Talk:Ebionites/Mediation 2

Ground rules In order to ensure the discussion is focused and relevant, I'm imposing some strict rules, as follows: Discussions will be solely about article content: no references to history or other editors will be allowed. Points will be brief: no statement or response will be longer than 1,000 words. Any comment that violates rules 1 or 2 may be edited, shortened, or removed entirely by me. Please adhere to the rules above, so we can ensure a speedy and successful mediation.

First sentence to be mediated

Thank you all for your contributions so far, they've been clear and helpful. It seems obvious to me that the most contentious sentence, and much of the general disagreement, relates to the following sentence.

Scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem Church, including Pierre Antoine Bernheim, Robert Eisenman, Will Durant, Michael Goulder, Gerd Ludemann, John Painter, and James Tabor, argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death. rather than Peter.

I'd like to dig into this sentence, and examine the sources supporting it. For each (listed below), could an exact quote be provided, and then arguments for or against its use or applicability be brought forward? One might, for example, object to Durant on the grounds that he was a non-specialist, and his research outdated. Based on the information and arguments presented, we should be able to see if the sentence should be kept, re-worded, or removed. Please keep in mind the Ground Rules listed above.

Eisenman 1997 p. 155-184

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Relevant quote(s)

• "As presented by Paul, James is the Leader of the early Church par excellence. Terms like 'Bishop of the Jerusalem Church' or 'Leader of the Jerusalem Community' are of little actual moment at this point, because from the 40s to the 60s CE, when James held sway in Jerusalem, there really were no other centres of any importance." p.154

• .."there can be little doubt that 'the Poor' was the name for James' Community in Jerusalem or that Community descended from it in the East in the next two-three centuries, the Ebionites." p.156

• "Paul makes it clear that whoever we may think 'Peter' was, he was not the Head of Christianity in the days of Paul. His picture of a Movement headed by James is also borne out by the Acts' presentation of James' rulings at 'the Jerusalem Council' and at the time of James' final confrontation with Paul (15:19-29 & 22:20). In Paul's account, Peter emerges as someone overseas in competition to some extent with himself, but not with James. Peter is clearly under James" and subservient to his rulings, because he must defer to him and follow his instructions when his representatives or the uniquitous 'some' arrive from Jerusalem (Gal 2:12)" p.157

Arguments for

• Eisenman argues that James is the leader of the Jerusalem Church, from the 40s to the 60s, and explicitly ties the Jerusalem Community under James to the later Ebionites as descendants

• My rebuttal to Eisenman being a fringe source is that he is cited as a source by Painter, as I explained below. They both have in common a conjecture that the Roman Church attempted to cover up the primacy of James' leadership role in the Jerusalem Church. (The same conjecture is shared by Bernheim and Tabor, except that B & T also advocate a dynastic succession of the Desposyni that begins with a direct succession from Jesus to James.) The bits about Qumran and Eisenman's attempt to equate James the Just with the Righteous Teacher are a straw-man argument. If Eisenman's hypothesis was being added to an article on James the Just, it would be a valid criticism. However, that hypothesis has nothing to do with the Ebionites, and in any case does not invalidate Eisenman's main conjecture: that the forms of both Judaism and Christianity we know of today were handed down to us because they were the only forms the Romans were willing to tolerate. The issue of Eisenman being a single-source only applies to the extent he doesn't overlap with John Painter (or Bernheim and Tabor). I believe Dbachmann made a reasonable suggestion for how to handle Eisenman as a source, shown here. A more balanced appraisal of Painter's review of Eisenman, one that does not selectively pull out the negative comments while ignoring the positive comments, can be found here. Ovadyah (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• As I pointed out in the last informal mediation, WP:FR requires the application of an objective standard. It breaks down when attempting to apply it to religious articles, which rely heavily on unprovable conjectures, and results in little more than editorial POV-pushing. Scholars are entitled to push a POV, editors are not. As Llywrch pointed out in arbitration, the normal Wiki editing process fails on this type of article. I would rather see all scholarly POVs represented, even at the risk of some of them being wrong, than assent to the selective suppression of certain POVs that might turn out to be right. At least that way, a reasonably well-read editor can look at the sources and decide for themselves. Ovadyah (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• My suggestion to solve the SYNTH problem. Since no one knows what the Ebionites thought (they left behind no writings) it's all scholarly conjecture. Just say that the scholars mentioned in the article find a connection, direct or indirect, between the Jerusalem Church under the leadership of James the Just and the beliefs and practices of the later Ebionites, and leave out the mention of Peter (which is a sensitive subject, and it doesn't matter for the article anyway). This statement is supportable for every scholar mentioned (except perhaps Bernheim, I don't know about him yet, but I should have the book in a day or so). Speculative statements on the part of Eisenman, or any other scholar, should be handled the same way. Simply state that it is a speculation. What is not acceptable is to solve the problem by deletion, when it is clear that there are other ways to handle it. Ovadyah (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion above has serious problems with WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, etc. And, by the argument above, the fragments of the Gospel of the Ebionites must be discounted as well. Personal comment removed Also, I note that one of, if not the, most frequently cited secondary sources is the book by Klijn and Reinink, which discusses the various statements made by and attributed to the Ebionites by the various roughly contemporary sources, and the possible connections between them. Given the clear status of that work as one of the most relied upon secondary sources, I would have to think that following their model, not necessarily verbatim, would be the way to proceed which is most neutral and most in accord with encyclopedic principles. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I offered a compromise proposal that I thought would satisfy everybody. What is your alternative proposal? Ovadyah (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume by Klijn and Reinink you mean the following reference: Klijn and Reinink (1973). Patristic evidence for Jewish-Christian sects. Brill. pp. 19–43. ISBN 9004037632.. I agree that Klijn is a first-rate source. However, the book has almost nothing to say about a connection between the Jerusalem Church and the Ebionites and even less to say about James, aside from Epiphanius' description of the Ascents of James. Klijn's lack of making any statements in support of the above sentence is not an argument against inclusion; it is simply an argument from silence. Demonstrating (or refuting) a connection between James as the leader of the Jerusalem Church and the later Ebionites was not relevant to the purpose of the book. Ovadyah (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple then. If the most reliable sources do not place much emphasis on the presumptive connection, then, as pwer WP:UNDUE, there is no particular reason we should either. The connection can be mentioned in the articles on the individual works in question, and, probably most reasonably, in the Jewish Christians article. However, as per guidelines, we shouldn't reproduce information. Also, there are notable disputes about whether the Nazoreans or the Ebionites were the "splinter" group in that connection. Given the fact that there is serious question as to how direct the connection between the Ebionites and the Jerusalem church is, that seems to me an additional reason to mention it in Jewish Christianity and not here. While I would have no objections to a connection to the early Jewish Christians be mentioned, that is, I believe, already done here. Also, I note once again that AFAIR all the recent encyclopedic sources on the subject, which can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, also minimize the connection between James and the Ebionites. I see no reason why we should not follow suit. John Carter (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with using Klijn as a source to improve the article. However, I profoundly disagree with the concept that silence is a weight. I could then come up with any number of reliable sources that have nothing to do with the disputed sentence and say that "proves" that the sentence is insignificant. By this reasoning, I could just as easily come up with any number of reliable sources that have nothing to do with the Ebionites and say that "proves" the Ebionites are insignificant, or come up with even more sources that have nothing to do with Christianity and "prove" that Christianity is insignificant. Ovadyah (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

THen you would aqpparently also profoundly disagree with adhering to WP:V, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE, because making what you seem to call making an argument based on weight seems to me to violate all of the above, in some form or other. And, yes, I believe that to an extent that has already been done. I recently raised the issue of the reliability of the Slavonic Josephus as a reliable source at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 92#Slavonic text of The Jewish War, and found that it is not considered a reliable source. The fact that it is included in Tabor's arguments does not necessarily make it reliable. Over time, any number of people have cited any number of sources, some of which have been found worthless later, in support of their points on various topics. And, yes, as that source does not clearly mention the Ebionites, it could be argued that it has "nothing to do with the Ebionites," as you put it above. So, yes, in effect, I think the situation you postulate above may have already occurred with this article. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I am responding to your claim: "If the most reliable sources do not place much emphasis on the presumptive connection, then, as per WP:UNDUE, there is no particular reason we should either." If this is accepted as policy, then we don't have an encyclopedia because it can be used as a general argument to make anything violate UNDUE. We need a decision on whether this is an acceptable practice before we can proceed any further. Also, the statement "the most reliable" sources is nothing but your personal opinion, and likely an example of confirmation bias, unless you can back it up with a reliably-sourced review article that explicitly makes that claim. Ovadyah (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You are in fact only choosing to respond to one point of the claim. You have to date refused to address the fact that the source itself does not clearly relate to the Ebionite, which would presumably be required as per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I did ask above about whether the source can be verifiably said to be directly relevant to the subject of the Ebionites, and to date I see absolutely nothing which addresses that matter, which seems to have been, somehow, ignored. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Must we point out, yet again, that Slavonic Josephus is a primary source? What you think of the source is utterly irrelevant, what matters is whether secondary sources make the connection. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And, must we point out, again, that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are also relevant to content which cannot be clearly and explicitly linked to the subject, and that the Slavonic Josephus makes no statement which clearly and explicitly links it to the Ebionites, thus making it a very real likelihood of violation of WP:SYNTH? John Carter (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources can not be excluded because of an individual editor's WP:OR, if the secondary sources use it, such as they do with Slavonic Josephus. If the primary sources are used to illuminate statements made by a secondary source, that is NOT a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Now who is not listening? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If the source is found in independent secondary sources, then it makes sense that the secondary sources which cite it be used, in the form of "Slavonic Josephus, cited by X, p. whatever." In fact, that is, basically, what policy demands. I had pointed out that policy above. May I ask why the policy is currently not being adhered to? John Carter (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So your only problem is a missing page number in the ref? Yes, or no? Since we are moving towards giving all references page numbers, this should be no problem. Matter resolved. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not the only problem. It is the fact that the source is also, as has been said at RSN, of at best historical reliability, and very possibly a fraud. Yes, some individual authors have chosen, for whatever reason, to try to substantiate their theories by citations of extremely problematic sources such as this one. And my congratulations on some of you getting to the point of adhering to policy of adding page citations and otherwise adhering to policy. But, yes, it is important to know which sources, the more reliable ones or the more fringey ones, indicate such potential frauds are reliable sources. It should also be noted that the specifically emphasized unsigned comment above was added at the same time as a much more substantive comment below, which is signed. My regrets for not having added signatures to each comment. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So you are back to your old position of trying to apply OR to judge primary sources. Well, I tried. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Your argument that Klijn and Reinink is some kind of self-evident "gold standard", and that the article should be rebuilt around this standard, is based on nothing more than your own bias. You were desperate to find a reliable source that didn't mention the subject we are discussing, so that you could use that source as an argument for deletion. Here's a newsflash; the article content may be modified to resolve problems with WP:SYNTH, but it will not be withdrawn voluntarily by me, nor will it be deleted as a result of this mediation. Deal with it. Ovadyah (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comment above seems to ignore that it is, so far as I can tell, one of the few most frequently cited sources for the subject, as per User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#Sources. And, regarding the comment above, there are other policies and guidelines, including WP:WEIGHT. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a frequently used source - by conservative Catholic exegetes, not by scholars in the field in general. For one thing, the work is seriously dated and precedes all the advances that have occurred in the field since the advent of the Third Quest. Ovadyah (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if the editor provided some specific information to demonstrate that only conservative Catholic exegetes use it, as he seems to be implying above. I didn't see that it was exclusively used by conservate Catholic exegetes, and particular note that the Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed., ed. by Lindsay Jones, 2005, among others, includes it. This particular source was counted one of the best reference works for that year by Booklist and/or the ALA, and is widely regarded as being at least among the best of the current reference sources. Also, while there is the question as to developments since then, there is also the question as to how many of those developments specifically relate to this subject (no information provided) and how well received those sources have been by the academic community (no information provided). John Carter (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been repeating your demands for the unconditional removal of this article content. Are you willing to move from this position and negotiate a rewording of the material, or are your demands for the deletion absolute? Ovadyah (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And I am forced to acknowledge that in your comments above you seem to be again perhaps attempting to avoid dealing with the matters being discussed. First, the claim is made that it is apparently only conservative Catholic sources which support the contention, I indicate that is false, and the rebuttal is again ignored with ad hominem comments. I also note that there has been a question regarding my opinion of how the article should be structured. Given what struck me as the at least somewhat leading nature of the original questions (I do not however fault Jayjg for them - the article as it stands has been said by multiple people to be a mess) I will outline here what I think is the most reasonable structure.

• Lead
• Judaism - including definition of the term, Skarsaune's theories, use by the Dead Sea Scrolls
• Patristics - roughly 40% of the article text. Taking into account that there would be no article without the patristic material, and that all the theories, ultimately, derive from that material, there is no reason for it not to be included. In what I saw of the literature, there is only one source which specifically disagreed with Klijn & Reinink on their view of the interrelationship of the various patristic sources (what is and isn't derived from earlier patristics). I think that was a question about whether something in Origen can be linked to Irenaeus - it was not, in any event, on one of the major sources. So, on that basis, having this section largely follow the model of Klijn & Reinink would be both useful, in accord with scholarly views, and a way to ultimately remove redundancy.
• Theories - This section would be for all later subsequent interpretations of both the texts above, and anything else which has been introduced by subsequent authors. It would be no longer than the above patristics section, so as to ensure WP:UNDUE is not violated.
• post-patristic history - This would be including the other groups which have been linked to the Ebionites, through their repetition of some variation on the Ebionite heresy, as well as the few archaeological sources which have been so linked.

I note that this is, basically, a repetition of what I had earlier proposed on the article talk pages, in comments which were basically ignored by individuals who might have, apparently, objected to reducing the emphasis on Tabor and Eisenman. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What has this too do with the sentence currently being mediated? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

RSN said that it is either a primary ancient source or a primary medieval source, and they don't have the expertise to decide that issue. And in either case, it needs to be cited by a reliable secondary source. There are many documents that exist in Old Slavonic that show more primitivity than their Greek versions because they have been less "improved" over time. Ovadyah (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that I see absolutely nothing in the RSN discussion linked to which even remotely supports the statements made above. Please provide an exact quote from that discussion which supports the contention in the second sentence. Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS regarding the third sentence, and, as you are referring to these "many documents", please indicate exactly how they are necessarily relevant to this particular discussion. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What is relevant is that it is not up to editors to pronounce primary sources they don't like unreliable. This, again, is a major violation of WP:PRIMARY. RSN did not say that they found Slavonic Josephus to be an unreliable source. It is an inaccurate statement to say otherwise. Ovadyah (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:IRS. A reliable source is one which, basically, can be used on its own. The comments in the discussion indicated that the Slavonic Josephus should only be used when cited by an independent source, not on its own. While I acknowledge that the exact terms I used were not used there, the duck test standard seems to make the phrase, even if not strictly accurate, within acceptable norms. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The RSN was quite explicit that a reliable secondary source was the "independent source" needed to cite Slavonic Josephus. In other words, it should be handled like any other primary source. Ovadyah (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "silence" being used as evidence of absence, rather it is one of well-respected sources (including Klijn and Reinink, Pritz, Bagatti and many others) giving a history in which details are profoundly different than those being relied on from Eisenman. • Astynax ^talk 20:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I readily agree that Klijn is a well-respected source. I am less sure about the others you mentioned. However, the idea that the sources you mentioned are well-respected, in the sense of being self-evidently superior to the others, is nothing more than your opinion. Generally speaking, the tactic of offering up silence as a form of evidence, in effect stating that the absence of evidence is equivalent to evidence of absence, is logically unsound, and it would put the whole encyclopedia on unstable ground. Ovadyah (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion. Particularly in the field of religion, which has, roughly, about 20 reference books per year published, there is every reason to believe that even weakly accepted theories would be discussed in some degree by at least a few of them. There is also the fact that the comments above seem to be overlooking the fact that, over and above what the individual entries in encyclopedias say, I and others have also been stressing laying weight on those works which are included as references. If those sources themselves said something, whether the comparatively brief article did or did not, that would be grounds for inclusion. To date, I have seen no encyclopedic article on the Ebionites which either includes Eisenman's theories in the text, or his works in their bibliographies. On that basis, I have to say that there is no reason to believe that the purely hypothetical belief "but maybe it's all part of a grand conspiracy theory to silence the truth" has any sort of basis whatsoever. And, yes, I acknowledge that some individuals and non-notable groups apparently take Tabor's book as some variation on "Gospel truth". However, there is the question how much weight as per WP:UNDUE to give the beliefs of such groups, and, in their particular cases, how much weight to give any content related to them at all. John Carter (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A review of Ray Pritz (1988). Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century. Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. ISBN 9004081089. by Robert M. Price can be found here, in which he states the following: "One must wonder if here we do not have a reconstruction of Jewish Christian history implicitly tailored to fit the apologetical model of church history according to which the theological catholic purity of the church was only lately besmirched by the mischief of heretical interlopers and innovators. At several points one suspects that Pritz's judgments stem from the anachronistic imposition of earlier evidence by the doctrinal canons of a later era, whether of Pritz's own or that of Eusebius." In other words, this is history recast as Church apologetic. Interestingly, Pritz states in the book that it is the Nazarenes that are the direct descendants of the Jerusalem Church under the leadership of James the Just. I guess it must be insignificant though, since Klijn and Reinink didn't mention that either. Ovadyah (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Tabor, Pritz is rigorously careful to note alternatives and where the ancient sources do not give enough information to draw a firm conclusion. Pritz shows that the sources made a distinction between the Nazarenes and Ebionites, and notes problems with conflating them. Pritz's work has been around longer than Tabor, and has garnered many favorable reviews and hundreds of citations in noted scholarly works. For the record, this website also gives a scathing review of Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty. Compare the concluding words of his review of Tabor: "One might apply Tabor’s own words to his book as an epitaph: 'It is amazing what firm opinions have been built upon such shaky foundations'" with the conclusion of his review of Pritz: "Early Christianity, like the Judaism from which it evolved, was a confusingly diverse phenomenon. The danger of a systematic scholarly scrutiny of it is to oversystematize the phenomena, and thus to oversimplify them. But, as Pritz's engaging and informative work manifestly shows, it is well worth the effort." It is easy to see which gets the more respect. • Astynax ^talk 03:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And, I feel it worth noting, Pritz' work has been cited as a relevant source by independent tertiary sources on the Ebionites, which can be demonstrated at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#Sources. I would have to say that it's being considered a significant enough work to be included in the references there is an indication that it has received at least some academic respect. I would still be very interested in seeing anyone produce evidence of similar regard from tertiary, encyclopedic overview, sources for Tabor or Eisenman, which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been produced yet. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Odd that RMP criticises Tabor for "firm conclusions" when Tabor often states that he is speculating and only arriving at provisional conclusions. Also odd that RMP takes Tabor to task for taking the gospel narratives too literally, and then rebukes him for not taking parts literally (e.g. John 7:3-5). Eh? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 04:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is the above comment supposed to be in any way actually pertinent to this discussion? If it is, I don't see how. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

On talk pages (and presumably here) we are allowed to opine on sources. I'm just saying that the review seems internally inconsistent. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A positive review of Eisenman's (1997) James the Brother of Jesus by Robert M. Price is reproduced here from the Talk:Ebionites archives, where he states, "Eisenman is like the Renaissance scientists who had to hand-craft all the intricate parts of a planned invention. The book is an ocean of instructive insight and theory, a massive and profound achievement that should open up new lines of New Testament research." An updated review states, "The breadth and detail of Eisenman's investigation are breathtaking, as are its implications. In James the Brother of Jesus he tells the long-lost tale of formative "prehistoric" Christianity as it emerged from the crucible of revolutionary Palestine and from the internecine hostilities between Pauline and Ebionite Christianities." And he goes on to state Eisenman's main conjecture that runs throughout the book, "His working hypothesis is that the confusions, alterations, and obfuscations stem from an interest in covering over the importance, and therefore the identity, of the Desposyni, the Heirs of Jesus who had apparently functioned at least for Palestinian Christianity as a dynastic Caliphate similar to the Alid succession of Shi'ite Islam or the succession of Hasmonean brothers." Ovadyah (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Arguments against

• Eisenman does not explicitly say that Peter played no leadership role prior to the 40s, but he does say that the issue is probably forever unclear.

• Eisenman himself is not necessarily a non-fringe source. The comments I found on his work at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#Eisenman are such that I do not think, based on them, that he can be said to be other than fringe. Also, as per the quotation User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#The International Standard Bible Dictionary, Eisenman is not himself the first to premise the linkage of the Ebionites and Qumran, but that a J. L. Teicher premised them before, with different individuals cast as the Teacher of Righteouness and other named individuals. That theory was rejected, at least in part because the dating of the Qumran texts does not support it. Other individuals have tried to link them after Eisenman as well, with little if any positive support from the academic press. Thus, I have to say that at best Eisenman is a source which would need replacement by a better source, and at worst, if no such source exists, should well be removed altogether as per WP:FRINGE. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The question remains, in response to Ovadyah, that, to date, the only sources which has yet been produced which seems to treat Eisenman with any respect are Painter, in a book about James, and to a degree Tabor. Painter's book is about James, not the Jerusalem Church or the Ebionites - there might be SYNTH and WEIGHT problems about including that material in this article. Tabor's book has received little if any academic support or attention. I note that those issues of WEIGHT and SYNTH have not so far as I have seen been addressed. Again, Painter's book is not about the Ebionites, and few if any of the sources I have found about the Ebionites, most of which can be seen at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites and its related page, even make a passing mention of Eisenman in terms of the Ebionites, which is, after all, the topic of this article and this discussion. One supporting reference in a dubiously-related source does not necessarily help establish WEIGHT and SYNTH issues regarding inclusion of the material in this article. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Eisenman does not say that the Ebionites regarded James as their head, and does not directly say that the Ebionites were in existence that far back (though he leaves open such a possibility). Therefore, this source does not support a sentence which makes James the head of the Ebionite community. Instead of sticking to the source, the sentence makes a synthetic conclusion. Moreover, I agree with John Carter's view that Eisenman veers into fringe territory. Speculative statements such as "there can be little doubt that 'the Poor' was the name for James' Community in Jerusalem or that Community descended from it in the East in the next two-three centuries, the Ebionites." have no support in the few scraps of ancient documentation on the group, nor are there parallel jumps to those sorts of conclusions on the part of the overwhelming majority of scholars who have dealt with the subject since—those I have read note that there may have been some connection between the much later Ebionites and the original Jewish Church, but that there is clearly no documentation of any link and that ancient sources present the later group as having significant differences from what is known of early church to the extent that the Ebionites were regarded as heretical. Using the citation to reference that James is regarded by some scholars as head of the original Jerusalem Church is only included to link him to the Ebionites (otherwise, why is this statement in the article at all?). Regardless, the sentence posits that the Ebionites regarded James as their leader, and Eisenman does not give unqualified support for that connection. And it is misreferencing and editor synthesis of this sort that has crept into the article in several places. • Astynax ^talk 18:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good points. The only evidence presented in the quotation is that the Ebionites were descended from the Jerusalem church. It makes no statements at all regarding any opinions which the Ebionites may have had, and it would seem to violate WP:OR to say, based on the material presented, that they had any specific opinions on anything, as there is no clear reference in the material which can be seen to clearly and explicitly support such a contention. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediator's comment

In this source Eisenman quite clearly states that James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church in the period following Jesus's death, that Peter was subservient to him, and the Ebionites descended from the Jerusalem Church. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

However and again, the sentence for which he is cited in support goes beyond those points. The citation does not "argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader". That conflation of the later Eboinim with the Church at Jerusalem is not supported, regardless of whether that group later arose or branched off from the earlier group. It is every bit as invalid as saying "The Presbyterians regarded James the Just as their leader after the death of Jesus", just because the Presbyterians can also claim some sort of connection to that first church. • Astynax ^talk 16:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There are potential serious SYNTH problems here. I am not myself sure how such attempts to, basically, weaken the statements of one source to indicate that it agrees (in some way) with other sources are viewed in general around here, but there are, at least to me, serious concerns that the phrasing used might be specifically being used for the purposes of attempting to indicate that there is a consensus where there is none, and that is to me a potentially very serious concern. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Painter 1997 pp. 84, 220-221, 229 (republished in 1999 with Excursus)

• Bernheim, Eisenman, and Painter all published books on James in 1997 independent of each others work. Painter republished his book in 1999 with a new publisher and added an Excursus on Eisenman's (1997) James the Brother of Jesus Ovadyah (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Relevant quote(s)

• "Although Cephas and James stand close together as representatives of the circumcision party, evidence of a leadership struggle surrounds these two figures. Historically it is likely that James was the leader of the first Jerusalem church. In Acts Luke tried to reconcile conflicts and to reconcile the later tradition of Petrine leadership in the church at large with the tradition of the original leadership of James in Jerusalem. This strategy was possible because of the public role of Peter from the beginning. The evidence of the authority of James over Peter, even exercised at a distance, is demonstrated in Gal 2:11-14, and there is no reason to think that the situation was different at the beginning of the Jerusalem church." - p.84

• "Opposed tendencies concerning James have emerged. In the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Pseudo-Clementines the leading role of James is developed. He is the leader of the apostles, of the Jerusalem church, and of the church at large. In the Protevangelium of James, Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome there is a distancing of James from any natural relationship to Jesus. The position of Origen is less clear on this matter than those of the others mentioned. 2) The role of James was not immediately obliterated. Origen notes that such was the righteousness of James that once he had been murdered Vespasian began his siege of Jerusalem. Even Jerome acknowledges the leadership of James in Jerusalem. He notes that James was called the brother of Jesus "on account of his high character, his incomparable faith, and extraordinary wisdom" but "preeminently" because "the Lord at his departure had committed" the leadership of the Jerusalem church to him." - pp.220, 221

• "By the second century only those factions that maintained Jewish identity (defined as circumcison and observance of food and purity laws) were perceived to be Jewish, and the name of James was associated with them. In the process the Jewish Christians became isolated from other Jews because of the confession of Jesus as the Messiah and isolated from other Christians because of their adherence to the Jewish law. Perhaps because of this isolation Jewish Christianity failed to follow developments in the broader Christian movement. The most notable of these developments is to be seen in terms of christology. Jewish Christians maintained belief in Jesus as Messiah and looked to his speedy return as judge of the ages. There was a reticence about ascribing divine attributes to Jesus. A connection between early Jerusalem Christianity (the Hebrews) and the later Ebionites is probable." - p.229

Arguments for

• Painter explicitly identifies James as the leader of the apostles, the Jerusalem Church, and the Church at large, and he states that a linkage between the Jerusalem Church and the later Ebionites is probable. He explicitly supports the statement that James is the leader of the apostles, rather than Peter, and that the leadership role of James was later suppressed.

• Painter supports Eisenman's counter-factual hypothesis that the leadership role of James was suppressed by the Roman Church. He reviews Eisenman's 1997 book JTBOJ in an Excursus at the end of the book, citing points of agreement and disagreement. The strongest point of disagreement - that James the Just is the same person as the Righteous Teacher - has no bearing on the article as far as the role of James is concerned.

• Again, I have to ask, where are the sources supporting an alternative view, that there is a "connection" between the Jerusalem Church under the leadership of James the Just and the Great Church of Rome? Reference to the past removed Personal comment removed Ovadyah (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• A positive academic review of Painter's Just James can be found here. Ovadyah (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Painter argues for the immediate succession of James as leader of the Jerusalem Church rather than Peter. Unlike Bernheim, however, he does not explicitly mention the dynastic succession of Jesus' relatives based on a Davidic line.

• Note: There was a paradigm shift in the understanding of James' role in the early church in 1997. Before this time, the prevalent view was that James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church from the 40s to the 60s, a view exemplified by Ludemann and Goulder, and that Peter probably played an early role as head of the apostles. This changed in 1997 with the co-publication of the three books on James. Bernheim and Painter, writing independently of each other, explicitly advocate that James became the leader of the Jerusalem Church after Jesus from the beginning rather than Peter. Eisenman implicitly supports this view by arguing for the primacy of James and not assigning a defined role to Peter. All three books argue that the Acts of the Apostles is a tendentious document that intentionally suppressed the role of James in the early church. This represents an important milestone in the evolution of the Third Quest.

Arguments against

The inclusion of all this material is based on the author's statement that "a connection" between the Jerusalem Church and the Ebionites is "probable." Unfortunately, "a probable connection" does not indicate how strong or direct that connection is. I would also be interested in whether the author says the early Jerusalem Church was "connected" to any other groups as well. However, I have to wonder whether including the cited material is necessarily that relevant. If it is to be included, there would have to be I think some discussion as to how much weight to give it, and where to put it. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• In addition to John Carter's comments, I will note again that Painter does not support, and should not be used as a reference for, the editor synthesis that "Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death". • Astynax ^talk 19:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• It is also I believe completely irrational to use Eisenman rather than Painter as the cited source, considering Painter is generally considered a more reliable source. Personal comment removed However, the text does not support the material in the article, and Personal comment removed the fact is the quote does not support the material it is cited as a reference for. And the 'connection" between Painter and Eisenman, like all other content, should adhere to WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. So far as I can see, this alleged "connection" cannot be asserted without violating at least one of these policies or guidelines. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal comments removed Specific examples please. The Comments about the past removed "connections" to Eisenman were made by Painter himself through his review of Eisenman's work. Ovadyah (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

An argumentative individual could respond that the fact that the Ebionites belonged to the same religious tradition, Christianity, is evidence of a "connection" to James. The question is what the nature of the connection is, how it is presented, and what WP:WEIGHT such comparatively weak statements should be given in this article. I believe that they clearly were a part of the Jewish Christian tradition, as per numerous sources. However, if that the extent of the nature of the "connection", and there is nothing in the quote to necessarily indicate anything stronger, than a simple mention of the Ebionites being "Jewish Christians" and a link to that article might be sufficient. The question is regarding the amount of weight as per WP:UNDUE to give such comparatively weak statements in this article. Considering that this article is, effectively, a "daughter" article of the main Jewish Christians article (at least in terms of Jewish Christian-related material) it might very probably be sufficient to include that material there, and only brief mentions, like in the lead and maybe a short summary section as per WP:SS regarding their "family" relations. Separate inclusion later very likely might be seen by independcent individuals as violating WP:UNDUE. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Jewish Christian article could, at some point, be reorganized to serve as a gateway or "parent" article, but it is presently little more than a gateway article for Messianic Judaism, a modern Evangelical Christian group which has adopted some Jewish practices. Ovadyah (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, all the early Jewish Christian groups counted themselves as "spiritual descendants" of James, and, on that basis, it seems to me that the basic guidelines, including MOS, that say content should not be repeated in multiple articles applies here. Therefore, the material could be added to that article. Further efforts to develop that article would certainly be helpful. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement "Apparently, all the early Jewish Christian groups counted themselves as 'spiritual descendants' of James" is an oversimplification of the facts. The sources cited here argue that the Ebionites are literally the descendants of the Jerusalem Church, having maintained the same beliefs and practices. Some of the sources such as Bernheim, Tabor and Eisenman's The NT Code go further than this by arguing explicitly that they are the inheritors of a dynastic succession, beginning with the direct appointment by Jesus of his brother James as head of the early church. As for the rest, let's stick to a discussion of this specific sentence, and the sources supporting it, in this article. Ovadyah (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please indicate to nme exactly where these citations above say anything like what you are saying. So far as I can see, the only explicit linkage to the Ebionites in the above citations is that a connection between the early group and the Ebionites is "probable." The majority of your other comments, particularly about other sources, are themselves pretty much irrelevant to this specific source, so far as I can see, and I would think it would make sense to not engage in some form of SYNTH of other sources as a justification for the inclusion of any particular individual source, which seems to be at least in part what you are doing in your own comment above. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is to stick to the specific statement we are discussing, and the sources supporting that statement, rather than drift into a nebulous discussion about Jewish-Christians, which is a completely modern name with no agreed upon meaning, and discussions about what it means to be a 'spiritual descendant' of James, which is nothing but an exercise in WP:SYNTH. Ovadyah (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sticking to the specific statement being discussed. As I indicated, the only direct reference to the Ebionites in the source indicated is that there exists a "probable" linkage with James. The introduction of completely irrelevant discussions about Bernheim, Tabor, and Eisenman, on the other hand, seems to be completely irrelevant to the source under discussion. If anything, it seems you are the one insisting on deviating the discussion from the single source under discussion. The only thing it is says about the Ebionites is, apparently, that a linkage with James is "probable." Please be so good as to yourself act upon the instructions you seem to feel yourself qualified to give to thers. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The quote from p.229 is sufficient to demonstrate a "probable" linkage of James and the Jerusalem Church to the later Ebionites. That is all that is being claimed for this source. It can be made clearer in the wording of the sentence, but it is certainly not going to be used as a pretext to delete either the sentence or the source. Ovadyah (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It is sufficient for an article on Jewish Christianity, which as you have been told before is a separate article. And, if that is all that is being claimed for this source, I would have to strongly question the inclusion of the other two quotations cited. Yes, the rather weak nature of the "probable" direct connection between the earlier Jerusalem Church and the Ebionites is supported by the quotation, but that is the only thing in any of the three quotations included directly relates to the Ebionites. Please refrain from making assumptions about the intentions of others as well, as you seem to be doing above. If that is "all" that is being claimed for this source, then there is no reason I can see for the first two quotations to be used at all, as they do not in any way directly relate to the subject. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to you as an editor to divine the "rather weak nature" of the meaning of "probable". Our task is to report what the reliable secondary sources say. If you want to talk about Jewish Christianity, take it to the talk page of that article. We are discussing the Ebionites article in this mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Our task is also to indicate how the reliable sources (secondary or otherwise - please do not introduce your own opinions as to what sources are acceptable, as you seem to be doing above). And please do not continue to ignore the fact that, as stated, the first two quotations are not demonstrably relevant to this article in any way. Also, regarding your refusal to address the matter that the content might be better placed elsewhere, with only a summary section here, WP:SOFIXIT indicates that it is at best a facile argument to ignore the fact that the source might be better placed elsewhere. I am sorry that you have made a point to rarely if ever edit other articles, but that is not grounds for saying that the material must be included here if it is better placed elsewhere. Also, please actually at least acknowledge the point of the at best dubious relevancy of the other two indirect citations, and, if it is not too onerous a task, actually respond to it. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the other two quotes is to establish Painter's claim that James was the head of the Jerusalem Church from the beginning, rather than Peter. This is also claimed in the sentence we are discussing in the article, and it is therefore relevant to the discussion about article content. Ovadyah (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

But the two quotes don't actually say that James was the head of the Jerusalem Church frm the beginning, do they? All they say is he was "the leader" of the Jerusalem Church. They do not indicate either that he was the sole leader of the Jerusalem Church, and it would likely be a violation of SYNTH to say otherwise. Also, they do not say that he was "the leader" from the beginning, as you say above. Therefore, I would have to question whether it might not be a violation of WP:SYNTH to use those quotations as sources of a statement which they do not make explicitly themselves, and which is not necessarily the only way they could potetially be interpreted. Therefore, I believe that, there would be very, very serious considerations that the quotations should only be used to support claims they unambiguously make, and the claim that "James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church" from the beginning is not one that is clearly or unambiguously supported by the quotations. John Carter (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again, it is not your job as an editor to divine whether "the leader" really means "the sole leader" or something else. Stick to what the source actually says. That is why we are providing quotations. Ovadyah (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is the job of all us to determine if the quotations actually support the claims made of them. There is a serious question in the eyes of editors who disagree with you that they do not. The first quotation speaks only of the "historical probability" of James being the leader. The statement is not made in the authors own voice, and, on that basis, I believe it can only be used to support content which says what the source it self says, that there is such a historical probability. In all honesty, I cannot see the clear relevance of the second quotation at all, unless it is used to support the one side in what it itself says in the first sentence of the quote is a matter of dispute. First, I cannot see how we can use the quotation without clearly saying that it is a matter of dispute, like the quotation itself does. It could be used as the source for some of the other historical arguments for James's position, but there are at least potentially questions of WP:UNDUE to discuss them in detail, particularly if, as the source itself says, there seem to be others who dispute the matter. I cannot see how we can include only one side of what the source says is a disputed matter in this article. John Carter talk 20:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this mediation is to examine specific content that is in dispute and the sources supporting that content. You can document other points of view by adding content to the article. However, that has nothing to do with the specific sentence we are working on. Ovadyah (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Why quibble over the word "sole" since it doesn't appear in the quote? We can let readers judge whether they think that "the leader" implies "the sole leader". And please note "and there is no reason to think that the situation was different at the beginning of the Jerusalem church." -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

First, saying "there is no reason to think that the situation was different" is far from being the same as saying in a clear and direct way that it was the same - in fact, making such a conclusion likely violates WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. However, I have to agree that the point about dropping the word "sole" is a good one. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Saying "there is no reason to think X" is academic code for "not X". -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH. It is not our place to attempt to interpret what we as individuals think are "code words", and it is almost certainly a violation of WP:SYNTH, and probably WP:V, to attempt such interprettions. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Translation into the venacular is permitted. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be - please indicate which policy or guideline specifically supports the claim above, please, Michael. As you should know, content should adhere to policies and guidelines. If there is no question whatsoever that such a translation is the only possible meaning that the phrase could have. Believe it or not, Michael, that is not the case here. You have not demonstrated that the quote used could not, at least potentially, have actually been phrased the way it was because it is the clearest possible way of phrasing what the author intended. If that is the case, and it has not been demonstrated that it is not, then there would be very legitimate policy and guideline concerns about prejudically rephrasing the comments of the source to support claims that they do not themselves clearly support. John Carter (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite all the distractions being aired here, neither Painter (nor any of the other sources cited in the sentence being reviewed here) "argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death. rather than Peter." Several leaps of editor synthesis occurred to arrive at a statement not contained in any of these sources. As editors, we are only to report what the sources say, not produce an essay airing editor conclusions. This sentence is but one in the article where there seems to be an exasperating refusal to get the point of WP:NOR policy. • Astynax ^talk 15:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

See, for example, Eisenman 1997 p. 156: .."there can be little doubt that 'the Poor' was the name for James' Community in Jerusalem or that Community descended from it in the East in the next two-three centuries, the Ebionites." -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In the quote from Eisenman, the word "descended" makes a clear separation (of time and likely of place) between the former and later groups. The statement does not conflate the 2 groups, and it is just as much synthesis to do so here as it would be to say "that the Lutherans regarded Pope Leo X as their leader" on the basis that some scholars have noted that the Lutheran church "descended" or "arose" from a Roman Catholic tradition. • Astynax ^talk 08:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The analogy fails because, whereas we know the Lutherans developed a theology that was different from the preceeding Roman Catholicism, some authors maintain that the Nazarene/Ebionite movement did not change its theological stance from the apostolic age onwards.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? when Epiphanius himself, a major source, says the Ebionites got from the Elchasai the doctrine (astutely ignored in the article presumably to save modern Ebionite enthusiasts from embarrassment) according to which Christ, as the Adamic standing-one, stood 96 miles high, though invisible to the eye? :)Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is currently a hot topic of research in the field. Scholars generally fall into two camps: 1) those who assume Epiphanius' report is accurate, including 1a) if a Church Father said it, it must be true, and 1b) Epiphanius is compiling an accurate historical account, or 2) those who assume Epiphanius' report is tendentious, including 2a) Epiphanius is supplementing a sparse account of the earlier Fathers with his own conjectures to compose a pseudo-historical account, and 2b) Epiphanius is deliberately conflating conflicting accounts to compose a polemical proof text that "proves" the Ebionites' beliefs and practices were internally inconsistent. Camp 1 has gradually fallen out of favor relative to Camp 2 as the Second Quest for the Historical Jesus (an affirmation of Church dogma) collapsed and was replaced by the Third Quest at the beginning of the '70s. Modern scholarly opinion in the last 10 years leans heavily toward a combination of 2a and 2b (it's a polemic of dubious historical worth that is a combination of conjectures and a deliberate synthesis of conflicting information.) Unfortunately, it also has nothing to do with what we are discussing in mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point. Michael, as is his wont, replied to a detailed and thoughtful point by making a convenient assertion. I gave a concrete example, of dozens I am familiar with, of why that assertion fails (Astynax, unfortunately, is not listened to here). As for the rest, I am thoroughly familiar with the various positions, though, as always, I appreciate the attention you always give to details. My point, to recapitulate then, is quite apropos what was being discussed in mediation, since Michael appeared not to answer an argument on a specific issue raised, but simply made an assertion contradicted by the primary evidence, and my illustration serves to show that. Regards and good luck with the mediation, in any case. Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Thanks for clarifying your previous comment. Ovadyah (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Nish, your argument is based on primary sources (Epiphanus etc) whereas mine is based in secondary sources (Tabor, Butz etc). Butz, BTW, discusses your primary sources in some detail and yet comes to the conclusion I have outlined, that the "Nazarene/Ebionite movement did not change its theological stance from the apostolic age onwards" -with the exception of their advocacy of vegetarianism which he thinks they probably adopted under James' tenure. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

But I thought you were familiar with Eisenman? It's he that made the point I repeated. I simply did you the courtesy of reminding you what the primary source says. I thought you would be sufficiently intimate with Eisenman to recognize the 'reliable' secondary source. Unlike the wild conjectures of Butz and co., who have not a jot or tittle of evidence to buttress their conjectures, in any case, my point was rooted in the actual patristic information on Ebionites, or those believed to be Ebionites :) Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I should add however that while Tabor and Eisenman might arguably just slip in under the bar, Jeffrey Buetz has no place on this page. I've nothing against rock singers with a BA in earth sciences who, anointed ministers, then, under the influence of Dan Brown's fictions, connect up the Ebionites with the Templars and Freemasonry, much in the manner of Umberto's sorry tale of the hermeneutics of suspicion in Foucault's Pendulum, and write 'stuff' about patristic history without any background in the subject. On a highly technical subject like this, a mere background and adjunct professorship in 'religious studies' is not sufficient to qualify someone as RS. Allow this line to be breached, and the whole of wikipedia will be flooded by evangelical opinionizers with fringe views based on incompetence and lack of serious qualifications.Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ret Prof, who everybody professes confidence in, has a high opinion of Butz's book. Oh, and please supply the exact Eisenman quiote that you say supports your position. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ret.Prof is a wiki editor, not an academic authority. That he has a high opinion of Bütz's book tells us nothing, except that some editors apparently have a very shaky understanding of WP:RS. Are we reduced to this? In lieu of recognition of any value in Bütz's plebeian fantasising by scholars of semitic languages, patristic history and religion, to adduce a wikipedia editor's personal opinions in deciding what is, or is not, RS? Come now, that is patent nonsense in terms of how we do things round here. As to Eisenman, you quote the book endlessly, so look it up in the index. It should take no more than 2 minutes of your own time. :) Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The mountain roars to reveal a mouse. As I expcted, no quotation supplied. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 12:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Mindful of 'Could you provide links for those reviews, for us lazy readers/editors?' Michael C. Price ^talk 10:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC), and of the habit, of citing books by index page numbers without apparently even reading the pages, which got your an earlier suspension, I prefer not to indulge an editor's otiose requests that others do his work. A hint, which will of course help you look up the indexes. The statement about Ebionites borrowing from Elchasaites is after p.300 and before p.400. Enjoy your homework.Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, did you change your mind and decide to join the mediation? I thought you said for the record you couldn't WP:AGF towards Michael. I'm glad you are here, but please clarify what has changed. Ovadyah (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As you know, I am interested in the page, but regard it as unworkable, as I do mediation. I naturally follow efforts by editors to resolve the impasse, because it will affect that page's future, and I may one day edit it. The technical reason, rather than WP:AGF, for abstaining from a full engagement here, is that you cannot 'mediate' positions which show no interest in (a)the principles of wikipedia (b) the five pillar process. Occasionally, I think twice, I have stepped in where a particularly egregious example of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is underway, to illustrate the way this technique of (1) assertion of the obiter dictum variety, when (2) met by an informed challenge (3) is skewed to sidestep the issue (4) while the burden of evidence is thrown on the other and (5) the argument redirected etc. Perhaps, in noting that for the record, I am proving a nuisance. Michael's pattern is as I outlined it - he consistently makes points no experienced editor would ever make (like citing Ret Prof's views on Butz as evidence Butz is RS) because they do not conform to the standard protocols for resolving disputes. And this habit, of ignoring or sidestepping serious and informed editors' arguments by vague, jaunty one-liners, (Astynax above) does need to be dealt with. This is a very complex page to write, and a frivolous insouciance to scholarship, conjoined to a POV-pushing partiality for fringe sub-academic literature that should not even be seriously mentioned, concur to make a 'compromise' anything more than a compromise on the very principles which underwrite our activities here. Enough. If my occasional notes are a disturbance, of course I will refrain even from those extremely rare moments in which I am tempted to register an opinion.Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your reason for involvement in the mediation process. Ovadyah (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Astynax, rather than repeating the same criticisms endlessly, how about considering this as a revision:

Scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem Church (including Pierre Antoine Bernheim, Robert Eisenman, Will Durant, Michael Goulder, Gerd Ludemann, John Painter, and James Tabor) argue that James the Just was the leader of the Jerusalem Church after Jesus' death rather than Peter,<Bernheim><Eisenman><Painter><Tabor> or from at least the 40s to the 60s,<Durant><Goulder><Luedemann> and that the Ebionites are the probable successors of the beliefs and practices of this tradition.

Or can you suggest alternative wording that would fit the sources better? Ovadyah (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To avoid synthesis, the statement needs to stick only to those things which all the cited scholars have said, and refrain from introducing things which all the references do not specifically state. Something acceptable might be similar to:

Most scholars agree that at some point following the death of Jesus, James the Just became the leader of the Judeo-Christian Church in Jerusalem. Some scholars speculate that the Ebionites may have later branched off from this group.

This could be supported by a couple of solid references without synthesis. If you wish to summarize a particular proposition, then limit the summary to only reporting the position which the references cited directly and unambiguously uphold. Where it is a controversial position, then all significant alternative positions should be detailed in proportion to their acceptance within the scholarly community. If a fringe theory or controversial minority view is genuinely notable, then it can be briefly included in such a way that notes that it does not reflect general consensus and using language which delimits the view to the notable proponent being summarized (e.g., "In a minority view, X has said..."). Similarly, when a reference has aired various possible scenarios, these may also be reported in language which reflects that these are not established as fact (e.g., "X has speculated..." or "Y and Z have advanced the proposition...")—again, reporting other WP:N alternative views/propositions in proportion to their currency in scholarly sources. • Astynax ^talk 08:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this is a great starting point for a discussion. Michael, how do you feel about this suggested wording? Ovadyah (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My main problem with this wording is the phrase "branched off from", which has heavy POV heretical connotations. As we know, many sources (e.g. the ones cited above) claim that it was the Pauline movement that diverged from the original Nazarene/Ebionite theological position. The other main problem here is perennial "naming issue", and I think we have new source (J Butz, Secret legacy of Jesus) that is explicit on this. Butz maintains that the original apostolic followers of Jesus were called Nazarenes and Ebionites, but that it is convenient to call the early followers (in Jerusalem, under James) "Nazarenes" and the later followers, (after the flight to Pella under Symeon/Simon), "Ebionites". Butz emphasizes, though, that this is an entirely abitrary distinction, and that the two groups were identical. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in fact is WP:OR. None of the sources cited describes the Ebionites as having "branched off from" the Jerusalem Church. This is the viewpoint of Ray Pritz and Richard Bauckham, who do not appear in the list of references. Ovadyah (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is odd that only a small variety of sources are included in the list of references, isn't it? How is it, I wonder, that almost all of the much larger number of RS which do not support this claim, and in some cases may actively disagree with it, are still somehow seemingly completely omitted from the references? Could there possibly be some factors such as perhaps those sources not agreeing with individual editors' POV involved? Unfortunately, if that were the case, that would itself be likely contrary to policies and guidelines. Also, I have to question why the other sources included in the citations are somehow excluded from the references as well. In short, the comparatively short list of works included in the current list of references is not something I believe can be seen as being in any way indicative of whether sources or opinions in them are or are not worthy of inclusion. In fact, I believe it was this problem, among others, which spawned the current mediation, at least from my perspective. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The POV that the Ebionites were a bunch of wayward heretics is mentioned in the lead. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to how to respond to all the assumptions in the above statement. First, it is the academic opinion of several that the Ebionites were out of the mainstream. To call that a POV that they were a bunch of wayward heretics, as is said above, seems to be almost a prejudicial refusal to acknowledge that belief could be at all correct. Also, I believe that the lead is supposed to, as per WP:LEDE, actually summarize the rest of the article, isn't it? That being the case, can anyone give me any good reason why this point is consigned exclusively to the lead, and not discussed in the body of the article to the same degree as other points in the lead? I have every reason to believe that this failure of the existing article to adhere to content guidelines, and the possible refusal of some editors involved to act to correct it, is one of the primary reasons this mediation was required in the first case. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

John, please adhere to WP:AGF and stop projecting prejudice onto fellow editors. Also please stop making erroneous time wasting claims about the current state of the article, such as the statement in the lead not being reflected in the main body (hint: look for "Jean Daniélou" and the Catholic encyclopedia citations in the religious perspectives section, along wth Bauckham elsewhere as Ovadyah has mentioned.) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael, the page WP:AGF only says that good faith is only necessarily indicated when there is no clear evidence to indicate that there is a lack of good faith. I regret to say that is not the case here. I also note that you have ignored the legitimate point rasied, which is that guidelines indicate that, if a point is worthy of being included in the lead, believe it or not, the material should also be included, at somewhat greater length, in the body of the article as well. Is there some reason you chose to raise a rather dubiously relevant concern about someone else failing to adhere to a guideline while at the same time you yourself did not in any way address the initial point raised yourself? John Carter (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

John Carter, you seem to be explicitly acknowledging a lack of good faith toward at least some of the editors participating in this mediation. Is that a correct assessment of your above statement? Ovadyah (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem adding Ray Pritz to the article to supplement Bauckham, who is already in the article, as I explained below. As far as "almost all of the much larger number of RS which do not support this claim", please list them for us now, here on the mediation page, so that others may know about this information. Please remember that the absence of mentioning a topic does not constitute a disagreement. We must have concrete affirmations of points of view from reliable secondary sources other than the views mentioned in A., B., and C. below to be acceptable as RS. Ovadyah (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two variations of opinion among scholars who see a probable connection between the Jerusalem Church and the later Ebionites (let's call them A. and B.) and an opposing view (C.) that sees a probable connection between the Jerusalem Church and the later Nazoraeans. These can be represented as follows:

Scholars believe that James the Just was the leader of the Jerusalem Church:

A.from the earliest times and there is a probable connection to the later Ebionites. Bernheim, Eisenman (1997, 2006), Painter, Tabor

B.from the 40s to the 60s and there is a probable connection to the later Ebionites. Goulder, Ludemann

C.from the 40s to the 60s and there is a probable connection to the later Nazoraeans Bauckham, Pritz

All of the sources we have talked about are accurately captured in the above schema. The sources that advocate for version A. all assume that Acts is a tendentious rewriting of history. Versions B. and C. either accept or are neutral about the accuracy of the testimony reported in Acts. Ovadyah (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The question is, of course, whether the scholars who see this probable connection are of sufficient significance to be given the weight as per WP:WEIGHT which they seem to be given in the current article. Granted, the sources may be sufficient for the statements that they support the claims made, but there is I believe a much larger, clearly demonstrable number of reliable sources, many of which can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, who seem to give little if any attention or credit to the "Despronyi" theory. While these sources, admittedly, may be sufficient for proving WP:V and perhaps WP:N, and I do not necessarily say they aren't, article content is also supposed to adhere to other guidelines, including WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. I can see perhaps ceding that the sources are sufficient do verify the claims, and am actually willing to do so, provided we then proceed directly to the matter of the FRINGE and WEIGHT concerns, which are also according to wikipedia's policies and guidelines supposed to be used to determine the amount of attention such ideas are given. And, of course, Bauckham and Pritz refer to a different group altogether, the Nazoreans, and it would thus probably be a violation of WP:SYNTH to include them in reference to the Ebionites, which those sources see as a separate group. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, let's see your sources here on this page, and then we can talk about WP:WEIGHT. And don't provide a list of sources that mention something other than the subject matter we are discussing, and then say that is evidence of an alternative view. Ovadyah (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to Jayjg: Is Ovadyah justified in making the demands expressed above, or can it reasonably be expected that he and others might actually be able to at least bother to look at evidence elsewhere? John Carter (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best to evaluate sources that are directly relevant to the paragraph in contention, and which are presented on this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, the sources that advocate for a dynastic succession of Jesus' relatives (the Desposyni) cross all three of the above groups: A. Bernheim and Tabor (and Eisenman 2006), B. Ludemann, C. Bauckham. Ovadyah (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Again: I'm coming away with the impression that the the point is being sidetracked that Painter never says anything that indicates that the "Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader". With regard to this sentence, the point has little to do with the whether James or Peter was the initial head of the Jerusalem Church, but rather it has to do with the sentence presenting the Ebionites as actually constituting the initial Jerusalem Church itself, and James the Just as being the leader of the Ebionite sect circa 33 CE. The editor synthesis required to leap from James being a leader of the Church at some point, to presenting him as leading the Ebionites is (to me) astounding, as is the sentence's contention that Painter and the others "argue" in favor of that assertion. The best reason for not citing Painter and others for this sentence is simply that he never said anything that supports such a premise. • Astynax ^talk 19:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see my response below in the Bernheim 1997 section. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Astynax, you seem to be ignoring all of my above attempts to reword the sentence to better conform to what the sources say. Arguing that all of the sources should be deleted, while ignoring all efforts to improve the content, is not a constructive use of mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mediator's comments

Painter meets the basic requirements of WP:RS, and he clearly states that it was likely that James was the first leader of the Jerusalem Church, and that it is probably that there is a connection between the Jerusalem Church and the Ebionites. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Bernheim 1997 pp.5-7, 183, 211, 217-218, 267-269

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Relevant quote(s)

• "The fact that he became the head of the Jerusalem church is something which is generally accepted."

• "Clement of Alexandria in this Hypotyposes, composed around 200, presents James as the first head of the Jerusalem Church. Clement doubtless considered James the supreme authority of the church after the death of Christ." (p.5) "The pre-eminence accorded to James in many Jewish-Christian, Catholic, and Gnostic traditions is quite remarkable. These traditions have passed on the lofty image which James enjoyed in the primitive Jerusalem church and in the other communities which had a majority of Jewish Christians." (p.6) "For around thirty years, academic circles have become increasingly infatuated with James and the Jewish Christians. This revival of interest is part of a new orientation aimed at integrating Jesus and the primitive church better into the Judaism of their time. The majority of impartial experts accept the central place of James, at any rate from the 40s." (p.7)

• "From 1831 on, Ferdinand Christian Bauer and his disciples of the Tubingen School attacked this type of harmonizing conception (that all the early Christians got along after the Jerusalem Council) by interpreting the first two centuries of the Christian movement as a merciless struggle between Petrine and Pauline communities. They emphasized the incessant conflicts between Peter and James on the one hand and Paul on the other. This interpretation was fiercely contested by exegetes, for good and not so good reasons; sometimes they did not want to concede that the Holy Spirit had not uniformly inspired the glories of the primitive church. After being discredited for awhile, this view has recently been taken up again, in more or less mild forms, by some first-rate exegetes." (ref 75 - Michael Goulder has recently tried to revive the ideas of F.C. Bauer in A Tale of Two Missions 1994. A less extreme position can be found in Ludemann Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity 1989.) p.183 - Here Bernheim identifies Goulder and Ludemann as a revival of the ideas put forth by the Tubingen School headed by F.C. Bauer.

• "The first Christians, some of whom had probably formerly been Essenes, doubtless borrowed Essene ideas and concepts, sometimes modifying them. This influence on the primitive church is probably not an indication of its progressive Judaization. On the contrary, it shows that from its origin this community faithfully observed the law. So there is little reason to suppose that the primitive Jerusalem community with which Peter and James are associated did not observe the law faithfully. ...the first Christians hardly differed from other Jews in the milieu in which they live, apart from their belief in Jesus and some other practices of their own. The supposed Judaization of this community represented by James' assumption of power hardly existed except in the imagination of exegetes." p.211

• "There is perhaps no need to seek out dubious explanations in order to understand the pre-eminence of James. He probably occupied first place in the primitive church by reason of his kinship with Jesus. There is nothing surprising about such a rank in society in which the dynastic principle was so deeply implanted. ... In a messianic movement like primitive Christianity, in which the Davidic descent of Jesus was affirmed, the primacy of the brother of Jesus, who was also a descendant of David, would seem natural. The importance attached to kinship with Jesus in the primitive church is confirmed by the elevated position reached by other members of the family of Christ. ... According to Eusebius, after the death of James, his cousin Simeon, son of Clopas, was designated head of the Jerusalem church. ... Quite apart from kinship with Jesus, the fact that they belonged to a Davidic line explains the pre-eminent position of the members of Jesus' family, who played a significant role in the churches of Palestine and neighboring regions long after the death of Jesus. The notion of a dynastic Christianity is certainly nothing new. Maurice Goguel, following Adolf von Harnack, Johannes Weiss, and Eduard Meyer emphasized its importance. ... Maurice Goguel, like many other historians, makes 44 the decisive moment in the change of power. But evidence of this apostolic Christianity led by Peter and replaced by dynastic Christianity is very thin. The role of the Twelve, with Peter at their head, as the ruling authority of the primitive church is based solely on the first chapter of Acts, the historical trustworthiness of which is limited. ... Is it not more reasonable to assume that the revolution of 43 or 44 is perhaps simply a delusion, and that the primacy of James is prior to Peter's departure from Jerusalem?" pp. 217-218

• "James was the most eminent representative of a primitive church deeply rooted in Jewish tradition. He regarded his brother Jesus as the eschatological agent chosen by YHWH to proclaim the immanent arrival of the kingdom of God, and to call on the children of Isrqel to repent. This new era in which the will of God would be respected would see the restoration of Israel." p.259

• "Sometimes the church fathers mention the Jewish Christians, frequently called Ebionites, and their doctrines. But these are usually polemical texts, often ill-informed and sometimes confused. The beliefs and practices of Jewish Christians, which have sometimes evolved over time, hardly seem homogeneous. In general the church fathers distinguished two categories of Jewish Christians. The first thought that Jesus had been a man among men, born of Joseph and Mary, adopted and consecrated by YHWH as Christos at his baptism by reason of his exceptional justice (his piety and his other meritorious acts). The second, described as Nazarenes by Epiphanius and Jerome, less heretical by the criteria of orthodoxy, accepted that Jesus was born of a virgin and the operation of the Holy Spirit. ... Most Jewish Christians, with the exception of the Nazarenes of Epiphanius and Jerome, rejected the writings of Paul, whom they considered an apostate. ... It is probable, as James D.G. Dunn, Hans-Joachim Schoeps, and other experts think, that the anti-Pauline Ebionites with an adoptionist christology were the more direct heirs of James and the earliest church. However, Ray Pritz has recently argued that the Nazarenes described by Epiphanius and Jerome were the true decendants of the primitive community of Jerusalem, the Ebionite current forming after a schism shortly after the migration to Pella. This theory, which affirms the orthodox christology of the primitive community and the absence of major antagonisms between it and Paul, is very speculative, since it is largely based on confused and late evidence dating from the end of the fourth century. Nevertheless it suggests that the diversity of later Jewish-Christian movements to some degree reflects the diversity of currents within the primitive church." pp.267-269

Arguments for

• I will have more to say about Bernheim's book when I receive it in a few days. The book was positively received in the scholarly community, but it has been given less attention than the others, probably because it was originally published in French only. Meanwhile, here is a review. Ovadyah (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Bernheim discusses the revival of ideas put forth by F.C. Bauer and the Tubingen school and specifically affirms the scholarship of Michael Goulder and Gerd Ludemann, ("this view has recently been taken up again, in more or less mild forms, by some first-rate exegetes").

• Bernheim explicitly supports the view that James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church from the earliest time, rather than Peter, and that he was appointed by Jesus to lead the Church in a dynastic succession. Bernhiem's views on the immediate dynastic succession of James and the family of Jesus (the Desposyni) is more explicit than Eisenman's at the time (both books were published in 1997). It anticipates the later views of Tabor (2006) in the Jesus Dynasty and Eisenman (2006) in The New Testement Code.

• While Bernheim usually uses the term Jewish Christians throughout the book, in the last chapter, he explicitly identifies the beliefs and practices of the Jerusalem Church with the later Ebionites, as "the more direct heirs of James and the earliest church." At the same time, he criticizes the work of Ray Pritz in attempting to link the 4th century Nazarenes to the Jerusalem Church as "very speculative" and "largely based on confused and late evidence dating from the end of the fourth century".

• A positive academic review of Bernheim's James, Brother of Jesus can be found here. Ovadyah (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Bernheim makes the point that "The majority of impartial experts accept the central place of James, at any rate from the 40s." is the majority view at the time he published in 1997. He takes this a step further by arguing, based on the importance of the Davidic succession, that James immediately became the head of the Jerusalem Church after Jesus in a dynastic succession based on the Davidic line.

Arguments against

The quotation does not indicate when James became the leader of the church. It is therefore I believe very possible to ask whether he became the leader in the beginning or later. Regardless, I do not see how this statement can be used without violating SYNTH or OR for anything other than the statement that at some time James became the leader of the church, and I am not impressed that it is being used in a sense acceptable by guidelines now. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• And again, this source does not support the synthesis that the listed scholars "argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death." • Astynax ^talk 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

And violations of WP:SYNTH are, pretty much by definition, unacceptable in article content. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediator's comments

Bernheim explicitly states that James was the leader of the church after Jesus' death, particularly on pages 217-218. While he doesn't explicitly state James was the church's first leader after Jesus' death, the implication is quite strong. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Bernheim explicitly comments on the findings of Goulder and Luedemann, and he extends James' leadership role in the Jerusalem Church to the very beginning by strongly implying that the Davidic dynastic succession passed directly from Jesus to James. Note that all three of them assert that the beliefs and practices of the Jerusalem Church (Torah observant) were consistent with those of the later Ebionites. Ovadyah (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the fact that there is a strong implication, unless that implication is otherwise noted by other sources, is still just an implication, and it would probably be a violation of WP:OR to use it as a source for same. Also, there is a separate question - how quickly after the death of Jesus was the leadership position of the church decided? If James was the first leader, and that leadership role was arrived at substantially after the death of Jesus, that would still be relevant information. I do not see that matter being addressed, and it is a valid concern. It is far from unusual for leadership roles to go open for some time immediately after the death or inactivity of a founder. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is noted by other sources, Tabor and Eisenman 2006, which make the point explicitly. Also, the sentence we are discussing does not claim an immediate succession from Jesus to James, so your assertion of WP:OR as a reason to delete a reliable source is a moot point. Ovadyah (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Several matters are being discussed here. Please indicate which wpecific point you are referring to. Also, Ovadyah, there is also the matter of WP:WEIGHT. I realize that this discussion has, to date, completely ignored that point. However, it is a relevant guideline, and it should be discussed. I believe the other reliable sources, at least one of which, the Jones Encyclopedia, is given a much higher opinion in academic circles than either Tabor or Eisenman, neither of whom has been demonstrably referenced in a single independent tertiary source on the subject, does not support this claim at all. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Bernheim is clear enough that he thinks James was the leader of the Jerusalem church after Jesus' death. Once we've assembled the list of acceptable sources, we'll move to the next step of deciding what weight to assign them. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to keep hammering on this: I'm coming away with the impression that the the point is being sidetracked that Bernheim never says anything that indicates that the "Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader". With regard to this sentence, the point has little to do with the whether James or Peter was the initial head of the Jerusalem Church, but rather it has to do with the sentence presenting the Ebionites as actually constituting the initial Jerusalem Church itself, and James the Just as being the leader of the Ebionite sect circa 33 CE. The editor synthesis required to leap from James being a leader of the Church at some point, to presenting him as leading the Ebionites is (to me) astounding, as is the sentence's contention that Bernheim and the others listed in the sentence "argue" in favor of that assertion. The best reason for not including Bernheim and others (or deleting the sentence entirely) is simply that he never said anything that supports such a premise. This is a clear violation of policy and a misuse of sources to support editor synthesis which, unfortunately affects other areas of the article. Those who reverted the {{FV}}s for the improper citations do not seem to accept the policy point, and have not done so here. I don't see any indication that editors have moved even slightly toward a resolution, and meanwhile the failed verification of these sources listed in the sentence stand untagged. • Astynax ^talk 19:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue here isn't solely about what the Ebionites themselves believed - the article must include both statements about Ebionite beliefs, and statements of reliable sources regarding the Ebionites. If, for example, a reliable source states that a) James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church, and that b) the Jerusalem Church became the Ebionites, then this in itself is a relevant statement about the leadership of the Ebionites. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eisenman 2006 pp.34,145,273

Relevant quote(s)

• "These "Ebionites" are also the followers of James par excellence, himself considered (even in early Christian accounts) to be the leader of "the Poor" or these selfsame "Ebionites"". - p.34
• "For James 2:5, of course, it is "the Poor of this world ("the Ebionim" or "Ebionites") whom God chose as Heirs to the Kingdom He promised to those that love Him"." - p.145
• "..."the Righteous Teacher" and those of his followers (called "the Poor" or "Ebionim" - in our view, James and his Community, pointedly referred to in the early Church literature, as will by now have become crystal clear, as "the Ebionites" or "the Poor")." - p.273

Arguments for

• Eisenman goes further than in his previous book JTBOJ (1997) in linking James as the head of the Jerusalem Community directly to the Ebionites. He explicitly states that James and the Jerusalem Community are the Ebionites.

• Rebuttal regarding the use of Eisenman's NT Code. This work is an extension of his JTBOJ (1997) that continues the discussion beyond James to the role of the Desposyni in the early Church. Eisenman's expression of equivalence between the Jerusalem Church under James and the Ebionites is just a matter of nuance relative to his earlier work and the conclusions of the other authors cited here, including Goulder, Ludemann, Painter, and Tabor. All of them advocate a connection between the Jerusalem Church and the Ebionites, either directly or indirectly, as the inheritors of the beliefs and practices of the original Church under the leadership of James the Just. One might also reasonably ask, if this is a tiny-minority view among scholars, where are the reliable sources supporting the supposedly majority view? It's been over 3 1/2 years - still waiting. Ovadyah (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• The statement that the consensus view of scholars is that the Ebionites are a later schismatic group is accurate - for scholarship 100 years ago. This scholarly conjecture was advanced by Ritschl in 1857 as part of a genealogy of early Christianity. Prior to that F.C. Bauer posited that two groups existed in the Jerusalem Church from the earliest times, a Hebraic group he associated with the later Ebionites and a Hellenistic group that became universalist in their beliefs and practices. Modern scholarship has come full circle to Bauer in identifying a Judaic group (or groups) associated with the Ebionites known to Irenaeus and a Hellenistic-Samaritan group (or groups) known to Epiphanius that were both present within the Jerusalem Church from the earliest times. (Luomanen (2007) Jewish Christianity Reconsidered, pp. 101-102, 115) Ovadyah (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A very favorable review of Eisenman's (2006) New Testament Code is given by Robert M. Price here. He states, "And the first achievement of The New Testament Code hard won through this methodology, is the realization that the Dead Sea Scrolls stem from the mid to late first century CE (equivocal Carbon dating results no longer even being relevant), and that they represent the sectarian baptizing Schwärmerei known variously as the Essenes, Zealots, Nasoreans, Masbotheans, Sabaeans--and Jewish Christians headed by James the Just." And he goes on to state, "Ironically, all these correspondences serve as collateral evidence for a much clearer basis for identifying early Christianity with the sect of the Scrolls. Have you ever read the truism that the Scrolls neglect to name their parent body? And yet their sect is again and again called both “the Poor” (Ebionim, Ebionites) and “the Way.” These, of course, are the earliest known self-designations of Christians, as Acts tells us, long before they were called “Christians”--by outsiders. The refusal to recognize the identity of the nomenclature, and therefore of the groups behind them, is astonishing and attests a simple unwillingness to factor the Scrolls into Christian Origins on such an integral level.", and he again restates Eisenman's main conjecture, "Eisenman’s broadest goal is to show how the Greek gospels are products of a Paulinized, Hellenized, completely non-Jewish retrofitting of the tradition. The underlying reality must be speculatively pieced together by comparisons between gospel materials and apparently related texts from the Mishnah and Talmud, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, and Ebionite sources." And finally, "As much as some might wish it otherwise, we can now never turn back from his revelations, great and small, any more than we dare retreat from the ground gained by Strauss, Baur, and Bultmann. Indeed, it is among the ranks of these scholarly titans that we must now enroll Robert Eisenman." I agree completely. Ovadyah (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A single favorable review is, of course, not in and of itself grounds to say that the material reviewed qualifies per WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. It should also be noted that Price himself is one of the clearest advocates of "alternative views of earlier Christianity," and that, unfortunately, makes it not unreasonable to think that such a favorable review might not contain a few pats on his own back. While a single review is interesting, I don't think anyone has ever said it is sufficient for material to necessarily be included in a main article. If such single favorable indications of reception were sufficient, each and every source listed at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#Sources should at least be considered to receive the same weight in the article, and I believe that to clearly not be the case. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Arguments against

His assertion that James and others are the Ebionites is contradicted by just about all other reliable sources, and his statements are not such that they have apparently drawn much if any attention from anyone else. As such I believe that there are serious issues regarding WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT regarding including it at all. There are any number of other theories about the Ebionites, and there is, so far as I can tell, no way to have this one article provide information on all of them and still make any sort of coherent sense. It is for such reasons that FRINGE and WEIGHT guidelines exist. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree, this is a wild statement unsupported by evidence from any of the very few sources we have on the Ebionites. Far from agreeing, the consensus view is that the Ebionites are a later schismatic group and not identical to the early Jerusalem church. • Astynax ^talk 19:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The consensus view in history seldom changes rapidly (if it changes much at all) over time. Gibbon's Decline and Fall may be some 230 years old, but has stood up in the main due to his rigorous use of original sources (and is even today RS on Wiki as well as in scholarly papers). In the absence of any fresh epigraphic or archaeological primary source material, established consensus doesn't just vanish when a revisionist or popularized interpretation appears. When new claims do not have an irreproachable basis in ancient sources, we don't find them sticking around very long or having much of any affect on consensus. That seems to be happening with some of this material. It is interesting; it draws renewed attention to the subject and the careers of those who espouse it, but it hasn't changed the widely held view of the Ebionites and should not form the basis for claims in this article. That a consensus has been around a long time does not argue for the position that current writers have created or represent a new consensus. It may, in fact, prove to be evidence for the contrary (that the older consensus survived because it was more firmly based in the sources). Time will tell and perhaps Tabor and Eisenman will eventually form a notable school of interpretation, but they have yet to attract much support. • Astynax ^talk 03:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• One way consensus changes is with new material, and the Nag Hammadi library and Dead Sea scrolls have appeared on the scene more recently than 230 years ago. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• However, in the case of the Ebionites, no such new primary source material (either archaeological or epigraphic) has come to light. • Astynax ^talk 20:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• The authors of the Dead Sea scrolls refer to themselves as The Poor. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• There are very many unrelated references to "the poor", and only a couple of unambiguous connections in later sources. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain no Christian references, ergo, the writers of these were not the group under discussion here, and it is an unwarranted leap of logic to connect them. • Astynax ^talk 20:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• That logic is both fallacious and circular; no matter - the connection has been made by a secondary source - a source that has been removed from the article and should be restored. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• THe above argument is complete nonsense. The fact that there are two references in the Dead Sea Scrolls to "Ebionites" is true, but it is a completely irrational and unjustifiable violation of WP:SYNTH to say that each and every usage of the term must, inherently, be to the Christian groups that use the name. I also note that at least one source on the subject, Marcel Simon, says that there may well have been "Ebionite" branches of every then-extant Jewish group, and that Skarsaune says the use of the term may not have started with the Dead Sea Scrolls. While I agree with Nishidani and others that the Skarsaune material should be included, I can see absolutely no way in accord with policy to say that the Dead Sea Scrolls usage of "the poor" must refer to the Ebionites mentioned by the early church fathers, and that such an unfounded equation of the two is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH based only on the use of what seems to have been a fairly common word. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Since we are all experienced editors I am at a loss to understand why such basic misunderstandings still exist. It's not synthesis if the sources say it. How many times must this be repeated??? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Probably as many times as it has to be pointed out that there are a rather large number of sources which say a rather large variety of things regarding this topic, some of which clearly disagree with each other, that specific quotes, where possible, are requested, and that there are serious issues regarding WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT regarding a lot of this content. I myself don't see the secondary source which has been removed, and the page's edit history is of such length that finding it could be problematic. Please provide a link for the specific source used, and, if possible, provide some sort of case that its use would be in accord with WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• That secondary sources express a diversity of opinions is irrelevant, and in no way makes their speculation synthesis. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Here I have two specific questions for Jayjg. First, it seems to me that there is a contention in the statements of others that the existing guidelines for content should not be followed in this case. As I remember from reviewing those guidelines, they are to be followed with only occasional exceptions. Those exceptions would apparently be based on a consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS to not adhere to those guidelines in that particular case. I see no evidence that there is anything like a consensus to not adhere to the content guidelines in this particular instance. I would ask Jayjg, at his discretion, to perhaps create a separate section of this page in which the individuals who choose to comment could indicate whether they believe there is sufficient cause to not adhere to guidelines in this particular case.

Also, I think it makes sense to perhaps add separate sections to the page for the various encyclopedic sources out there which reference the Ebionites, as per the sections above. I do, however, question whether it is necessarily the best way to use the space on this page to reproduce verbatim quotations from other sources, particularly as those sources are also available already elsewhere. In those specific instances, it seems to me to be a better use of the space on this already lengthy page to just include a short link to the complete verbatim quotations, which would take up less space in memory. I would welcome your responses to these two points. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

1. I haven't seen any statements by editors here that "existing guidelines for content should not be followed in this case". In any event, we should try to adhere to the guidelines.
2. We have no shortage of space here, and I think it's best to be explicit about exactly which words from the sources are being used or are in contention. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The page is at 188kB as is. On at least some viewers, I have been told that a page of that length might already be problematically long, and it was on that basis that I made the proposal. And, FWIW, I was not necessarily indicating that the discussion would not itself indicate what material in the source was being actively considered for use as a reference in the relevant content. However, I do think that the existing length of the page, one way or another, may well be problematic already, and that exacerbating that problem might be counterproductive. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Jayjg is asking you to show specific sources that relate to the sentence in the article we are currently discussing, not a page full of sources containing every statement that was ever made about the Ebionites. Ovadyah (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

John, I've archived older material from the page to help with the page size issue. Ovadyah, you are correct that we are looking for sources that specifically discuss the issue of James as successor in leadership of the Jerusalem Church (and Ebionite beliefs about that), and sources connecting the Jerusalem Church with the Ebionites - these are the only issues currently under mediation, since it is this subject which is most contentious. I encourage all editors here to bring additional specifically relevant sources to this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Further request for clarification: I would point out that there several additional points of contention, although acknowledging that perhaps the above points are the most contentious. Is it anticipated that those other points would be addressed by the mediation at some point in the future, or are you perhaps anticipating conclusion of mediation upon resolution of this issue, or something else? I believe there are several other points of significant dispute, such as the degree to which the material contained in the primary sources should be discussed in the article, article structure, matters of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, etc., and I am curious as to whether it is anticipated that those points would be addressed in the mediation at some point in the future. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Once we successfully conclude the mediation on the points I've mentioned above, I'd be happy to continue mediating other issues. However, I believe that other issues will prove less contentious once these are settled. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

One question which involves, to some degree, OR. There are at least a few sources, I think including the Columbia Online Encyclopedia, which question whether James was even one of the followers of Jesus, let alone one of the apostles, prior to the death and (presumptive) resurrection or whatever. It would be rather strange if someone who may not have even been a follower of Jesus were elevated to the head of an organization he may not have belonged to prior to the death of its founder. Would such information be relevant for inclusion at this point or not? John Carter (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The second point does not seem to me to vitiate the first - that is, it is not impossible that James was not a member of the church before Jesus' death, but was elevated to its leadership following it. In any event, it would be a bit too much OR to question the claim that James led the church based on the view that he was not a member before Jesus' death. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of raising the point is more or less specifically about the question that James became the leader immediately after the death of Jesus. It would be very, very unusual if someone were to be made the head of an organization immediately after joining it. And at least one source for the material is the New Catholic Encyclopedia article on James the Less, which has two paragraphs of the six about how James the Less is identified by Catholics and some others with James the Just, and then devotes the entirety of the third paragraph to the more recent opinion, which has evidently been rather widely taken up in some of the "Third Wave", slightly revisionist, theories, that James the Just was not one of the apostles, that one extant biblical quote has the family of Jesus questioning his status after the 12 apostles were selected, and, basically, makes it rather clear that there is substantive academic question regarding James the Just's being a proto-Christian (whatever you want to call them) prior to the crucifixion. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there are all manner of theories about James. But does the source mention the Ebionites? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mediator's comments

Eisenman meets the basic requirements of WP:RS, and clearly states that James was the leader of the Ebionites, and they considered him to be their leader. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

But which "Ebionites"? Eisenman attempts to make a case that the original Jerusalem Church went under the epithet "the poor", however Eisenman does not consider the later group that bears that name (the subject of this article) to be synonymous with the initial movement under James:

• "Seen in this way, Jewish or Palestinian Christians (whatever might be meant by such designations), James' Jerusalem Church or Jerusalem Community, succeeded by Ebionites, Essenes, Zealots, and the group responsible for the documents found at Qumran – all can be thought of as opposed to the reigning Herodian Establishment and looked on as the various constituents of the Opposition Alliance."
• "Though it is possible to take it simply in its adjectival sense of being Poor and nothing more, there can be little doubt that 'the Poor' was the name for James' Comunity in Jerusalem or that the Community descended from it in the East in the next two-three centuries, the Ebionites" ... "It is the Community of these Ebionites, particularly in the East, that held the name of James in such reverence, claiming descent from his Movement, whether direct or indirect, in first-century Palestine."

As for James being the leader of the later group, Eisenman only makes the case that the name "James" was held by ..."the Ebionites in absolute awe." (Eisenman. 1998. James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls). Moreover, Eisenman is delving into some highly fringy speculation, only some of which concerns the ebionim (viz. the notion that the Essenes also descended from James). • Astynax ^talk 18:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Jeffrey Bütz‎, The Secret Legacy of Jesus, ISBN 978-159477307-5, pp. 100, 101, 120, 124, 137

Relevant quote(s)

• "What is most revealing here is that Peter bowed to James's wishes, another piece of evidence that James, rather than Peter, was the highest authority in the Jerusalem Chuch", pg 100
• "... after Jesus's crucifixion, with James succeeding to the leadership of the community...", pg 101
• "...it is beyond question that the succession of the leadership of the Nazarene community stayed with Jesus's family, perhaps even into the mid-second century...", pg 120
• "In fact, the Ebionites and the Nazarenes are one and the same." pg 124
• "Following the devastation of the Jewish War, the Nazarenes took refuge in Pella, a community in exile, where they lay in anxious wait with their fellow Jews. From this point on it is preferable to call them the Ebionites. There was no clear demarcation or formal transition from Nazarene to Ebionite; there was no sudden change of theology or Christology.", pg 137
• "While the writings of later church fathers speak of Nazarenes and Ebionites as if they were different Jewish Christian groups, they are mistaken in that assessment. The Nazarenes and the Ebionites were one and the same group, but for clarity we will refer to the pre-70 group in Jerusalem as Nazarenes, and the post-70 group in Pella and elsewhere as Ebionite.", pg 137

Arguments for

• Butz makes explicit a lot of statements that are implicit in other sources. He is an "adjunct professor of Philosophy and World Religions at Pennsylvania State University since 2002". See reviews of his book here:[1]. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Arguments against

• He almost certainly meets the minimum standards of reliable sources as per WP:RS. The question is whether he meets the standards of being a reliable source for this particular article, and if he does, the amount of weight his opinions should be given. I note that once again in his above comments Michael seems to be relying exclusively upon the reviews of the book that the author himself includes in his own website, as he had previously done regarding Tabor's book and the reviews of it on Tabor's own personal website. Unfortunately, I think it is kind of obvious that authors will be more than likely to include only the neutral and positive reviews of their work in their own self-published site on the book. That being the case I would like to see the specific positive reviews of the book. As I believe I have already indicated on this page, in the paragraph currently at the bottom of this page, the major review of the book in Booklist gives a "recommendation" for the book, but falls short of actually saying anything good about the content of the book, saying instead, basically, just that a book on James is welcome. He does make several statements in the above quotations which seem to be fairly clearly revisionist history, based, perhaps, just on his opinion that the original sources which made the statements with which he disagreed are wrong. This includes his identification of the Nazoreans and Ebionites. Unfortunately, I have yet to see that any attempts at revisionist history based evidently almost exclusively on whether such revisions support the points the author chooses to make have received any substantial credit in the general academic community. A case in point is the G. Koch PhD paper questioning Epiphanius. While the source is itself discussed in some independent reference sources, the implications of changes which might be made in existing opinion are not. This is, basically, I think, reasonable, as in general such intimation of unreliability of previously accepted sources would often lead to a wide variety of changes, not just those supported by the individual author. I also note that there is no clear indication in the quotations as to how quickly James succeeded as the leader of the Jerusalem church. Considering that it is basically universally acknowledged that James did become the leader of the Jerusalem Church at some point, that point is, basically, I think the only really contested point regarding that matter. On that basis, it serves as a poor source regarding that matter - we already have numerous, more broadly accepted, sources on the matter which say James assumed leader of the Jerusalem church at some point after the death of Jesus. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledging the points below by the mediator, I still question on what basis Butz makes the assertions of identity. So far as I can tell, the assertion that the Ebionites and the Nazoreans are identical is not one that had received much, if any, earlier support. I am aware of nothing in the recent research, including the Koch paper (which I acknowledge having not read). Based on that, I very seriously question whether the source meets WP:FRINGE, and on that basis question if it merits any weight in this particular article as per WP:WEIGHT. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you have read Butz the basis of the identification should be clear, surely? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I read the book about a year ago. Believe it or not, I have forgotten a lot in the intervening time. Surely anyone would be able to understand that most humans do not have a photographic memory. Also, I believe that it would be at best helpful, and probably in the interests of the project, if those who sought to include the material actually provided the reasoning behind their actions. Having forgotten some of the material in the interim, and taking into account that others have not yet read the book, which is I believe less broadly owned than others in any event, I think it would be reasonable if those who sought to include the material acted in accord with WP:BURDEN and WP:IDHT, which I acknowledge may be somewhat optional in mediation, but still a good idea to follow, and pointed out the specific evidence in the book which the author points to in supporting this rather unusual conclusion. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Butz makes the identification on the similarities in beliefs between the "two" groups. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Which "two" groups, please - the Nazoreans and Ebionites? If Butz himself indicates that they are separate groups, then is it not reasonable to say that even Butz seems to acknowledge that they are, in some way, separate? Granted, that "separation" would be on the basis of their being counted as separate by the original sources, but it would still be an acknowledgement of that distinction. Also, I believe that the "revisionist history" point would still apply here. Individual scholars, particularly those with an eye to sales of their works, have made a number of statements of revisionist history over the years. Abraham Lincoln and Jesus, among others, have both been alleged to have been gay/bisexual in individual works, for instance. That does not mean that those allegations and individual scholars' opinions are necessarily of such importance that they deserve mention in the main article on the topic. Some indication that the theory has broader support than simply Butz' book would be very helpful in determining whether the material should be included in the Ebionites article, and how much, if any, weight and space to give it. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

See the Butz quotations for details of which "two" groups, which Butz explicitly says are not separate. (And please do not make unfounded libellous claims about authors' motives.) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And that statement of Butz is, so far as I have seen, original to him. The fact that he states this opinion of his as fact does not, necessarily, make it so. And I find the suggestion about making unfounded libelous claims about motives of authors amusing, considering the history of making unfounded libelous claims of sockpuppetry, which probably violate policy, made by in this instance other editors against other editors. The review I have already cited made statements that Butz was acting in the tradition of recent blockbusters and bestsellers and using the same sort of writing style, which to my eyes rather clearly implies that the author of that review thought there might be financial considerations in Butz' doing so, so I don't think my going the one extra step is necessarily out of line. John Carter (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Mediator's comments

I've added this new source, per a request on my Talk: page. Please discuss, and please feel free to propose other sources on my Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bütz‎ meets the basic requirements of WP:RS, and clearly states James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church after Jesus, and that the Jerusalem Church, Nazarenes, and Ebionites are the same. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two variations of opinion among scholars who see a probable connection between the Jerusalem Church and the later Ebionites (A1. and A2.) and an opposing view (B.) that sees a probable connection between the Jerusalem Church and the later Nazoraeans, while the Ebionites are seen as a later offshoot. These can be represented as follows:

Scholars believe that James the Just was the leader of the Jerusalem Church:

A1.from the earliest times and there is a probable connection to the later Ebionites. (Sources = Bernheim, Butz, Eisenman (1997, 2006), Painter, Tabor)

A2.from the 40s to the 60s and there is a probable connection to the later Ebionites. (Sources = Goulder, Ludemann)

B.from the 40s to the 60s and there is a probable connection to the later Nazoraeans, while the Ebionites were a later offshoot. (Sources = Bauckham, Pritz)

In addition, there may be other, currently unsourced, views as follows:

Scholars believe that James the Just was the leader of the Jerusalem Church:

C. and there is a probable connection to the later Great Church of Rome?, while the Ebionites were a later offshoot. (Sources = ???)

Scholars believe that Peter?, or Paul? (or ???) was the leader of the Jerusalem Church:

D. and there is a probable connection to the later Great Church of Rome?, while the Ebionites were a later offshoot. (Sources = ???)

I copied the sources supporting the current content (A1 and A2) to the section on Butz and added Butz as a source. I also listed alternative points of view supported by actual (B.) or hypothetical (C. and D.) reliable sources. Currently, there are no reliable sources supporting the hypothetical content for C. and D. Ovadyah (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Keith Augustus Burton, The Blessings of Africa: The Bible and African Christianity, Intervarsity Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-8308-2762-6

Relevant quote(s)

• "Some Jewish Christians also revered the surviving relatives of Jesus who collectively were known as the desposyni ("belonging to the master"). For the Ebionites, the desposyni included the relatives of Mary and Joseph, and the descendants of Jesus' sisters and brothers. Those who accepted Jesus as the actual Son of God only included the relatives of Mary and his siblings, whom they considered his half brothers and sisters. As a result of the elevation of the desposyni, the Ebionites reckoned the apostolic succession through James as opposed to Peter, support for which they gleaned from Galations 2:9 and Acts 15:13-21. Each patriarch in the early communities was a desposynos who always bore the name of one of Jesus' brothers. (pp.116,117}}

Arguments for

• Burton explicitly advocates a connection from James to the Ebionites through an apostolic succession of the relatives of Jesus, and he further argues that the Ebionites viewed themselves as the inheritors of this succession from James as opposed to Peter. Ovadyah (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Burton's arguments for a dynastic succession of the relatives of Jesus from James to the Ebionites are consistent with the views of Bernheim, Eisenman (2006), and Tabor. Ovadyah (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Dynastic succession" (i.e., Davidic succession) is not the same as "apostolic succession". The terms should not be used in any way which implies that they are synonymous. No one has ever (of whom I am aware) argued that Peter was regarded as a dynastic/Davidic successor. • Astynax ^talk 20:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No one to my knowledge has "argued that Peter was regarded as a dynastic/Davidic successor". Burton is not doing that in the above quote, nor did I imply it. He is saying the Ebionites trace their origins back to James rather than Peter. Ovadyah (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Arguments against

• It would be useful to know exactly what evidence these statements are based on. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Having now found the book online, the author doesn't cite any sources for that particular paragraph. He does cite Eisenman for the statement in the preceding paragraph that the Ebionites were in existence as late as the 4th century, and Eusebius in the following paragraph for a passage regarding their rejection of Paul's writings (which seems oddly contradictory to the statement in the intervening, quoted paragraph that their support for apostolic succesion through James was based on Galatians 2:9 and Acts 15:13–21). • Astynax ^talk 17:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• I had tried to locate this book earlier. It did not appear in a Google Books search, and I could not locate a copy in a library. The only mention of desposyni in early sources which I can recall are a couple of mentions in Historia Ecclesiae in which Eusebius mentions a line of Davidic descent (not descendants of Jesus). Seems a leap to make from that a line of apostolic descent, but without any access to the book I'm at a loss as to what other material was used to construct that statement, or to determine whether the author supports the sentence in question—i.e., that the Ebionites constituted the Jerusalem church, regarding James the Just as their leader. • Astynax ^talk 17:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've now gone through the section in Burton, and nowhere does he "argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death rather than Peter". He does speculate (citing Eisenman and using the qualifier "apparently") that they may have been in existence even prior to Jerusalem's 70 CE destruction, but that does not rise to the level of anything like support of the statement made by the sentence in question. • Astynax ^talk 21:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember, this reference is not currently supporting the sentence we are discussing. I am asking the participants to consider adding it in support of the sentence and, more generally, its use as a reliable source in the article. Ovadyah (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• I thought that what the article desperately needed was sourcing based on scholars with a competence in ancient history, religion, and semitic culture and languages, who have a peer-reviewed record for research into primary sources. This is a basic necessity here, for the simple reason that the hermeneutic problems posed by primary sources on the Ebionites are immense, and scholars on the cusp of research often disagree on details. The use of vagrant secondary sources, like Butz and Burton, neither of whom have any grounding in the technical fields of independent historical research, is unacceptable. What they have reflects their partiality for the minority interpretations of Eisenman and Tabor. The subject must be written according to the best mainstream sources, with due weight given to E&T and co., certainly. But to add popular works by mainly people with a pastoral mission does the encyclopedia no credit. The only function Butz and Burton would have here is to lend volume to a minority view, which is already overrepresented. Their use here would be purely instrumental, not heuristic. They throw no independent light on the issues that scholars debate.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Butz and Burton are less hard-core academics than some of the others mentioned here. However, Tabor's being a full professor and a department head didn't carry any weight with you either, nor did Eisenman's position as a visiting scholar at Oxford since 1997. No one seems to mind, however, that Bauckham is more of a theologian than a scholar, because he is pushing the "right" (as in right-belief) point of view. Ovadyah (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh? Richard Bauckham is 'more a theologian than a scholar?' Look, he was Professor of New Testament Studies at St Andrews. Getting a job at St.Andrews is as competitive a task as you get. Unless you have the linguistic, theoretical and hermeneutic gifts I'm speaking about you don't get a leg in. To compare his output, multidisciplined breadth of learning in this field to Butz and Burton is patently wrong-footed. I think it generally agreed that we are dealing with a minority view, developed by several scholars. There is no need to try and wedge in books written by pastors, preachers, or populists that feed off this minority techical literature. It's bad enough in the mainstream field, where most books are written by qualified scholars with, however, a sectarian belief system at their backs. Tabor to Eisenman is like Dan Brown to Umberto Eco, unreadable from the second paragraph. But he does barely scrape in for a minority position RS probably.Nishidani (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A minority view, of course, because Jewish-Christians are out-numbered by the other Christians, and academia reflects this global ratio. That's the only reason, and we should stop pretending otherwise. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael, your statement above clearly seems to indicate that the majority of the potential editors for this topic cannot act in accord with wikipedia guidelines. I believe WP:AGF and WP:TRUTH are relevant here. I do not believe any single editor should be allowed to basically say all people who do not share his own individual religious perspectives must necessarily be counted as incapable of adhering to WP:POV. And, perhaps, if the relevant academic sources, taken as a whole, make it clear that a given position is fringe as per WP:FRINGE, regardless of religious perspective, then the last guideline probably should be applied. There are any number of cases where individuals of a specific religious tradition have religious beliefs which qualify as WP:FRINGE, particularly smaller religious groups like the Raelians who believe that there were, historically, not only all the skin colors we now know of, but also historically green- and purple-skinned people. Rael knows these people exist, having had sex with women of those skin colors as well all the existing skin colors. I don't see how the relevant ethnological articles have been changed to reflect those minority views of a religious nature which have no clear support in the academic community. The fact that there might be some religious groups which believe something does not, in and of itself, necessarily mean that the content has to be adjusted to take them into account. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Jewish-Christians are outnumbered by Christians and Jews, properly speaking. Academia is not the sounding box of sectarian psephology, or a numbers racket. Atheist scholars may well lament, as did Slim Virgin recently, in trying to reform some bias in related articles, that they are disproportionately underrepresented. Eisenman makes no pretence of hiding his 'ideological' values, nor does Tabor: both come from different cultural backgrounds. Both have, implicitly and explicitly, a brief to argue, a cause to sustain. It is more apparent than what might appear from the crypto-objectivism of many scholars committed to a 'Christian' or 'Judaic' reading. Theories however, volente o nolente, are not assessed in terms of political calculations, but on the evidence, and it is no pretence to demand of editors that they withhold their personal beliefs (or lack of them) in order to cull the best contemporary scholarship, and not exploit populist texts by men who have some qualifications as preachers or teachers, but none to engage creatively with the primary texts. What Butz and Burton say has no value as an informed judgement based on deep critical understanding of the field. It is personal and promotional (as in good part is Tabor's work). I've consistently argued for Eisenman's presence here, against John Carter's scepticism, because he fits all criteria for WP:RS, background, training, hermeneutic originality etc. By the same measure, I pose my objections to attempts to scrape the barrel, which is what the suggested induction of these writers amounts to. Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not interested in anyone's POV or "informed judgement based on deep critical understanding of the field". Just go with the sources and represent all notable, RS views. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Michael, I believe that WP:V, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE are also relevant. Granted, those matters have yet to be addressed here yet, but I have yet to see how any specific religious groups of any sort have specifically endorsed in verifiable sources that they believe the statements in the sources being discussed (presumably Eisenman and Tabor). Personally, I would welcome seeing such sources being produced so that the citations to those specific sources asserting that these topics are a matter of religious belief for the relevant groups. But, without those sources clearly and explicitly indicating that the statements being discussed are specifically endorsed by religious groups, all we can apply are the relevant policies and guidelines, including the three I mention in the beginning of this comment. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia is interested in editors who come to articles to push a POV. The antidote is to counter their frequent recourse to poor, fringe or minority sources, on which they prop their case, by giving minority views the weight due to them, no more, without allowing, as has occurred in this article, the minority view to be written as the majority perspective. One does that by going with sources written by peer-reviewed scholars who have an 'informed judgement based on deep critical understanding of the field,' something neither you, Bütz, Burton, or myself have.Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Since none of us have an 'informed judgement based on deep critical understanding of the field' we can't judge which scholars possess it either. That's the wiki-way. Claims of fringeness and mainstream are a just a reflection of an editor's or academic's religious POV. Some people alter their religious POV to fit the facts, but not very often. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

'Claims of fringeness and mainstream are a just a reflection of an editor's or academic's religious POV.' I think you would do well to examine wiki doctrine on WP:RS. Editors do not determine what is fringe. There are guidelines with specific indications as to how this may be determined. It's basic policy, Michael. Wikipedia demands of editors that they understand the distinction you have just confused as arbitrary, subjective and irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nish, you misunderstand. Read WP:FRINGE and you'll see that it is geared to deal mostly with scientific or technical topics (or any subject that is capable of empirical validation). Religious related topics are not so easily amenable to such analysis, because they include non-empirical beliefs, and it is the religious angle that is the problem here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I believe that it is, perhaps once again, you who misunderstand, conciously or unconciously. This is, primarily, an article about a group which does not currently exist. As such, it is primarily a historical article. There is clear evidence that some individuals may be attempting to include information in the article which supports their own, religiously biased, opinions on the subject, specifically attempts at Ebionite "restoration". However, none of those groups are themselves notable as per WP:N, nor have I yet seen any independently published sources which give any particular weight to the restorations in articles about the historical Ebionites, nor are any of those groups themselves particularly notable, which calls into very serious question how much weight as per WP:WEIGHT such content should be given. While I acknowledge that some religious articles, like Baptism, are very difficult to assemble, because of the numerous variations on that theme and the question as to how much weight to give the reasoning behind the variations and the variations themselves, there is no clear evidence per WP:V and WP:N that problems of that type apply here. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Since my point was independent of the existence of modern Ebionites I can only conclude that you have misunderstood me. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael, it is rather clear from your above comment that you are not only misunderstanding me, but also drawing conclusions on my comments based on your own opinions. At no time have I ever questioned the existence of the Ebionites, or, for that matter, of neo-Ebionites. Given the amount of activity the latter have with this article, it would honestly be impossible to deny their existence. If it is possible for you to acknowledge that the neo-Ebionites are not inherently identical to the Ebionites of history, that might be helpful. Also, I do believe that we are, to an extent, obligated to follow, to some degree, the amount of weight given the neo-Ebionites in other sources in this article. That would include both weight about their beliefs about the historical Ebionites, and the amount of content to be given them in general in this article. Based on what I have seen, the neo-Ebionites have been rarely, if ever, mentioned in connection with the Evionites, or, for that matter, rarely mentioned at all in independent reliable sources. And I believe it would be a clear violation of WP:SYNTH to say that the Ebionites and the self-described neo-Ebionites are similar, particular without independent reliable sources which explicitly make such statements. And WP:NAME I think addresses the matter of what the subject of this article is. Given that there are few if any independent sources which even mention the neo-Ebionites, I have to say that WP:NAME makes it clear that the historic Ebionites are the clear topic of this article. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a productive discussion, nor are similar recent article talk page discussions about why mediation is a useless waste of time. Ovadyah (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel it proper to drop a note because the further addition of patently bad sources here in mediation is a sign that some editors do not get it. Articles are not written well by hauling in everything that might support one's POV. They are written by strict adherence to standards for quality. None of these authors meet those standards, and it is pointless to mediate on non-starters. This is a serious page which can cull a huge amount of informed commentary from readily available scholarly sources, and yet we are discussing people who are never read by serious scholars. Why? Because what they say happens to fit a POV. It's obvious, wasn't noted, and therefore I register the fact, and withdraw.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with bringing up the qualifications of sources that are specific to the article content we are discussing, but general discussions about establishing the criterion for sources that should be allowed into the article can take place elsewhere. Ovadyah (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Ovadyah. But you are, or three of you mainly, discussing what sources can be used for that page here, in a discussion basically between 3 editors. As I said on the page, if this means that a majority vote of 2/1 locks all these dubious or low quality fringe sources (Eisenman and Tabor excepted) into the actual page (and it's inevitable since there is a 'natural' majority for the minority perspective), then whatever wiki rules and a different, much larger constituency of editors in the future might determine about WP:RS, WP:Undue, WP:Fringe or WP:Minority there will run up against the wall of what is determined here in a 2/1 vote. That would mean effectively a de facto WP:OWN situation for editors who underwrite the minority perspective. I'm no expert on these practical matters (I avoid them like the plague as a distraction from actually editing), but the possibility is legitimate and I hope this potential problem is ironed out. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I will let Jayjg respond more fully to this one. This reasoning can be used to argue that all mediation is pointless, since CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE five minutes after mediation is closed by other editors lurking about the article that refuse to participate in mediation for whatever reason. Ovadyah (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg obviously has no obligation to respond to my query since I am not a party to the mediation. I am simply noting that Michael did not disavow the apparent implication of his remarks on that page, which I pointed out, as did in ictu oculi, suggest he at least believes that what is determined in terms of sources and content in this mediation will have authority on that page, and provide a sanction for him to revert what editors not a party to the mediation may add there. The exchange where Michael says anything some of us have done on the Ebionite page will be reverted as soon as mediation is over here is here and here. I replied here and here. I do not believe mediation is pointless, of course. It was suggested by Arbcom itself, and is a normal procedure. I simply wonder whether or not the implication Michael seems to be drawing about the function of this 2/1 mediation, i.e., that it will license him or others to revert outside editors if they do not underwrite the conclusions of this process, is valid or not.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

These are important points that should be discussed somewhere, particularly the deletion of disputed article content before it has a chance to get to mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

True, but since the whole structure and content of the article is open to serious challenge, (and I gave just a snippet analysis illustrating some of the simplest errors in the section after the lead recently) your point would entail perpetual mediation, i.e., several months, perhaps a year, while all editing was effectively suspended. But I've said my piece. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Mediator's comments

I've added this new source, per a request on my Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Doing another check, I see that my failure to locate a copy is that the ISBN is invalid (bad checksum). It should be ISBN 9780830827626 instead. • Astynax ^talk 17:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)