I will update the wikipedia page as I see fit. Thanks.Glorthac (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a bit of an over-interpretation of St. Methodius of Olympus. Is there a secondary source that supports this interpretation? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. While this is interesting content, we need a report by a reliable secondary source of what St. Methodius had to say. Otherwise, this is just one more OR citation of primary sources in an article that has too many already. Ovadyah (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to say, that this seems to document their differences with Christian belief (Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity), not Judaism, but an anon has beaten me to it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Tabor

I find that the Ebionites per se are mentioned in the index on only twice in Tabor's book on The Dynasty of Jesus, pp. 302-303 and 316. In the first, it indicates that the early Christian community in Jerusalem "were known subsequently as Ebionites", and the second, page 316, mentions Mohammed may have been influenced by them. The term Nazarene is used throughout the book to describe the early Jerusalem community, but there is already a separate page for that subject and it would very likely be placing far too much emphasis on the single phrase "were known subsequently" to say that any doctrinal or procedural points necessarily continued to the Ebionites. I therefore find it very very questionable whether the book should be referenced for anything other than the assertion that the Ebionites were early known as Nazarenes, and that Mohammed may have been influenced by them. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations in finally getting the book. Tabor's websites and his media appearences reference the Ebionites much more.--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The conjecture regarding Ebionite influence on early Islam was put forward long ago by Schoeps, see Hans-Joachim Schoeps (1969), Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church. This has been accepted by most scholars since the 1970s (but apparently not by some theologians). Ovadyah (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No one challegnes the Muslim linkage, which Danielou also mentioned. However, at present, that leaves open at least refernce to citation 26, which has no page indication. I will also, of course, verify the existing page citations for the other references to the book. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, none of the page citations for references 61 and 66 pan out either. I used the hardcover edition, no printing is indicated, it appears to be a US library edition, ISBN 0-7432-8723-1. Page 4 does include discussion of the "dynasty" but the closest quote I can find is "James became the uncontested head of the early Christian movement." Considering elsewhere in the book Tabor indicates that the Ebionites came after the early Christian movement, it doesn't support reference to the Ebionites. Page 74, the second page of the "Children of a Lesser Father" chapter, mentions neither the Ebionites nor the dynasty. Neither does page 222. Page 226 is about the crucifixion, and contains no reference to either the Ebionites or succession. Regarding the other citation, which starts with page 222, as has already been mentioned, it mentions neither the James nor his status as leader. Page 223, the first page of "Dead But Twice Buried", mentions neither James nor succession/dynasty either. The last citation, page 231, mentions James once: "According to Paul, Jesus appeared first to Cephas or Peter, then to the Twelve, then to five hundred disciples at one time, then to James brother of Jesus, then to all the apostles, and finally -- 'last of all he appeared to me.'" I would be very, very interested in seeing the actual quotations which are supposed to support these reference citations. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of these "discrepancies" can be resolved by explicitly expanding the "Ebionite" label to include all "Jewish Christians" - but since this mentioned in the lead and Name section, do we need to be pedantically redundant everywhere? And yes, there are different Tabor editions with different page numbers, as you will have seen from my conversation with Ovadyah. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I also own the hard copy if anyone needs a look-up to check page numbers. The hard copy page numbers come up on a web search, so we should probably standardize the numbers in the article to this version. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've spent my weekend spare time reading large chunks of Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty (which John Carter got wrong above), & pedantic quibblings or not I don't feel it is relevant to this article. While on the one hand he presents a number of provocative readings of the evidence worth considering for mention in the relevant articles (an example would be his suggestion that the leaders of the Jerusalem church between Simon & Marcus were a council of 12 who governed simultaneously), or led me to some notable topics like Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera (where I removed an example of crypto-fascist propaganda that had snuck in under the radar), the focus of his book is on the early Church in the first century AD, long before the first mention of the Ebionites. The two mentions of the Ebionites which John Carter cites above are little more than by-the-way mentions of this group, & almost unimportant to the work. More importantly, Tabor bases his opinion about the relationship of the early Jerusalem Christians to the Ebionites on pp. 302f to Hans-Joachim Schoeps' Jewish Christianity, so that citation should be more properly replaced with a citation to Schoeps -- whom it appears everyone here accepts as a reliable source.

One other observation I'd like to make about the article is about the end of the first paragraph of the "History" section, where a sentence has six footnotes; I find multiple footnotes mars the appearance of an article, & from my long experience have found this to be a symptom of a bitter -- & unnecessary -- content war. The obvious point of these footnotes is to provide the names of those who "have argued that the Ebionites were more faithful to the authentic teachings of Jesus". Whether or not the Ebionites were in fact more faithful (which I assume everyone here would accept is a controversial assertion), I believe a better way to present these multiple authors is to either (1) select one author as an example & thinning out this blight of footnotes, or (2) discuss each one of these authorities separately. Choosing between these two possibilities would depend, largely, in how much attention should properly be given to this point -- which needs to be considered since the amount of what we now know for certain about the Ebionites is so small. -- llywrch (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no merit in removing sources just for aesthetic reasons. Sources are useful for inquistive readers; the more the better, IMO. If necessary they can be bundled together. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see no merit in piling on sources because "the more the better". We should show editorial judgment in selecting sources to use. Taken to its logical extreme, your approach would then replace every footnote with, "See your local public library." -- llywrch (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already said why I think more is better here - they're pointers to specific sources that readers find helpful. Your last comment about the library is not very helpful; indeed quite ridiculous, since, by the same token, I could take your argument to its logical extreme as implying we need no references at all. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, I think we provide citations for statements far too often in Wikipedia articles, & sometimes it would be nice if we didn't need citations at all. Most of the time multiple citations appear at the end of a sentence for no other reason than one group wants to push its own fringe belief into the mainstream, as if -- to quote Ovadyah -- half a dozen sources of mediocre quality will make up for one source of good or better quality. If the other sources will be eventually cited in the article, let them wait their turn. Otherwise, they can be put in the "Further reading" section. -- llywrch(talk) 21:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we shall have to disagree about the usefulness of citations. As for dumping everything in the "Further reading" section, that is also a favorite target of the POV warriors to remove mateial from. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of preventing yet another edit war, I feel compelled to advise Llywrch that it's useless to get into these tit-for-tat exchanges with Michael. I mean no disrespect to either editor in saying this. It would be better to hold off for now and try to resolve these relatively minor matters in mediation. Just a suggestion. Ovadyah (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My reply is in three parts. 1. I agree about Schoeps. It's better to reference Schoeps directly than have Tabor referencing Schoeps indirectly. That said, we put out a request for page numbers on Schoeps three times and no one responded. If someone has library access to this book, please fill in the page numbers. 2. Six references is a lot and a recipe for synthesis (implying that all the references say the same thing by grouping them together when they really don't). We should consider removing any tertiary encyclopedic references for starters anywhere secondary sources are available. 3. I agree that Tabor mentions the Ebionites in a rather by-the-way manner. After all, the book is primarily about the Desposyni, not the Ebionites. However, Tabor argues for a linkage between the Desposyni and the Ebionites (as well as Jewish Christians in general) based on the available primary sources. That is the main reason the book is relevant to the article. One can argue that such a linkage is tenuous, and if we can find secondary sources that advocate the linkage is tenuous we should include them, but it is bordering on OR for the editors to make judgments about whether the linkage is too tenuous to merit inclusion. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Just one query: why do you say We should consider removing any tertiary encyclopedic references for starters anywhere secondary sources are available. I thought tertiary sources were preferred by policy. Anyway, I object to playing perpetual merry-go-round with the sources; if relevant include them all. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines on Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources were updated since last time I looked, and the policies have been made more explicit. The guidelines mention that most articles rely on secondary sources, and say that tertiary sources may be based on unreliable sources (ie. it's impossible to independently verify). It doesn't say that you can't use them, but it doesn't say they are preferred either. My point about using tertiary sources is that they don't add much weight when a section of the article is already referenced by several reliable secondary sources. In essence, I'm advocating for quality over quantity. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the guidelines have changed, you're right. Okay, it doesn't say they are preferred, but my vote is still for inclusion, since they are drawing on other secondary sources that we may not have available. As it says, commonsense it required. E.g. we can use the catholic encyclopedia for data, but be wary about repeating their asserton that the Ebionites are heretics. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to Ovadyah: 1. Although you stated that no one wants to help with Schoep, I did a quick search on Worldcat, which returned 338 libraries around the world which has this book. I don't know how this appeal for help was worded, but at this point do you have a good reason not to introduce yourself to the InterLibrary Loan department of your local public library & ask them to help you borrow this book & add the material yourself?
2. Summarizing the positions of six individuals is not original research. However since to provide this summary would require a sizable paragraph to cover, & the point is tangential to this article -- it's about the Ebionites, not whether modern Christianity is correct -- one authority is all that is needed to make this point.
3. Since you admit that Tabor's book is about the desposyni, not Jewish Christianity or the Ebionites, then it should be removed from this list & not used at all in this article because it is irrelevant. If Michael Price is correct, that there are other works of Tabor which directly deal with the Ebionites, then use them instead. -- llywrch (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Your tone seems to be rather hostile and I'm wondering why. Maybe I'm still recovering from my previous editorial beating. So, let me try to provide an answer your response. 1. The person that added this reference is long gone, and I am not the custodian of this article. That said, I will attempt to access it through InterLibrary Loan. 2. No comment other than to say that one or two outstanding sources are better to make a point than 5 mediocre sources. The article tends to suffer from source creep because it has been repeatedly attacked by religious "enthusiasts" of all types. 3. Not sure what you mean by "admit", but I favor a middle ground between unconditional acceptance and unconditional rejection. For instance, where Tabor directly cites primary sources, as I showed on the mediation page, they should be added to the article. This was accepted as valid by the mediator. If you strongly disagree then maybe you should be a party to the ongoing mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Llywrch: Tabor's book is about the desposyni, Jewish Christianity and the Ebionites. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Price, I've read the book. Tabor discusses the beginnings of Jewish Christianity in the fifth part of his book; the Ebionites are only one part of Jewish Christianity, & their role in that larger movement is unknown & most probably unknowable. Tabor only mentions the Ebionites themselves in the conclusion of the book. -- llywrch (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ovadyah, I didn't mean to sound hostile in my response. I will admit I was rather amazed & somewhat disappointed in your response -- & Michael Price's follow-up -- because my initial comments were intended not to propose any significant changes in this article, but simply stylistic changes; in encountering such resistance, I couldn't help but respond in kind. I'm sorry to come across so brusquely. But to the rest of your response: #2, "No comment other than to say that one or two outstanding sources are better to make a point than 5 mediocre sources. The article tends to suffer from source creep because it has been repeatedly attacked by religious "enthusiasts" of all types" -- I agree. Which was why I wanted to prune the number of these references back. #3 Your appeal to what "the mediator" decided really doesn't answer my objection; it's an appeal to authority, not to reason. Tabor's book doesn't seem relevant here to me, for reasons I've set out. If you can provide an argument to keep his book -- or to replace it with another one of his works -- then we can go from there. -- llywrch (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I'm a lot more agnostic about Tabor than it probably appears from my above comments. My only reason for keeping Tabor is his citation of relevant primary sources. For instance, Tabor's citation of the Ebionite gospel and Slavonic Josephus to point out that "honey cake" is probably a reference to the manna of Exodus is a very good piece of scholarship, and the Gospel of the Ebionites is certainly relevant to an article on the Ebionites. That is why I would choose to use Tabor selectively rather than eliminate him as a source. My appeal to the mediator was not intended to be an appeal to authority over reason, although I see how it could be taken that way. The point was that there are many sources that support the inclusion of the James material, Tabor among them, and no sources were brought forward to oppose this inclusion (after a month of waiting). I believe the mediator made a rational choice in saying go ahead and retain the material with slightly revised wording. Tabor's contribution to the James section is that he cites three very different primary sources that say James was widely recognized as the head of the Jerusalem Church. Removing Tabor as a reference results in the suppression of the analysis of these primary sources. Finally, I apologize for being brusque myself. We need more editors with good ideas working on the article. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Bart Ehrman Lost Christianities makes a reference to John the Baptist's vegetarian diet: "Probably the most interesting of the changes from the familiar New Testament accounts of Jesus comes in the Gospel of the Ebionites description of John the Baptist, who, evidently, like his successor Jesus maintained a strictly vegetarian cuisine. In this Gospel, with the change of just one letter of the relevant Greek word, the diet of John the Baptist was said to have consisted not of locusts (meat!) and wild honey (cf. Mark 1:6) but of pancakes and wild honey. It was a switch that may have been preferable on other grounds as well." (pp. 102f) I think there are other sources available not only to replace Tabor, but would likely improve on him. (Not to say he's a bad source, but we all know that there are good, better, & best sources out there.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I just found the excerpt from the Gospel of the Ebionites which explains the "locusts" vs. "pancakes" difference -- especially since I would expect anyone reading Wikipedia to be surprised ate the image that people ate flapjacks in the 1st century AD -- even without maple syrup. As M.R. James, the translator, explains, "A locust in Greek is akris, and the word they used for cake is enkris, so the change is slight." -- llywrch (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you find the subject of locusts interesting (no, I'm not being sarcastic). This used to explained (as you have above) in the article but was deleted in a POV jihad. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You might also be interested in a collection of citations relating to the Gospel of the Ebionites by the early Church Fathers and other sources in the original language and English translation here. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am frankly astonished that individuals above seem to be indicating that "all we have to do is ignore policy and guidelines, like WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, among others, and everything is fine." We don't ignore policies and guidelines like that; they exist as policies and guidelines for a reason. Regarding the vegetarianism issue, I believe it is probably discussed much more thoroughly by other sources, such as, maybe, the Skarsaune/Hvalvik collection of essays, the Jackson McCabe book, and others. There may also be material in the book "Holy Cow!", the subject of a review entitled "Revenge of the Ebionites," relevant to that material as well. In general, however, considering that Gospel of the Ebionites is the only separate "group" (OK, it's writers were a group, the book itself not so), I have to think that that article on the gospel itself should contain most of the information which relates to that gospel, particularly considering there is question about whether it actually was "Ebionite". The group that seems by modern academics to be most closely associated with it seems to be the original writers of 1.27-71 of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions. (Of course, by the "every Jewish Christian was an Ebionite" proposal, they would be Ebionites too.) I have no clear idea why that association is made, because I've been treating the Gospel as a separate entity for quotation purposes, and not including it in my page of quotations from sources except as it is discussed in those sources in direct and obvious relationship to the Ebionites themselves. I know I have read and made notes of quite a bit of discussion on the subject, even though I don't know what all has or has not been added to my sources page at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites yet. Among the matters I remember were that it was evidently more Pythagorean than Jewish vegetarianism, about not eating "meat with soul in it," that Epiphanius himself didn't seem to mention vegetarianism in his ample discussion of the Ebionites, calling into question whether or not he saw that as important, and, somewhere, that it might have been some sort of midrash, and perhaps not to be taken literarlly. I think the Schoeps book might be available as well, but, as it stands, I've got six pages of handwritten notes that I haven't added to that page yet, from sources like Klijn & Reinink, whcih seems to be the one most frequently indicated by encyclopedias as one of their sources, and others. And it should be noted that some individuals with a "sense of humor" have called my handwritten notes arthritic chicken scratchings from someone who obviously loves his microscope. Believe it or not, there is only so much one person can accomplish quickly, particularly with the number of sources around and trying to keep up with other extant discussions. And I've found at least one source listed in an encyclopedia which was translated, although not indicated as such there, indicating I'll have to check on the others as well. I did not necessarily mean by making the comment that immediate action was required, although, if others wish to do so, they are free to do so. But some of the questions which arise over existing text seem to me to be more relevant than simply adding quotations and comments to the sources page, and this is one of those instances. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Llywrch, thanks for taking the time to look up the JTB material in Lost Christianities. I will read through that chapter and then add this reference to the JTB section of the article. Cheers. :0) Ovadyah (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As the material referenced above which apparently does not pass verifiability requirements has not been substantively imporved on, I have removed it. I would have no objections to seeing material which is actually verifiable added, however, given the rather extreme defenses which have been made, many of which are contrary to policy, I think that it would be a very good idea to have any such changes discussed and agreed to on the talk page before implementation. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to you to unilaterally decide what meets verifiability requirements during the ongoing mediation of a content dispute. Another example of your abuse of power as an admin. Ovadyah (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right. This section, however, made it clear that an uninvolved administrator agreed that it failed to meet even the most basic policy requirements some time ago. It is not an abuse of power to ensure content adheres to policy, although making unfounded accusations about the actions of another in an insulting fashion as has been done is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:TPG. John Carter (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC

This request is being filed to determine two things:

• 1) How much space the article should give to the theories of J. L. Teicher and Robert Eisenman, which link the Dead Sea Scrolls community to the Ebionites.
• 2) The external links, including particulary that to a non-notable neo-Ebionite group's page which says comparatively little, if anything, related to the current content of the article. John Carter (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Background for newcomers: The word "Ebionite" has been used over the years to describe various groups which all have in common the belief that Jesus was some form of prophet, but less than divine. Such use of the name of one group to describe another is relatively common among "heresY' battlers, as it gives them a chance to make one, central, response to a theory they consider heretical which they can quickly refer to when dealing specifically with the individual forms thereof.

In any event, the term has been used so broadly and regularly that, despite the comparative lack of information about the group(s) mentioned by the church fathers, the term has been regularly used in a broad, non-specific way to describe any number of groups, and the topic has become one of the major subjects of discussion of the early Christian period. Now, to the details of this RfC.

Ebionites/Dead Sea Scrolls linkage

Several encyclopedias have referenced J. L. Teicher's theory that Jesus was the Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They have uniformly mentioned it as a theory which has gained, to quote one, "little support," but they at least mention it and include his articles in their bibliographies. as can be seen by looking at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, where I have been collecting some quotes on the subject. Robert Eisenman's more recent theory, which he first proposed in the 1970's, is that James the Just was the leader of the Ebionites, who were according to Eisenman more or less the umbrella group for the Jewish resistance at the time. Eisenman's central theory regarding James has been described by one subsequent scholar, Stephen Hodge, in his book The Dead Sea Scrolls Rediscovered ISBN 1-56795-333-4, as having been "largely rejected within the academic community," on page 207. The lack of any mention of his theories in particular in any of the encyclopedic sources I have found, or inclusion of any of his works in their bibliographies, certainly supports this contention.

So the question is how to mention these theories in the article, if at all. I can think of a few possibilities. One would be something along the lines of

"Some scholars have attempted to link the early followers of Jesus to the Ebionites. J. L. Teicher's theory that Jesus was the Teacher of Righteousness received little support from the academic community. Robert Eisenman's hypothesis that James the Just was the leader of the Ebionites has been largely rejected by the academic community,"

citing sources as required. Alternately, a shorter version, perhaps along the lines of "Theories attempting to link the Ebionites to the Dead Sea Scrolls community have been largely rejected" would also be possible.

Which of these options would be prefered by the rest of you?

Responses

• The latter is preferable, as negation with elaboration only serves to promote not only a minority theory, but a largely discredited one. I'd suggest the latter one, with the references relegated to footnotes. --XKV8R (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Footnotes to indicate the sourcing are a given. I just hesitated to include them in these drafts because I didn't want to indicate to anyone that my preliminary proposals should be given too much weight. John Carter (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

External links

As it stands, the first external link in that section is to a neo-Ebionite group whose separate article had been previously deleted and merged here on the basis of non-notability. While the page linked to gives a great deal of information about that specific group, it gives little if any direct information about the historical Ebionites. If the neo-Ebionite group were itself mentioned in the article in a manner supported by an independent reliable source, I could see having it included. Without that mention in the article, however, I believe that the pages linked to may well fail WP:EL because of any lack of direct relevance to the content of the article. I myself have found only one independent reliable source which discusses neo-Ebionites at all. It is a book review discussing current Judeo-Christian vegetarianism, and in it neo-Ebionites are mentioned, but in such a way that the following comments cannot be clearly seen to clearly describe either the neo-Ebionites or the Judeo-Christian vegetarians, and is thus, for all practical purposes, useless for saying anything beyond "neo-Ebionites, or people who could be called that, exist."

Also, there are at least four other webpages about presumably non-notable neo-Ebionite groups at ebionite.com, ebionite.net, atheists-for-jesus.com,and ebionim.org. The first of these actually provides numerous detailed quotes from others, unlike the page currently linked to and would thus seem to be better qualified for inclusion as an external link than the existing one. All of them, however, share the same non-notability, and I would have to assume that if the existing one is to be included, all the others should be as well. However, the ebionite.com page, which does have some useful quotes, might itself be prefereable individually.

In any event, I would think that, if the existing link is to be kept, it should have a description of the nature of the site following it. If the ebionite.com link is substaituted, it would also benefit from having a disclaimer attached.

The question would be which if any of the sites should be linked to, why, and should they have descriptions attached or not? John Carter (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Responses

The point is now moot as a passing editor has deleted the external links from the article. For what it's worth, I agree with this decision. The FA version of the article did not have an External Sources section because it didn't need one. Ovadyah (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Could you be more specific about what it is you are proposing? Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for page protection

John Carter, a request for page protection, after you have made all the changes you want, is an admin abuse of power. Ovadyah (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is entirely relevant to the content dispute, and you cannot remove content from article talk pages. Ovadyah (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no content dispute. There is the fact that the material removed was found to violate basic wikipedia policy, and, despite my having given yourself and others a great deal of time to find anything which would indicate that it remotely adhered to policy, you did nothing of the kind. The dispute is, so far as I can see, between you and wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This page, however, is not the correct forum as per policies and guidelines to bring up such points. Perhaps your time would be better spent in seeking to add verifiable information than in raising accusations of misconduct which cannot be supported by policies or guidelines. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing mediation of the content disputes on this article, of which you were a part until you refused to participate. You cannot define your own actions as the embodiment of Wiki policy and any criticism of them as the definition of a personal attack. Ovadyah (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And, after the mediation was ended, it was found and agreed that the content in question was completely and utterly in violation of basic wikipedia policy, as determined by an uninvolved administrator. Nevertheless, that does not relate to the fact that subsequent involvement by uninvolved administrators found that the material was not even remotely supported by the material in the book to which it was cited. If however you choose to bring the matter to a noticeboard, you are free to do so. They will note that, despite having been given abundant warning that the material was not in accord with policy, you did nothing to improve it and make it adhere to policy. If, however, you choose to bring it to a noticeboard, feel free. However, your comments here I believe fail everybody's definition of WP:TPG, which are also applicable here. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the mediation isn't "ended". The only thing that ended is your participation. I requested that the mediation be kept open to resolve any disputes, and the other parties to the mediation intend to make use of it. The only agreement that "the content in question was completely and utterly in violation of basic wikipedia policy" is apparently in your mind, but wishing won't make it so. Your admin and editorial conduct is noted and will be dealt with in good time. Ovadyah (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right - I did suspend my participation pending finding sources. Having found those sources, I now realize that mediation, which is intended to resolve conflict disputes which cannot be resolved by policy, is pointless, because the material under discussion can be resolved by policy - the Tabor material fails to meet WP:V requirements, and Eisenman's theories have been explicitly stated to have been rejected by the academic community. On that basis, I guess I will completely withdraw from mediation, considering that the disputes can obviously be resolved on the basis of policy. John Carter (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tabor

I was asked to give an opinion here, though it's hard to see what the issue is. John, can you say why James Tabor might not be a reliable source? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Tabor is a reliable source. What he says about the Ebionites is that the group was started around 150 CE. The problem with the reference citations that have been removed is that, as per previous review by another uninvolved administrator, they fail basic policy of WP:V. Considering that Tabor is also a living person, WP:BLP could be considered applicable as well, and that policy says that poorly sourcd material, which nonverifiable material clearly is, should be removed immediately. And, despite misrepresentations of fact and other obvious misstatements it was not just me, but also User:Llywrch, another administrator, who found here that those citations failed to meet basic wikipedia policy of verifiability. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the basics of the original dispute regarding James Tabor can be found on the Talk page here and here, which led up to the trip to AN/I and the request for mediation. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's too much to read. If Tabor is a reliable source, why is his material being removed? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Briefly, because his quasi-Unitarian views are not consistent with Roman Catholic dogma. This, of course, is not a valid reason for removal. --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

And note that John Carter withdrew from mediation after being unable to provide any sources for this POV. (He may deny this with some wall-of-text response, but see the mediation for confirmation.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And note how, now that a reliable source regarding this subject, Robert Eisenman's theory, which has been largely ignored by the acacemic community as per quotations in Painter's book James the Just and now been specifically said to have been rejected by the academic community in another source, is being completely ignored by Michael, who instead makes what is clearly an ad hominem comment above in his own "wall of text" argument, which, coincidentally, is also more or less similar to several academic's description of Eisenman's book. Is there some reason Michael is apparently refusing to address this matter? And it probably should be noted that despite Ovadyah's being a long-term basically SPA regarding this topic. He has also been asked directly at least once whether, as can be seen as indicated by the similarity of his own linguistic usage and that of the author of the webpages of the Ebionite Community, he might have a conflict of interest regarding this subject. He has to date refused to offer any sort of direct comment on that, seeking, like others, to try to avoid the matter by raising sometimes irrelevant matters and casting aspersions on others. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I encourage anyone interested to read John Painter's review of Robert Eisenman's book James the Brother of Jesus, which can be found in Just James in the Excursus at the end of the book on pp. 277 to 288. Painter's review is very thoughtful and comprehensive; he lays out Eisenman's arguments in abridged fashion and then critiques them. Painter gives mixed reviews of the book, critically stating that "Eisenman's book on James is both erudite and eccentric. Not only are the conclusions at variance with mainstream scholarship, but his methods of handling evidence and developing arguments are also different from those employed by mainstream scholars". However, Painter also states in conclusion, "Nevertheless, his work, aimed at bringing James out from obscurity, is to be welcomed. His recognition that James championed the cause of the poorer priests against Ananus, the rich high priest, and his supporters is helpful, as is his observation that the understanding of James as a "pillar" and "Oblias" is illuminated by the tradition of the righteous sufferers, the Zaddikim. But he fails to recognize that this connection sigificantly weakens his case for identifying James with the Righteous Teacher of Qumran, putting in question his use of the scrolls in reconstructing the history of early Christianity". In other words, Painter strongly disagrees with some of Eisenman's arguments while supporting others. That treatment is no different from a review in the literature that I would expect from any independent scholar. Most important with respect to this article is that the crux of the disagreement, whether Eisenman has convincingly demonstrated that James is the same person as the Righteous Teacher, has no bearing at all on the Ebionites. Ovadyah (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The essence of the theory put foward however is that James was the leader of the Ebionites. The fundamental hypothesis of the book has been discredited, "rejected by the academic community." Given that Eisenman's first published material on the subject, his 1977 paper that James was the Teacher of Righteousness, it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that the material in the books may be included based on that, now discredited, hypothesis. That being the case, it would be, in effect, a theory based on a fringe theory, and, as such, presumably equally discredited. It would be incumbent on anyone seeking to add such information to indicate that the material related to the Ebionites were either directly based on something other than his rather thoroughly dismissed hypothesis for it to qualify as being other than WP:FRINGE, particularly considering that the essence of the entire book is about James the Just being an Ebionite, a theory which has been rejected on any number of bases. If the same assertions could be found in other sources which have not been "rejected by the academic community" as Eisenman's theory has been or other qualify as WP:FRINGE, then there would be no reason not to include it. But Eisenman, whose work has been rejected by the academic community, including his linkage of James to the Ebionites, clearly qualifies as [{WP:FRINGE]].

Please show on the talk page, using specific sources with pages numbers and quotations from them, how Eisenman's works are "rejected by the academic community", and how this claimed rejection has a bearing on the actual content of the Ebionites article, and please do the same for Tabor as well. That would be very helpful. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if you read the content of this page as well. The "Misrepresentation of Tabor" section above makes it clear that those citations were rejected because of failing WP:V. I said when I removed them that they failed [[WP:V]}, and, in fact, said that some time ago. As such, the burden as per WP:BURDEN would be on anyone who sought to keep such dubious material to indicate why, perhaps by exact quotes which substantiate it. That burden would be one you, not me. I mentioned in the beginning of the RfC the quote from page 207 of Stephen Hodges's book "The Dead Sea Scrolls Redisocovered" that he states, that Eisenman's hypothesis was "largely rejected by the academic community." It would be very helpful in my opinion if you were to actually read the content of the comments made by others, so we would not have to go through this repeatedly. Unless, of course, this were to be some sort of attempt of distraction on your part. I do not have the book in front of me, and probably won't until tomorrow, a fuller quotation I have in paper from page 207 states "the main criticism of his work lies in his overfree interpretation of certain passages in the Qumran scrolls and the New Testament, or worse still in his use of dubious translations. [At this point he discusses Eisenman's view of 4Q285, which has been rejected as being a mistaken completion of an incomplete word. Hodges then goes on to discuss Eisenman's hypothesis that James was the Teacher of Righteousness and how Hodges himself rejects that hypothesis.] Though Eisenman's hypothesis has been largely rejected by the academic community, his arguments are at least plausible. [At this point he discusses the theory of an Australian author that John the Baptist was ToR, which he finds completely implausible." Fuller quotations should be available within the next day or so.

However, I also wish to repeat that it would be very helpful as well if you as an individual could abide by the bare minimum requirements of WP:BURDEN and indicate exactly how the Tabor citations which two individuals have found to be nonverifiable have any reason whatsoever to be included in the first place.

Also, like in all cases, the burden of proof that the ideas have received any sort of acceptance in the academic community is on those who seek to add the information, as per WP:BURDEN. Any attempts to synthesize sources who say different things, like "the Ebionites arose from the early Jerusalem church" and "James led the early Jerusalem Church" into "James led the Ebionites" would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. What is required is pretty much exact statements from the sources verifying that they in fact make the statements they are said to have made. And, yes, taking into account Eisenman's original shortish paper in 1977 on this subject was about how James was the Teacher of Righteousness, and that is the fundamental tenet of all his work, then there is reason to question whether any of the other assertions he makes in the book are based on his own prior theory or on sources. As such, it would be incumbent on those seeking to add or keep the information to indicate exactly why it should be kept, not, as you are seemingly trying to do, to force someone else into proving a negative. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you have no intention of providing evidence to back up your worthless claims because you can't, and ranting endlessly is not a substitute for hard facts. That is precisely why you evaded mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In response to yet another seeming apparent attempt at misdirection, you have done nothing whatsoever to indicate that these unverifiable assertions on your part even come close to being "hard facts". I was forced to "rant endlessly" as you so prejudicially put it because you apparently find it impossible to actually read the content which already exists on the page you are posting on. Perhaps, if you are capable of such, you might be able to provide information which verifies your assertions are the "hard facts". That would be very helpful. I have to wonder if that is what will actually happen, though. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

How is the Gospel of the Ebionites relevant to this article?

The so-called Gospel of the Ebionites is only called that because the one source for it, Epiphanius, who has been counted as the least reliable of the church fathers, says he encounted it. Epiphanius has been discussed in a source which has been referenced in multiple encyclopedias as possibly having made up material regarding the Ebionites or Nazarenes to reach his pre-publication announcement of 80 heresies, and the majority of modern scholars who refer to the subject describe it as being more likely related to the Pseudo-Clementines, who are not regarded as Ebionites. I know that several modern Ebionites are vegetarians, and they ascribe this to the description of Epiphanius and his gospel, but is this article really supposed to reflect the opinions of non-notable modern religious groups and ignore the stated opinions of modern scholars? I am well aware that the editor who refuses to address his obvious COI regarding this topic will ignore it, as he ignores all questions he cannot answer reasonably, but believe the matter should be noted. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your whole discussion here is one giant exercise in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. The proper way to present this in the article is to begin by having reliable secondary sources report what Epiphanius said; that a group of Jewish-Christians, who he refers to as Ebionites, used a gospel which modern scholars refer to as the Gospel of the Ebionites. The article might then show some content that illustrates what Epiphanius reported along with a link to the Gospel of the Ebionites article. The GoE is also important to this article in that Epiphanius reports some views about John The Baptist that are characteristic of the Ebionites and different from orthodox Christianity. Therefore, it is relevant to the recorded history of the Ebionites to explain this as clearly as possible in the article. I will ignore all the personal insults, as they contribute nothing to further progress on the article. Ovadyah (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your reply is yet another attempt to avoid directly dealing with policies and guidelines which disagree with you. If you can find it within yourself, deal with the point raised rather than trying to once again obfuscate it. I don't think that anyone would object to a short section on the Gospel of the Ebionites as a whole - an entirely seperate section about John the Baptist, based primarily on the Gospel of the Ebionites, however, is another matter entirely. However much certain individuals try to ignore the fact, however, there are numerous reliable sources which indicate the Gospel is unrelated to the Ebionites. And refusing to address issues of WP:UNDUE and other matters, as the above comment does, is not only an impediment to the further progress of this article, but actually runs contrary to the principles of wikipedia itself. If the above party could actually respond directly to the points made, about how material relevant to the Gospel of the Ebionites best belongs on that page, and not engage in honor/shame ripostes, that would be even more useful. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please list the "numerous reliable sources" that you keep bringing up which say the Gospel of the Ebionites is unrelated to the Ebionites, along with page numbers and quotations from them, so that we may all share in your wisdom. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

At least one is quoted, as I have already stated, directly above on this page, at 18:36 on July 17. I am sorry you seem to find it impossible to look for information which is contained on the very same page you make your comments on. In any event, your response, if that is what one calls it, refuses to address the issue that material on the Gospel of the Ebionites better belongs on that page? If there any chance of that matter actually being addressed, I wonder? John Carter (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I found it in this diff. I see multiple page numbers but no indication of the author's name or the title of the book. The author concludes that the Ebionites described by Epiphanius are not the same as the Ebionites mentioned by Iranaeus 200 years earlier. That's fine to point out in the article, but it still doesn't mean Epiphanius was mistaken. He knew of a group that were considered to be Ebionites by 4th century orthodox Christians, and there are multiple reliable secondary sources that report this fact. Ovadyah (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And your response once again refuses to deal with WP:SS. The Gospel of the Ebionites (please feel free to follow the link) already has its own article. No one said Epiphanius was wrong but you - certainly I didn't. But your assertion that it doesn't mean Epiphanius was mistaken doesn't actually adress the matter of the the content guideline above. It would be wonderful if individuals didn't continue to indulge in straw man arguments and actually directly responded to the points made, which is what is required as per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and probably explains why there has been no response to date. Regarding your proposed restructuring of the article, if that is what it is, I suggested something similar above, and, you made comments without once actually addressing the central topic, which seems typical as per honor/shame ripostes. If you actually are willing to adjust the article structure, I am obviously willing to do so, having suggested it above. Unfortunately, your response did not at all deal with the proposal. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing material from Epiphanius

I am more than somewhat surprised that so much of the material from Epiphanius' description of the Ebionites seems to be completely overlooked by the article. In Jewish Christianity Reconsidered, ed. by Matt Jackson-McCabe, Fortress Press, 2007, starting on page 87, he identifies the material from Epiphanius's description not found in earlier ones:

"1. Ebion, the alleged founder of the movement, was originally a Samaritan (Pan 30.1..3, 5; 30.2.3)

• 2. Ebionites are careful not to touch a heretic. (30.2.4)
• 3. They had to purify themselves after having intercourse with a women (30.2.4)
• 4. They also practiced other lustrations several times a day, fully clothed. (30.2.5; 30.15.3; 30.16.1)
• 5. They forbade virginity and chastity even though they had earlier boasted of virginity (30.2.6; cf. no. 16 below)
• 6. In Epiphanius' view, they maintain contradictory views of Christ; some of them say that (a) Adam is Christ (Pan. 30.3.3), while others claim that (b) Christ is eternal and has appeared several times in history - to Abraham and others - in the guise of Adam's body, and that he was finally crucified, raised, and returned to heaven (Pan. 30.3.4-6) Some of them may also say that (c) Christ went into Jesus (Pan. 30.3.6; see also Pan 30.16.4)
• 7. Epiphanius presents quotations from the Ebionite's Gospel, arguing that the Ebionites have mutilated the Gospel of Matthew (Pan. 30.13.2, etc.).
• 8. They detest Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Elijah, Elisha, Samson, Samuel, Solomon, and all the prophets (Pan. 30.15.2; 30.18.4-5; 30.18.9).
• 9. They abstain from food prepared from meat (Pan. 30.13.5; 30.15.3; 30.18.7; 30.22.3-5).
• 10. They accept baptism in addition to their daily purifications (Pan. 30.16.1).
• 11. They celebrate the Eucharist annually with unleavened bread and water only (Pan. 30.16.1)
• 12. They believe that Christ came to abolish sacrifices (Pan. 30.16.5) and that James, the brother of Jesus, preached against the Temple and sacrifices (Pan. 30.16.7).
• 13. They claim to have received their name, "Ebionites" ("poor," from the Hebrew word 'ebyon), when their ancestors delivered their property to the apostles (Pan. 30.17.2-3; cf. Acts. 4.34-35).

Going on to page 88, "*14. They have invocations and lustrations to help those stricken by sickness or bitten by a snake (Pan. 30.17.4-5; also in the Book of Elchasai).

• 15. Like Elchesai, they picture Christ as a huge invisible figure, ninety-six miles long and twenty-four miles wide (Pan. 30.17.5-7; also in the Book of Elchasai).
• 16. Young Ebionite men are coereced by their teachers to marry (Pan. 30.18.2; cf. no. 5 above).
• 17. The Ebionites have synagogues governed by archisynagagoues and elders (Pan. 30.18.2-3).
• 18. They do not accept the entire Pentateuch. (Pan. 30.18.7-9)."

Some of these, particularly those which indicate connections to other groups, like the Samaritans, the Elchesaites, as well as their rejection of much of the Hebrew Bible, are things I would think would be of essential importance to know about the topic, and yet many of them seem to have been overlooked or ignored. I cannot think of a single good reason for this information not be included. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't either. Please feel free to include it, or lay it out on the talk page if you want to discuss it first. Ovadyah (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would think that it would probably best work as an embedded list as per WP:EMBED. My main question is how to reference the individual items. There already are multiple references included for each of those already mentioned in the article, and I honestly cannot see having multiple reference citations for comparatively non-controversial content like this. Epiphanius's book still exists, and is at least in part translated into English, as per the some of the works here. And the book from which the quotes are made is also a comparatively readily available, non-controversial one. Would it make sense to just list a single source for all of them, or maybe two, one for each page of the text quoted from? While it may only be a style consideration, I have to think that having more source citations than are really necessary would be taken as being a negative, if and when the article ever becomes a GA or FA candidate.

And, regarding that last matter, it might be a decent idea to request a peer review at some point to see if there are any other primarily stylistic considerations that indpendent reviewers would consider negatives. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach. Wikipedia discourages the use of lists in articles, other than when the article topic is about a specific list. Likewise, adding a long list of primary source references is not productive. Please summarize the conclusions of the secondary source containing this list concisely in a sentence or two. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This list of primary source quotations would make a nice contribution to Wikisource and can also be referenced there. Ovadyah (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The first objection, that this is a list of primary source information, is one I have trouble understanding. These are quotes from the source indicated. I don't know myself if they are quotes from Epiphanius. And, regarding the second objection, I think most people would acknowledge that the specific beliefs attributed to a religious group, particularly those which are non-standard for similar groups and/or indicative of direct relations to other groups, are of significant enough importance for inclusion. I mentioned the list format because of the number of items included, and it struck me as possibly using fewer words than the other format. And I am also not sure why wikisource is now mentioned. That is hopefully for full works, and this is not a whole work, rather, a set of beliefs attributed to a specific religious group. It is standard to include such information in either primary or secondary articles about religious groups, and at this point I don't think the 18 items mentioned are sufficient enough to merit their own article. There would also be the question about whether that article should also be the primary location for information related to all beliefs ascribed to this group, from any sources. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I just misunderstood what you have in mind. Let's start with the idea of an embedded text. Does that mean a link to another hidden page which has the list of quotations? If so, I think that is fine. If you are thinking about listing a bunch on primary quotes on the main page of the article - no way to that. That is just poor editing, and it would never survive FA. The idea is to be as accurate as possible but also concise. Ovadyah (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the unrelated point of peer review, the article should absolutely go through peer review (again) and all the rest. But a C-class article, as you have rated it, is miles away from that. Ovadyah (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea I was proposing was to include the information from the above linked quote, either as a quote or more likely in non-quote format, into the text of the article. The quote was only included to provide an verification that the information was accurate, and, also, if such is desited, to indicate directly where in Epiphanius the relevant statement is made. And I think you misunderstood the meaning of WP:EMBED, which in fact is a page which goes into detail about lists contained in an article which is not primarily a list.

Regarding the claim for peer review, the primary reason I gave it a C-class was because of what seemed to me, and still seem to me, to be distortions of the subject. Irenaeus described the group as accepting the bulk of the Hebrew Bible, Epiphanius said they rejected everything but the Pentateuch. Being a bit of a student of religion, I am unaware of any religious group which has come to reject theologically significant scriptures they had earlier accepted. I would add the qualification that the majority of the Deuterocanonical books, honestly, have very little original or significant theological material. This is evidence that, as is indicated by the majority of current scholarship, Irenaeus and Epiphanius were not describing the same group. On that basis, the article still presents in my eyes a distinctly unbalanced perspective. And, in any event, the C-Class determination was not per se a peer review as per WP:PR, but an assessment as per WP:ASSESSMENT. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 - rather than turn this into another argument, I'm going to ask a third party, SandyGeorgia, for some suggestions on the best way to present this material. Sandy participated in both the FAC and FAR on this article. Ovadyah (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free, as Sandy is one of the best FA people we have. However, I would only point out that the first paragraph very seriously differs from several of the extant encyclopedic entries about the Ebionites. The full text of each is not contained at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, because I didn't see the need in repeating something along the lines of "Irenaeus was the first..." 30 times, but the lead paragraph as it is is far from complete in addressing the numerous sources, such as Klijn & Reinink, who have indicated that the Christian Ebionites as described by the church fathers were almost certainly not the same group. Then there is the matter of the usage of the term by the Qumran community as a self-identification, and the possible use of the term by earlier Jews as per Skarsaune and others. The fact that the article seems to be oriented to describing one single group or sect of Ebionites, when so far as I can tell the balance of the academic sources belief that is not the case, is evidence of the article being seriously out of balance. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your mention of how the Ebionites relate to the Qumran community is a separate point and I will respond to that below as paragraph 3. Ovadyah (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 - I agree with what I think is your main point: that Irenaeus in the 2nd century and Epiphanius in the 4th century are describing as Ebionites what must be two different groups. We will never know if they were two different groups all along or the same group that changed over 200 years. The reason this content is missing from the article is there were no reliable secondary sources in 2007 that said this so explicitly (or else we just missed it). Therefore, adding this material into the article based on primary sources would have been OR. The article has not been updated since October 2007. If you have a reliable secondary source that makes this point explicitly and concisely, please add that content to the article. You seem to be implying that this information was actively suppressed from the article, but in no way was that the case. (I tried to add this before you responded but there was an edit conflict.) Ovadyah (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged. This paragraph was also caught in an edit conflict:

These include the use of the name by the Karaites, as per Schlomo Pines in The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source, the following quote from Jewish Christianity Reconsidered", p. 82: The Ebionites' and the Nazarenes' possible relation to the early Jerusalem community has often been debated," as well as on page 83, "The church fathers' descriptions of the Ebionites and the Nazarenes often differ considerably and we cannot always be sure if they are really describing the same historical group," the contention on page 421 of Skarsaune's Jewish Believers in Jesus which more or less explicitly states that the Ebionites described by the church fathers were, in fact, a group they made up by misattributing to use of the name to a group, and numerous statements from the comparatively short encyclopedic entries which can be found not yet fully quoted at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#Encyclopediac sources. The fact that so many of these sources which discuss the matter at length come to the conclusion that there were multiple groups calling themselves Ebionites, if in fact they were not groups made up by misidentification, is a serious gap in the content of this article. The article would also have to be reconstructed significantly to account for all the variations. The fact that the material from Irenaeus saying they accepted the majority of the Hebrew Bible and Epiphanius' corresponding statement about their rejection of almost everything but the Pentateuch, perhaps one of the most important things said about them by either of these, the two leading sources on the subject, may itself be sufficient to ensure that the article falls short of a B-class rating as per WP:ASSESSMENT, and anything that isn't a B falls well short of either GA or FA status.

In response to Section 2, what you may not have found in 2007, several sources calling into question the matter, such as Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, published in 2000, Jones' entry in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, published in 2000, as well as his statements from The Encyclopedia of Religion, published 2005, and others referenced on that page, might be enough in the eyes of many if not most editors to indicate that if nothing else those encyclopedic sources themselves could be quoted, and grounds that the subject deserved greater attention than it received. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We didn't know about these encyclopedic sources, so I guess that's my mistake. I try to avoid tertiary encyclopedic sources if possible, unless they give the references at the bottom of the article. Ovadyah (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is acceptable, provided that we realize that respected specialist encyclopedias are the best determinants we have, sometimes even better than an expert opinion of a potentially biased expert, of what the current academic consensus is. So, if a widely respected specialist encyclopedia is the only source to say it, and sometimes that happens, we are still more or less obliged to use it anyway. John Carter (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And since you have direct access to all these sources, and I don't have access to any of them, please add this content to the article. Try to be as concise as possible. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 - There was content in the article that addressed this linkage between the Ebionites and the Qumran Community. That is not to say it couldn't have been better written or better sourced. The material was removed during the edit-wars that led up to the ArbCom due to concerns about WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. It's still sitting there on the talk page right where I moved it. Again, this was in no way done as an attempt to suppress any content, but until the content is lined up with the sources so we know who said what, it's not ready to go back into the article. Ovadyah (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The question regarding the Qumran covenanters, as well as the hypothesis that other pre-Christian Jews may have used the same term, is primarily about due weight. Having seen the sources I have, I have to say that it is not a topic which should be isolated and dismissed quickly. Like I said, I intend to expand the quotes from the encyclopedia to verbatim in the next few weeks, and also add the material from the sources referenced in encyclopedias as sources. This includes Marcel Simon's Verus Israel, which is probably one of the best sources I've seen yet for the idea that not only many Christian-era Jews, as well as pre-Christian Jews, may well have used that name. Considering both Simon and more recently Skarsaune, possibly among others (I haven't checked), have referred to this hypothesis at length, and both are considered reputable and mainstream, I have to assume that it is of enough significance that it should be discussed at some length. I also note that the proposed restructuring I mentioned above at #Proposed restructuring, based on having perused the material, has yet to receive a clear response. I don't in any way assume that the sections would be of anything like equivalent length, they wouldn't and most of the space would go to the discussion of the church fathers and opinions about them, but it would I am sure do a much better job of discussing all the relevant material to this subject than the current structure easily allows. John Carter (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't expect much from the RfC. This is a difficult area of study. We should probably ask Nishidani if he has time to help out. Slrubenstein might know a lot about this too. He played a big role in the first peer review. Ovadyah (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't, and that's probably a good thing since I seem to have omitted any reference to Schoep's belief that the Qumran covenanters converted to Ebionism at some point. That is more or less the bulk of one of the encyclopedic entries, even if the matter as far as I remember isn't even directly mentioned in any of the others. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Slavonic Josephus material

Why is this material included? So far as I can tell, having read the text in question, it does not include anything which can even remotely be said to be a description of the Ebionites, but simply asserts that John the Baptist was some sort of vegetarian. While such material might well be worthy of inclusion in John the Baptist, this article is about the Ebionites, not John the Baptist. As per WP:TRUTH, we don't really place particularly important on whether anyone's religious beleifs are verified by outsiders; it is enough to know that they have them, although there might be some mention in a "Criticism" section, The only reason I can see for the material to be included at all is because someone might be trying to substantiate this belief, and, like is indicated by the TRUTH essay, that really isn't basis for inclusion of material of this type in this manner. I welcome comments that directly address this matter. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article is about Ebionites, of which John the Baptist may have been their first leader. Ergo the relevance. The material is well sourced. Take it to mediation if you have a problem with that. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate to me where in the article there is a reliable source which indicates what you have said above is considered to be a mainstream idea, and why on earth that statement is not included in the article. And I wish to say that I believe the choice of a mediator to be a possibly suspect one, considering earlier statements that the mediator chosen by one party who has tacitly acknowledged a COI chose the mediator, whom that same party has indicated knows things about a non-notable group which I could not find in any neutral reliable sources. On that basis, I believe the mediator to be perhaps an inappropriate choice, although i would be open to formal mediation from a mediator. And, despite the comment above, I note that there are policies and guidelines which are relevant here, and that the above comment provides no indication of the veracity of the claims it makes, directly responds to the point made, or even really adheres to WP:TPG. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Still banging on about "the mainstream"? Thanks for reminding that JTB's role needs clarifying. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Michael, this article is like all articles supposed to reflect, primarily, the existing academic opinions regarding this matter. Material which counts as fringe as per WP:FRINGE should be given the attention all such "fringe" material deserves. Therefore, yes, I am requesting that the material not only be sourced, but that there be some indication that some independent academic source also sees the viewpoint as being one which does not qualify as fringe. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this before. Take it to mediation. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We've been through your refusal to deal with the fact that there is no ongoing mediation before too Michael. However, I am more than willing to request formal mediation by a party who has had no previous involvement in the subject. Are you willing to agree to it, or do you prefer to continue to engage in the sort of nonresponsive, basically useless, comments above? John Carter (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

John asked me to comment. I think most work on this is shoddy, and it doesn't help that the vice of citing primary sources is still with us, something which intriniscally constitutes an WP:OR violation, since patristic or other primary sources are subject to intense interpretative-linguistic controversy, and no wiki editor has a license to butt in, cite such sources, as if the translation used provided 'evidence' for anything. I will add that Michael Price consistently in the past engaged in WP:OR violations, and thus he particularly should not cite primary sources in this way. After all there's good scholarly sources filtrating all of this stuff. On the specifics.

Particularly in an article like this, no primary source should, indeed must not be cited, to illustrate anything (i.e. John the Baptist+vegetarianism, ergo Ebionites). Specifically, unless a scholarly article or book, from a qualified area expert on that period specifically alligns the Josephean-Slavonic material on John the Baptist with Ebionism, then it cannot be adduced as evidence in the way it has, which violates WP:OR. In every detail you have controversy, and even the attribution of 'vegetarianism' is wobbly, indeed in the present acceptance of that term it is purely anachronistic (though many RS refer to the Ebionites 'vegetarianism', this should, technically, see below, always be understood in inverted commas) since (a)Jewish-Palestinian categories of food typologies do not coincide with our own (b) at least in St. Augustine's classification, which reflects that of the Mishnah, locusts were defined as 'meat' (in the Mishnah with fish M.Ḥullin.8.1). (c) In Moses Maimonides's analysis, there were 8 varieties of locust local to Palestine (classical Greek has 13 words for locust-like insects, the NT uses akris, in CG 'grasshopper'), and of these only those with four wings covering all of the body, and four feet, with two additional feet for leaping, were edible (Kelhoffer below p.57). (d) at Matthew 11:18, believed now to reflect Q, we are told that he neither ate nor drank (μήτε ἐσθίων μήτε πίνων), in contrast to the 'honey and locusts' passages. The Gospel of the Ebionites, per Epiphanios, has him eating only (wild) honey, and nothing else, and whoever wrote was inflecting Mark and Matthew through the Septuagint (Exodus, 16.31c), using the simile of '(honey) cake' (egkris:ἑγκρὶς) to elide, punningly, the locust(akris:) of the Christian New Testament, in Epiphanius's view. By emending the Matthean source in this way, Ebionites got rid of the 'meat-eating' implication of the New Testament description of John as someone who ate 'locusts', i.e. in Jewish dietary law, a form of meat. John, therefore, is not a 'vegetarian' in the NT, he is in the Ebionite gospel only by virtue of a play on words whereby the later Ebionite writer used a similar sounding word in the Septuagint meaning 'cake'. 'The emendation removes the problem of meat-eating but does not exactly specify what John ate.'

How complex that is can be seen by an historical survey of the scholarship on the question of John's diet in James A. Kelhoffer's The diet of John the Baptist: "Locusts and wild honey" in synoptic and patristic interpretation. Mohr Siebeck, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 176, Tuebingen 2005), which has an extended and extremely intricate discussion of precisely this. If anyone wants to make an edit on this, they should look at Kelhoffer's book, the most comprehensive to date, and not just cite hermeneutically problematical primary texts, some of questionable authenticity, from the deep past. The relevant pages on the Ebionim are pp.139ff. In short, 'vegetarianism' is a culture-bound concept, used here anachronistically (see the link to it), John the Baptist is a pre-Ebionite figure, in any case.Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is that we cite primary and secondary sources together. Please note that I have just added a secondary source to the Slavonic/JTB section. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is information regarding this consensus to be found, please? I have never seen it, and I certainly myself think that the primary sources should be mentioned separately, in the beginning of the article, with the rest of the article being about the discussion in secondary sources. And, with Nishidani, that seems to be at least two editors who oppose this "consensus". And, again, considering this material is primarily about the Gospel of the Ebionites, why is it not included there, which is the more apparently appropriate location for it? This issue has been raised before without any real direct response that I could see. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Michael, you are extremely prone to making conjectural original research, on a subject that can only be written adequately by adducing secondary sources which almost invariably tell us that every tidbit of 'information' on the Ebionites is subject to varied interpretation, and a comprehensive interpretation of the sect, by the nature of the sources, conjectural. We can summarize academic positions, the secondary literature as that is written by experts in patristics and ancient history, we cannot use primary sources here without violating WP:OR, except when citing those secondary sources. There is a simple reason for this. Quote directly Epiphanius, or Tatian or anyone mentioning Ebionites, and you only get what Tatian or Epiphanius construed the movement to be, nothing definite about Ebionism itself. That is why you need the primary source filtrated through a reliable secondary source.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, that's why it was decided to quote primary and secondary sources together. --Michael C. Price ^talk 03:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Where was it decided? Diff please. And if so, why after such a long period has no one troubled to fix the numerous citations only to primary sources?Nishidani (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not doing the donkey work for drive-by editors. Look it up yourself. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Three implicit insults in a dozen words. Well, as expected. But, the point is, good editorial practice in wiki obliges those who assert something to back it with diffs. You need to acclimatize to policy.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, as expected. Particularly when as we all know, consensus can and does change. In fact, there are two editors who have fairly clearly stated that they feel that alleged consensus was at best a flawed one. Therefore, if there is to be any sort of assertion for the authority of that alleged consensus, I would have to assume that the party seeking to use that alleged consensus as a basis for keeping the article as is would have to be the person doing so, in this case, you, Michael. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Precedent has been established. Look at the Jesus article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There is little point in answering if you have no intention of answering.Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Violations of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT are rather common on this page, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Intro

The first part of the intro is speculation, why is it not attributed, since it is a point of view based on minimal historical information. Hardyplants (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is suppport by the main body of the article where it is attributed? Please be specific. What is the contested statement? --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

While were at it, what possible reason is there to have a citation after the name itself, and why on earth is it citation #2? The word "sloppy" springs unbidden to mind. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The intro is making statements of fact, while the body says they are nor facts but speculation, the intro needs to be adjusted. The statements are sourced to one point of view in the intro but the intro does not say who is making those statements. Hardyplants (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, please be specific. What statement are you objecting to? --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Ebionites ^[2] were a Jewish sect that regarded Jesus as the Messiah but not as divine, and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish religious law and rites.^[3]. The Ebionites used only the Jewish Gospels, revered James the Just as the head of the Jerusalem Church and rejected Paul of Tarsus as an apostate towards the Law.[4

Hardyplants (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And your objection is to which bit? BTW, it looks fairly well sourced, for the lead. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to ignore the fact that there are a number of recent verifiable encyclopedic sources, as well as several books cited in them, like Marcel Simon's Verus Israel and others, that state that the Ebionites were not a single group, as has already been said repeatedly several times on this page, but I guess we should be used to that by now. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That you pulled out of mediation before examining the claim that the term Ebionite originally applied to all Jewish-Christians is not my fault. --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you make such comments as the above, which is clearly unacceptable both because you make an assumption regarding the sources which you have never demonstrated to be verifiable in fact, and that you make assumptions about the actions of others, are entirely your fault, however. Regrettably, such offtopic comments from you are something I think we have tended to realize are, unfortunately, par for the course from you. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. The entire lead section was rewritten not long ago by Ret.Prof. Why aren't you asking him to explain his edits rather than browbeating Michael into justifying content he did not contribute to the article? Just asking. Ovadyah (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just asking then, why do you indulge in the off-topic accusaion of "browbeating", which do above, and that Michael makes comments which are completely irrelevant to the conversation, as he does above, with neither of you even remotely directly commenting on the matter under discussion? John Carter (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You were the first to derail this thread from the content with your "but I guess we should be used to that by now" comment. As usual, Matthew 7:3 is apropos. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The word 'Ebionite' is used by several primary and secondary sources to refer to a specific sect, but that is not now endorsed as a fact by all authorities as the lead's phrasing suggests. It is widely used in patristic literature as though it referred to a sect, with a sect founder (the eponymous, and non-existent '(H)Ebion'), but there is, according to modern scholarship, a strong suspicion that patristic misunderstandings either 'created' the idea of a unified 'Ebionite' sect, or employed the word (which several early 'fathers' obvioously do) to encompass the idea of Judeo-Christians generically, who however may have entertained, severally, different ideas about Christ. The language, particularly of the lead must not conspire with one theory, or one set of patristic ideas, but rather comprehensively represent current scholarship's appreciation that 'Ebionites' may refer to several groups. If one cannot agree on this obvious state of patristic scholarship, then editing here is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Nishidani, I doubt that Ret.Prof is going to return to the article anytime soon to explain or modify his edits. I will leave a note on his talk page just in case. Meanwhile, please fix up whatever you see as a problem with the lead. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The encyclopedic entry in Religion Past and Present, published by Brill in 2008, can be found verbatim at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#Religion Past and Present. Given that that entry is only two paragraphs long, and a lead can be as long as 5 paragraphs, as well as its comparatively recent date, 2008, I would think that most if not all of the primary information (not necessarily including sources cited, etc.) can reasonably be included. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please use reliable secondary sources to back up your content. Don't just paste the lead from another encyclopedia article into this one. Ovadyah (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please also do not make assumptions about "pasting," as you do above, which wasn't even implied by the statement to which you responded. Also, as I remember, for these purposes, as per Secondary source#In science and medicine, 'A survey of previous work in the field in a primary peer-reviewed source is secondary. This vastly increases the amount of secondary source information available when there are few reviews in a field." Most specialist encyclopedic articles qualify as a review of previous work in the field, so there is a strong acceptance of them as secondary sources in wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hogwash. Review articles qualify as a review of previous work in the field, not encyclopedias. That is because review articles have detailed references for the articles they are reviewing, so that readers can verify the summary findings for themselves. Ovadyah (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, hogwash. Why is JC quoting from a section on science and medicine? --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And your response is irrelevant at best, and apparently completely off topic as well. And it seems you have once again jumped to conclusions which have no solid basis in fact. First you make the false insinuation that the action would be some sort of cut and paste, which I think the phrasing of my comment more or less completely left out. Then you make the very unsound allegation that using material in a specialist encyclopedic article is somehow unacceptable. What I had indicated was that the material, which has been included in a short encyclopedic entry, would be for the most part relevant to the summary of our encyclopedic entry. I cannot help but get the impression that you are apparently looking for things to argue about, rather than actually making any sort of effort to understand what is actually being said. And, as I think I have said repeatedly about that page, if you could bother to look at the Sources section, at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#Sources, you would see that the book in question does cite sources. I grouped the sources cited by all the encyclopedic entries together at the end so that it could be a bit clearer which ones were most frequently cited and used, which would indicate that those sources were the ones most frequently relied upon. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this an hour ago, then had dinner, and see it's rather pointless. But I leave it here all the same. Good luck, but I think the article needs a rest from everyone, myself included.

John's citation certainly grasps the nettles of the problem. But, looking at it, one stops to note how difficult things are, and I can understand why conflict arises among editors.

Ovadyah, the secondary sources of scholarship on the cutting edge are often themselves in conflict, and that is why, I think, John is looking at the third source encyclopedia assessments, which tend to be crafted with an eye to what most can agree on.

However, John, even these are problematical at times. Take the definition at the top of the section you just linked us to. It has: ebionaioi, Aram. form of a Heb. Word meaning “poor”.

That's a good example of slipshod phrasing in a superb source, which means that scrupulous editors have always to exercise an informal discretion when using sources on a subject as conflicted as this.

'Ebionaioi' is not an Aramaic form of Hebrew. It is the Greek Ἐβιωναῖοι, which probably reflects Aramaic ebionaye. Probably, because in Greek the -aioi looks like a standard prefix attached to peoples or places (Galil-aioi/Pharis-aioi). though it may indeed represent an attempt to transliterate Aramaic -aye.

Care with our sources, a keen attention to their problems, which militate against easy generic synthesis, is absolutely essential if this article is to be written. I think you have more shared ground than is apparent from recent discussions, and probably you should look at what you can agree on, before negotiating the more controversial issues.

I think you both agree on the first sentence. It should not define the Ebionim in terms of a single set of cultural beliefs and practices. It should simply, uncontroversially, state that 'Ebionim is a patristic term referring to Judeo-Christians in first centuries of Christianity. (It is used, variously, as a generic term inclusive of all such Jewish Christians, or one or more groups within them.)'

Once that is clear, one proceeds in clarifying in the lead the various ways they were defined. Best wishes Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What's all the fuss about? Doesn't the article already say that Ebionite is generic term? You can't expect the lead to go into such detail. Ebionite usually refers to a sect, but is also applied more generically. End of story. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I have a sneaking admiration for the sheer hide or chutzpah with which you smart-aleck your way around serious attempts at dialogue. This thread began with someone who questioned the phrasing in the lead: 'Ebionites [2] were a Jewish sect'. That is wrong, and you couldn't see why. Now that three here concur that it misrepresents by simplification, you admit yes, it's a 'generic' term, meaning it could refer to several sectarian realities. This is a simple matter of English, and logic. A generic term embracing subclasses, cannot be at the same time identical to its subclass. You don't understand that. Your whole history here is more or less an illustration of the principle. I don't enter into mediation when any one party is incapable of understanding the elementary syntax and logic of English, any more than I would negotiate seriously in a language I myself wasn't fully competent in. Goodbye Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that that is really "goodbye". Anyway, you are misinformed. This has come up before; we are just recycling old threads. If the statement "Ebionite usually refers to a sect, but is also applied more generically." is too clear and concise for your verbose tastes, that's of no concern of mine, nor is it relevant to the article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

For future editors. Michael Price in the above thread has consistently refused to address the quite clear problems other editors have raised concerning inexact phrasing in the lead, preferring generic talk.Nishidani (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful analysis, Nishidani. In response to your comment to me above, you are indirectly leading to the point I was making about encyclopedic sources. Cutting edge secondary sources of scholarship that are in conflict are a good thing. The careful documentation of these sources is what makes an article NPOV, and what makes Wiki better than a typical encyclopedia. We don't want a plain vanilla article with content that most can agree on. That is the point of making the best possible article we can create, and why this article will one day again be a feature article. Ovadyah (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to Michael, it would be wonderful if he could ever actually make an effort to document these assumptions of his, which he apparently considers the final proof of everything. And, like I said, I was only saying that the bulk of that material could be included in the lead. Nowhere did I say that it would have to be dependent on the encyclopedia per se, but such an encyclopedia is a good source to determine what is and is not the consensus opinion, which is pretty much what the article is supposed to at least cover to a great extent, and thus should be included in the lead. Other sources exist which can be used as references. And in response to Ovadyah's difficult to understand commentary, I wasn't saying that the material from that article is the only material which could be included in the lead. Clearly, the entry is too short for that, and the citations in particular are probably not appropriate for the lead. Nor was I even thinking that that one source would be slavishly followed; I'm expanding the other entries as well. However, we are supposed to lay the greatest amount of weight on the prevailing scientific opinion, and encyclopedias are, in general, among the best indicators of what that opinion is. There are, like I said, any number of other sources, including more current ones, which I think would be used for the referencing - the encyclopedias taken as a group would just serve as a form of indication of the general layout, and the main points from them would, yes, be among the best summaries of the article, and that is what the lead is supposed to be. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What became of them? and question about Keith Akers

This page from The Huffington Post, which maybe isn't the best source imaginable but seems to be used in several articles as per here, mentions that Keith Akers, a modern Ebionite, has said that the majority of the Ebionites eventually converted to Islam. To the best of my knowledge, there is no clear statement as to what became of the Ebionites, although this option is one of those available. Also, Akers indicates in his own website that he would describe himself as a modern Ebionite. Is there any reason the article should not mention this, considering that he is if not himself necessarily notable at least a prominent author and commentator on the subject? And, if yes, would not a link to his website also be appropriate? John Carter (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as per discussion at WP:RSN#Compassionate Spirit website, his website is not in and of itself a reliable source, so that is at least a partial answer to the question. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The E.?

Whats the E. of Jordan?·Maunus·ƛ· 23:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the East of Jordan, almost certainly. Where? John Carter (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Sorry - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Websites are a dime a dozen

And having a website "church" doesn't mean crap. Even sourcing a website "church" doesn't establish significance. If you want to talk about "neo-Ebionites" you can create a new page for that. Ekwos (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That was done, and some idiot raised an AfD. Result: Merge. So it stays.--Michael C. Price ^talk 20:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the source and it looks like something going for all quantity and minimal quality. By this standard I could start an article on anyone I want on the grounds that their name appears in the phone book. Ekwos (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just saying what was decided. :-) Personally I favour hiving it off into its own article, since there is a c1500 year gap between the historical and modern Ebionites. I've just noticed that the AfD was closed by a non-Admin for some mysterious reason. If the consensus now is to demerge I wouldn't object. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The neo-Ebionites material should be moved to the Legacy section to expand that section. The Self-Help Guide reference should go. That is now a dead link. The Tabor reference should be added back. The description of these groups as internet churches is OR. None of them self-identify as churches. The EJC meets the threshold of the Wiki policy of Verifiability. That is, it exists by Wiki standards. The bigger question is whether the group is notable. That is a fair question. I believe it was answered by community consensus when the decision was made to merge rather than delete the EJC article. Ovadyah (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Making their way into a "Concise Guide" makes them notable, almost by definition. Sufficient grounds for reversing the merge, IMO. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not just merge the neo-Ebionite material to the "Sacred Name Movement"? The neo-Ebionite group mentioned appears to have zero to do with the historical Ebionites, and a lot to do with the "Sacred Name Movement". Ekwos (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The reference says Philips converted to Ebionitism, after his earlier conversion, implying that Ebionitism has distinct beliefs. --Michael C. Price ^talk 03:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No offense intended, but the reason is simple. The article is mistaken. None of these groups (as far as I know) self-identifies as part of the SNM, which are Christian groups that have adopted Hebrew rituals, such as Messianic Judaism. These groups are not Christian. The EJC and ebi.com in particular are, if anything, anti-Christian, and have a belief about Christianity similar to Muslims. Of course, this is OR and we can't add it to the article, but that's why it would be impossible to group them with SNM or Messianic Judaism under some umbrella term of Jewish-Christianity. Hope this helps. Ovadyah (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So now one of the few pieces of information in the section in question is believed to be wrong. Anyway, I guess I'm in the minority. But, given the fact that a couple days ago I removed three (3) external links that all go back to the very same website (that of the "church" in question) really makes me wonder if all this isn't really self-promotion by someone.

This all really looks analogous to someone promoting their non-notable local band. I mean, if some locality actually published something like "a concise list of all the local bands in town X", does that suddenly make them all notable and worthy of inclusion?

But then again Wikipedia thinks an unsorted list of mentions of a topic in video games constitutes useful information. Ekwos (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If you find another exant, sourced Ebionite group that will be added as well. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Extant" implies a continuous existence and continuous tradition back to the original Ebionite group. What we are dealing with here is a wholly new group appropriating the name. If I go out and create a club called the "Praetorian Guard" I wouldn't expect it to be included in the article on the ancient Roman Praetorian Guard. The only commonality is the name, there is no "genetic" relationship. Ekwos (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I favour hiving it off into its own article. Would that satisfy you also? Anyone else have any objections to a demerge?--Michael C. Price ^talk 17:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with it having its own article. Ekwos (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I object to creating a separate EJC article, even though I voted to keep the EJC article in the VfD. The reason is simple, the people have spoken. Notability is a difficult thing to evaluate. That's why it is a guideline rather than a policy. The issue of whether a group merits its own article, or a brief mention in a main article, or no mention at all, can only be resolved by community consensus. That is what took place. What I do object to is drive-by editors subverting community consensus by deleting article content without discussion. By the same reasoning, if a separate EJC article is created, I will call for an AfD. Ovadyah (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a separate EJC article, but a separate NeoEbionite article, which is logically more encompassing. Something else to toss into the mediation, if we can't agree here.

Raising an AfD I would see as bad faith, since the AfD settled the issue of notability. Looking at the votes, it was a close split between merge or demerge, not between merge, demerge or delete.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggested on the EJC talk page a long time ago that the article eventually be expanded to a more general Neo-Ebionites article. The problem is that no other groups are verifiable at present (self-promoting websites don't provide independent confirmation). Sure, we can add this to the list of things to discuss in mediation. The biggest argument in favor of an independent article is that it survived two attempts at deletion. Ovadyah (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You can call it what you like. I'm opposed to a unilateral action that undermines a community consensus that has already been achieved, but I'm open to attempting to reach a new consensus in mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not unilateral. Two of us here, plus those that voted keep in the AfD, which included Ovadyah and John Carter. :-) (Anyway, I'm not sure that AfDs are binding on merge/keep issues.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You apparently have a consensus along with John Carter. Count me out. Ovadyah (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The links were added by a drive-by. diff That's why I'm glad to see the External Links section gone. Whoever that "someone" may be, they are not a regular editor on this article. We try our best to keep the vagrants off the lawn. Ovadyah (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Although they tend to be a bit of a battlefield, external links are a vital part of any article - and often the most interesting. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I take back what I just said (partly). The links came over when the EJC article was merged, so the problem originated on that article. I never worked on the EJC article, so I have no idea who did what. That said, I'm still glad the External Links section is gone and the problematic links along with it. Ovadyah (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I would have no objections to a Neo-Ebionite page. That is the term used in the Revenge of the Ebionites book review, which I think is the only independent source I know of that mentions the modern Ebionite movement directly, so I'm guessing that would be the title of the article. Unfortunately, the author of that book is described elsewhere as a "Messianic Jew", so the book and references to it probably don't count as an indication of "Neo-Ebionite" notability. Also, the article Christian vegetarianism already covers that broader subject. But, yeah, if anyone can produce independent sources to establish notability, I would be in favor of creating a spinoff article on Neo-Ebionitism which could have sections on all the relevant groups. Such articles on offshoot groups exist for other traditions, so I can't see any objections to one here. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Tabor references

I will restore the Tabor references to the article with page numbers matching the US hardcover edition. They may be deleted again for other reasons to be discussed in mediation, but they should not have been deleted for the trivial reason of having page numbers for the UK hardcover version rather than the US version. If someone else would like to help out that would be great, otherwise I will attend to it as I have time. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I've restored most (all?) of the references, but, since I only have the UK edition, the page numbers will need checking.--Michael C. Price ^talk 23:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do. It may take me a few days to track all of them down. Meanwhile, if there are any more "incidents" please revert them until I can get to it. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ovadyah (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hans Kung

From the Historicity of Jesus:

Recent research has focused upon the "Jewishness" of the historical Jesus. The re-evaluation of Jesus' family, particularly the role played after his death by his brother James, has led scholars like Hans Küng to suggest that there was an early form of non-Hellenistic "Jewish Christianity" like the Ebionites, that did not accept Jesus' divinity and was persecuted by both Roman and Christian authorities. Küng suggests that these Jewish Christians settled in Arabia, and may have influenced the story of Christ as portrayed in the Qur'an.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Cf Islam: Past, Present and Future --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this just speculation that tells us more about Hans Kung than it does about the Ebionites? Ekwos (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't imagine that that is a valid reason for exclusion from the article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I say I thought it was? We'll just put this piece of speculation in, and then another piece contradicting it, and then another piece and so forth until we have 20 pieces of speculation saying 20 entirely different things, none of them with any support, and they'll all sort of cancel themselves out. Ekwos (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with sourcing up the article; it is John Carter who keeps trying to remove sources that conflict with his POV. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be nice for a thing advertising itself as an "encyclopedia" to restrict itself to solid supported facts and mainstream views. As it is a reader can't tell what are the generally accepted facts and what are the speculations of people with varying levels of qualification, and can't tell what is the position 90% of the experts on the field hold and what are the positions of the other 10% and what are the positions of a minority fringe. But the standard appears to simply be that things have to be "sourced". This, unfortunately, is a topic rife with a whole gamut of fringe views with little to no support, and as such is apt to be confusing as all the views need have nothing to do with each other as none of them are based on much evidence.

Actually, this is a topic in which a person could just lay out all the primary sources and leave it at that. There aren't that many, and that is part of the problem. There was the same problem with the Heraclitus article. You could probably just put most of the primary stuff there and let it speak for itself, but people felt Heraclitus was important and deserved a big article and pretty soon there were little essays about Hegel and Whitehead filling up space, and all sorts of speculative cruft...and you had no idea what we actually know about Heraclitus. Ekwos (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ekwos, I agree with your views on the presentation of primary sources. Once upon a time the article presented extensive quotations from the primary sources, and the article made a lot more sense then than it does now. There's no problem with this, provided there are secondary sources as well for the attributions. --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I felt I had to butt in based on the false accusation from Michael above. The Jesus Dynasty, as per almost all the sources at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor, has received very little if any support in the academic community, at least in part because it says the Talpiot tomb is actually the burial place of Jesus and others. Eisenman's central theory has been as per a quote above said to have been "rejected by the academic community." So other parties are the ones that continue to insist that these sources which have been found not particularly reliable as per acadmic consensus deserve more attention than, say, Klijn & Reinink, which is one of the standard sources so far as I can tell. Then others, like me, who try to give such sources due weight as per WP:DUE and maybe WP:FRINGE get accused of pushing "POV". I have to say that I find such comments amusing. By the way, I too agree that it makes more sense to discuss the historical sources in the required depth pretty much before anything else, as they are the material all these speculations and rejected theories, as well as the more reliable sources, are based on. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have to disagree a bit regarding just leaving it with the primary sources, however. There are, admittedly, a lot of fringe theories and discredited theories and even a comparatively few more or less mainstream theories. Those theories themselves are, unfortunately, at this point, the primary reason why this group is discussed and examined today. Yes, a lot of the material regarding the interrelationships with other Jewish Christian groups can be discussed at Jewish Christians, but the generally discounted identification of the Ebionites with the Qumran community is one of the major reasons the group has received attention lately. That, at least, would have to be discussed somewhere, and here is as good a location as any. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Jesus Dynasty says says the Talpiot tomb might be the burial place of Jesus and others. And it might not be. --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it probably isn't. But this quote from page 304 of Witherington's book deals with the matter:

"Tabor says that the phrase "James of Alphaeus" means James son of Alphaeus, and this is likely correct. As we saw in the case of Simon bar Jonah, Jewish men were normally identified by such patronymics. But Tabor then wants to turn around and read the adjacent phrase "Judas of James" as meaning Jude brother of James. This will not do. The Greek construction is the same in both cases, and the original audience hearing the wording would have assumed that the genitive modifier had the same sense in both cases. Immediately prior to the verse in question, when Luke wanted to say someone was the brother of another disciple, he inserted the word adelphos (for instance, "Andrew the brother of Peter," v. 14). There is a good reason translations render the phrase "Judas of James" as referring to a son and a father. This is the most natural and appropriate way to render the phrase if there is no further qualification, as in the case of Peter and Andrew. This in turn means this Judas cannot be the one who was Jesus' brother. But then neither was Simon the Zealot or Jacob listed as one of Jesus's brothers. This logic cannot stand close scrutiny, and with its demise so goes most of Tabor's theory about a Jesus dynasty."

The most important part is, I think, the last few sentences. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Go argue it at Talpiot tomb. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael, please do not tell others what to do while at the same time acting against WP:IDHT and not addressing the real points raised. The quote is very definitely relevant to the reliability of Tabor in terms of this article, however many times people choose to not address that point. John Carter (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As I already said, but you didn't hear, this all irrelevant to this article. You are rehashing arguments at the Jesus dynasty talk page, which even there are irrelevant. Doubly irrelevant here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael, as I have already said, please do not tell other people what to do, as you have once again done above. This book is being used as a source for this article, therefore, it is relevant to raise these matters here as well. This is, after all, the central article about this mediation. And, yes, this information has been available to you and virtually everybody else for a rather substantial time, and has been referenced on this page any number of times. As certain parties have, basically, apparently chosen to ignore the information on the page upon which it has been readily available for some time, I don't think that I have a choice but to mention it directly on the article talk page. However, you are right, it is relevant to both articles, and I will raise the concern there as well. Now, please, if you would be so kind, abide by conduct guidelines and address the matter directly in a meaningful way. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)