Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Gospel of the Ebionites. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Review by Nishidani
I apologize to Ignocrates for this tardy appearance, despite the fact that the problem was a breakdown in my telephone system, serious enough to require, after 5 days of no internet connection, a thorough rewiriting of the house. Don't know if these notes I'll be making are useful at this point (memory told me I had to get this done by the 17th of July. I see I am wrong)
Lead
- conventional name (note needed: ‘The original title of this gospel is unknown’. Cameron 1982 p.103)
- believed to have been used =that may have been used (there is no scholarly consensus (‘belief) constituting a belief that (a) there was such a Gospel and (b) it was used by Ebionites.
- All that is known of the gospel consists of = all that remains of the gospel are
- The quotations were used as part of = The quotations were embedded in a . .
- Epiphanius of Salamis;=Epiphanius of Salamis, our only witness for this gospel.(Finley p.89)
- The text is =The surviving fragments derive from a gospel harmony
- It is believed to have been composed some time during the middle of the 2nd century in or around the region east of the Jordan River.[2] (note 2 Cameron 1982 p.104 does not say this. ‘Its provenance is probably Syria-Palestine, where the Ebionites were at home’ p.104). You may like to use another source if you are attached to the ‘east of the Jordan River’ phrasing’ i.e. ‘Epiphanius maintained that the Jewish-Christian group that used this Gospel was located in the region east of the Jordan River' (Bart Ehrman, Zlatko Pleše, Apocryphal Gospels:Texts and Translations Oxford University Press, 2011 p.295-6). But note that neither source identifies this as the area of its composition.
- Distinctive features include. A list requires (;) ‘the absence of the virgin birth and of a genealogy of Jesus; an Adoptionist Christology; the abolition of Jewish sacrifices by Jesus; and an advocacy of vegetarianism.’
- subject of scholarly investigation = intense scholarly investigation’ (intense is required because most things have attracted scholarly scrutiny).
(But I must have some dinner) Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have incorporated your suggested changes. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for vewy much for the beginning of the review, and I am asuming that this is just the beginning, as you seem to be implying that what you have suggested so far are just changes to the lead. We look forward to your further comments regarding the rest of the article as well. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time, Nishidani. I hope there are more comments to follow on improving the body. As far as I'm concerned, I have advanced the quality of the article to the point where those editors among us who love books and learning (e.g. User:Brianboulton, User:In ictu oculi, User:Llywrch, User:Nishidani, User:Tim riley) should be encouraged to collectively assume the editing responsibilities to further improve this article to a truly professional level. I view the promotion of the article to FA as the starting-point of that process. Ignocrates (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be getting round to the rest. Just have a backlog of things to fix. I think an informal team approach is what really required, as you say, for a field of articles that, for one reason or another, don't manage to get off their feet and stand up to scrutiny. What I particularly admire about the precedent you've set is that, now, at least in one of these fields, you've provided a benchmark. I've often been disappointed by my inability to touch this area of antiquity, down to the Khazars, without the guns of August beginning to fire off at every other edit. This teamwork, by people who agree only on format, RS, page structure, and don't have any other bone to chew but work for the morsel thrown their way when others dine at the neat repast prepared for them, worked splendidly at the SAQ article. I don't see why this can't happen in this area, of the religions of antiquity. John's worries about the content are, I think, too influenced by the past. John, look at it with fresh eyes. The content per se is not problematical in articles brought to this level of sophistication: for the simple reason that the highwater mark for sourcing means any editor can then jump in and challenge, revise and edit, altering emphases, challenging statements, as soon as she notes something wanting, or unbalanced. And the original drfting editor(s), having subscribed to very high, strict standards of evidence, will not oppose such proposals if the new evidence is strong, and academically grounded. This has been the fundamental crux in the past, and Ignocrates has striven intelligently and resolutely to rise to the occasion. We should be encouraging him. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- I find it nothing less than astounding that Ignocrates can say getting an article up to FA is only the "starting point in a process". In fact, if that editor had ever paid much, if any, attention to the FA process, that designation is only supposed to be given to articles that are already at a status where they are among the best we have. The problem here, ultimately, is the rather obvious incompetence to edit of one editor who has, so far as I can tell, declared by fiat that his views, rather than policies and guidelines, take priority. If I do not see twhat seems to me to be a reasonable attempt to actively address the legitimate concerns expressed on this talk page addressed within the next week, I shall submit the article for both FA and GA reconsideration. John Carter (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I decided not to wait, and have now nominated the article for FAR. I hope that this encourages editors to actually address concerns, and if it doesn't then, really, I can't see any reason for the article to continue to be regarded as FA quality. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- I find it nothing less than astounding that Ignocrates can say getting an article up to FA is only the "starting point in a process". In fact, if that editor had ever paid much, if any, attention to the FA process, that designation is only supposed to be given to articles that are already at a status where they are among the best we have. The problem here, ultimately, is the rather obvious incompetence to edit of one editor who has, so far as I can tell, declared by fiat that his views, rather than policies and guidelines, take priority. If I do not see twhat seems to me to be a reasonable attempt to actively address the legitimate concerns expressed on this talk page addressed within the next week, I shall submit the article for both FA and GA reconsideration. John Carter (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be getting round to the rest. Just have a backlog of things to fix. I think an informal team approach is what really required, as you say, for a field of articles that, for one reason or another, don't manage to get off their feet and stand up to scrutiny. What I particularly admire about the precedent you've set is that, now, at least in one of these fields, you've provided a benchmark. I've often been disappointed by my inability to touch this area of antiquity, down to the Khazars, without the guns of August beginning to fire off at every other edit. This teamwork, by people who agree only on format, RS, page structure, and don't have any other bone to chew but work for the morsel thrown their way when others dine at the neat repast prepared for them, worked splendidly at the SAQ article. I don't see why this can't happen in this area, of the religions of antiquity. John's worries about the content are, I think, too influenced by the past. John, look at it with fresh eyes. The content per se is not problematical in articles brought to this level of sophistication: for the simple reason that the highwater mark for sourcing means any editor can then jump in and challenge, revise and edit, altering emphases, challenging statements, as soon as she notes something wanting, or unbalanced. And the original drfting editor(s), having subscribed to very high, strict standards of evidence, will not oppose such proposals if the new evidence is strong, and academically grounded. This has been the fundamental crux in the past, and Ignocrates has striven intelligently and resolutely to rise to the occasion. We should be encouraging him. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Recent edits
First, I have added a citation needed tag for a statement which very seriously seems to my eyes to be at least passively POV pushing. I have also edited one statement here in a way which to my eyes much more seriously and informatively conveys the facts of the situation. The previous text, "Ephiphanius is believed...", seems to implicitly indicate that this is somehow both a matter of "belief" (which in the context of religious documents can and generally does imply religious belief) to "Modern scholarship believes..." which is both more neutral, more directly informative (by indicating exactly who believes it) and places what seems to me to be the appropriate weight to the assertion that this is an indpenndent academic opinion, which for our purposes gives it more weight. I am far from sure that similar problems might not exist elsewhere, and would very definitely appreciate having the rest of the article examined by independent editors to see if there are other similar examples of leading phrasing in the text as well, and adjust them for clarity. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have added the requested citation as well as quotations from Richard Bauckham in a note. Ignocrates (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Disputed tag
I have added a disputed tag to replace the removed citation needed template. The quote included in the second citation clearly uses the word "if", and that statement in that source both I think calls into question whether the material actually can be used to source this statement, but also, given that statement's being used by that source, can itself be used as at least an indicator, although probably not as pure "proof," that there is some real question in the academic world whether the existence of this document, and the accuracy of Epiphanius's claims about it, is a matter of question in the academic community. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, Bauckham uses the word "if" because the association of these texts with the Ebionites known to Irenaeus, which Bauckham assumes to be the case for his hypothesis of Ebionite origins, is disputed. The content of the article does not make any claims to proof; it says the GE is an important piece of information. Ignocrates (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- And that statement in the article is not really sourced by the evidence. And the article's statement that it is an important piece of information seems to be based on a statement which is itself seemingly not particularly certain that it is directly relevant. If you can provide other better sources which do not include such qualification, please support them. Otherwise, even if the author "assumes" something, well, it is hard not to see that the assumption he makes may not be really supported by others, and thus some sort of OR/SYNTH problem with the quotes being used to support statements that they themselves do not necessarily make persists. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Given the source citation, how would you propose to reword the sentence so that there is not "some sort of OR/SYNTH problem"? Ignocrates (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Find a source which clearly states what the article states - that's actually kinda basic and something most people would understand. Alternately, if you can't find such sources, again, basically, adjust the content to say what can be verified and not have OR/SYNTH problems relative to the sources. Duh. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Given the source citation, how would you propose to reword the sentence so that there is not "some sort of OR/SYNTH problem"? Ignocrates (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- And that statement in the article is not really sourced by the evidence. And the article's statement that it is an important piece of information seems to be based on a statement which is itself seemingly not particularly certain that it is directly relevant. If you can provide other better sources which do not include such qualification, please support them. Otherwise, even if the author "assumes" something, well, it is hard not to see that the assumption he makes may not be really supported by others, and thus some sort of OR/SYNTH problem with the quotes being used to support statements that they themselves do not necessarily make persists. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I revised the wording a bit to paraphrase the source more closely. I will ask Nishidani to review this for accuracy when he reviews the rest of the body of the article. Ignocrates (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Structural problem in first paras of lead
This is a copy/paste from the end of the first para of the lead and the start of the second: "he misidentified it as the "Hebrew" gospel, believing it to be a truncated and modified version of the Gospel of Matthew.[1] The quotations were embedded in a polemic to point out inconsistencies in the beliefs and practices of a Jewish Christian sect known as the Ebionites relative to Nicene orthodoxy.[n 3] The surviving fragments derive from a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, composed in Greek with various expansions and abridgments reflecting the theology of the writer."
The problem I see with this is that it offers two versions of the sources behind the GEb - our polemicist misidentified it as a truncated/modified Matthew, but modern scholars think it's in fact a gospel harmony of the Synoptics. But the two are separated by a sentence about where the fragments are found. Better to move "he misidentified it as the "Hebrew" gospel, believing it to be a truncated and modified version of the Gospel of Matthew" (or a rewritten version) down to the start of the 2nd para, so that we have sources together. ("Epiphanius identified it as .... but modern scholarship overwhelmingly agrees that the fragments derive..." - assuming that this is in fact an overwhelming agreement). Finally, can anyone suggest how I can get my hero to Angkor so he can meet with the kru boromey? PiCo (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- PiCo, I think the general idea was to consolidate all the Epiphanius material into one paragraph and the views of modern scholars into a second paragraph. You might want to check your previous suggestions for pre-FAC review at Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites/Archive 2#Suggestions. That would intentionally create two versions - the Gospel according to Epiphanius and the Gospel according to Modern Scholars, so to speak - to emphasize the contrast. I like it separated this way; however, if you want to tinker with the wording, please have at it. Btw, you are correct that there is an overwhelming consensus among modern scholars that the 7 fragments in Epiphanius' Panarion 30 are all we have of the GEbi. Ignocrates (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, can you nominate the GHeb article for WP:GAN? I don't think I can do it myself until FAR closes on this one. (However, we can be co-nominators.) Ignocrates (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- PiCo, I checked with an admin and I can go ahead and nominate it myself. However, I would prefer we do it together because you contributed as much to the article as I have. Btw, for a retired guy you seem pretty active. What gives? Ignocrates (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to co-nominate, but bear in mind that I'm not a biblical scholar and know roughly zilch about the subject - my contribution was to edit, not to research. Btw, why shouldn't retirement be the time for some new interests? Are you referring to my concern as to how to get someone to Angkor? He's going to go in a 1955 Peugeot driven by a serial killer, but don't worry, I got the protective spirits all lined up for him. (Meanwhile, in the real world, I'm trying to convince the manager of the local bookstore chain that I'd make the idea person for their Burmese operations, which would mean retirement would be replaced by income-generating activity). PiCo (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry about the biblical scholar part of it, I'll supply the bricks and you can make the pyramid. Btw, I meant retirement from Wikipedia, but the Burmese ops sounds pretty cool. Good luck with that opportunity! Ignocrates (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to co-nominate, but bear in mind that I'm not a biblical scholar and know roughly zilch about the subject - my contribution was to edit, not to research. Btw, why shouldn't retirement be the time for some new interests? Are you referring to my concern as to how to get someone to Angkor? He's going to go in a 1955 Peugeot driven by a serial killer, but don't worry, I got the protective spirits all lined up for him. (Meanwhile, in the real world, I'm trying to convince the manager of the local bookstore chain that I'd make the idea person for their Burmese operations, which would mean retirement would be replaced by income-generating activity). PiCo (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- PiCo, I checked with an admin and I can go ahead and nominate it myself. However, I would prefer we do it together because you contributed as much to the article as I have. Btw, for a retired guy you seem pretty active. What gives? Ignocrates (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, can you nominate the GHeb article for WP:GAN? I don't think I can do it myself until FAR closes on this one. (However, we can be co-nominators.) Ignocrates (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
A few general observations on this talk page
Having looked at this article for the first time and the talk page here (not the archives, there's only so much one can take at a time!) a few general observations. First the article is really excellent, I see many terrible articles on WP and quite a few in the field of religion, so the contributors to the article should be congratulated. I can see why it is a FA. I find John Carter's repeated assertions on this talk page that Ignocrates is a SPA and has some sort of emotional tie or possible religious conviction in association with the article's subject rather nasty. There is nothing wrong with editing WP solely on a subject you love and know a lot about, WP should welcome experts in all fields and the fact that it is a rather esoteric subject should not raise suspicion either. What matters is that editors are able to edit neutrally, whatever their opinions or beliefs, and I know that there are some WP editors who are able to do just that. Also the fact that this article does not follow the Anchor Bible Dictionary in every respect does not matter, there is no particular reason why it should. The Anchor Bible Dictionary is more than twenty years old now, one of the best things about WP is that it is easily updated with the latest information and scholarship. I do not see any policy or guideline that says "WP articles have to give the same weight to everything that old encyclopedias do." Smeat75 (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Neutrality tag
I have added an NPOV tag to the article on the basis of what seems to me to be an overt attempt at minimalization of the point of view of one academic, Boismard, whose material is both discussed at comparative length in at least one reference source, and cited as a source in two. Also, I honestly have to say that the attempted downplaying of the topic in the content, calling it "only speculation," seems to me to be utterly laughable. Can anyone point out to me much anything, other than a verbatim recitation of Epiphanius, which isn't "only speculation" about this topic. I beleive there is no reasonable cause for the removal of this tag until and unless material from academic sources of at least the same level of reliability and reputability as the two reference works I indicated above suggest/support this hypothesis be produced. Otherwise, removing the tag, or not giving it the same regard as the other "speculation" regarding this topic which is not individually pointed out to be "speculation" in the same way, would itself be rather clearly a violation of OR/SYNTH. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Boismard's published work is already cited in the article, both indirectly through the Anchor Bible Dictionary and directly using Boismard as a source. His conclusions are summarized in a note with a citation. If you are saying you have documented manuscript evidence for the existence of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew please share it. Meanwhile, its putative existence remains a scholarly speculation. I have updated the content to clarify that it remains a subject of scholarly debate. Ignocrates (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ignocrates, I am once again amazed that you can make such statements without apparently ever even reading the comments of others. I provided a direct quote from the article, in which it stated that Boismard's statements were "only speculation." That was a clearly prejudicial statement, and had no place in the article. At no point was I implying that I had any sort of evidence as you imply above, and I don't think any neutral, rational editor would assume I did. I very much question what seem to me to be ongoing efforts to throw in straw man arguments which only serve to distract from the points made, and very sincerely request them to stop. In any event, I believe at this point the tag is still reasonably placed, because I believe that, based on the reference sources, which are the closest approximation to our own goals for our own materials, the matter is not given the weight as per [{WP:WEIGHT]] it deserves. Also, I believe it to be not unreasonable that if individuals believe that this particulr point demands explicit statement that it is of "scholarly debate," then, honestly, each and every other point in the article which may also be the subject of scholarly debate be individually indicated as such as well. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- What specific wording do you propose for the inclusion of the Boismard material? Ignocrates (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I do not believe that it is necessarily required of me to propose specific phrasing for a proposal to be considered actionable, nor do I believe that the above comment directly or even indirectly acknowledges the question that, if such material is considered appropriate for one academic view included in the article, that it is not similarly appropriate for inclusion in the discussion of any or every other academic view included in the article which may at some point be questioned for lack of concrete evidence. Personally, I believe in this case that the best thing one editor might do is to perhaps allow others who do not have what some might consider prejudiced opinions on the topic to have some input. Please allow some other editors to comment as well. Although you have done a significant degree of contribution to the article, the tag at the top of each edit box I have ever added to says clearly "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions," and I believe that there may well be enough "everyone" else who have shown some interest in the article, other than yourself, who might be interested in offering their input as well. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- What specific wording do you propose for the inclusion of the Boismard material? Ignocrates (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ignocrates, I am once again amazed that you can make such statements without apparently ever even reading the comments of others. I provided a direct quote from the article, in which it stated that Boismard's statements were "only speculation." That was a clearly prejudicial statement, and had no place in the article. At no point was I implying that I had any sort of evidence as you imply above, and I don't think any neutral, rational editor would assume I did. I very much question what seem to me to be ongoing efforts to throw in straw man arguments which only serve to distract from the points made, and very sincerely request them to stop. In any event, I believe at this point the tag is still reasonably placed, because I believe that, based on the reference sources, which are the closest approximation to our own goals for our own materials, the matter is not given the weight as per [{WP:WEIGHT]] it deserves. Also, I believe it to be not unreasonable that if individuals believe that this particulr point demands explicit statement that it is of "scholarly debate," then, honestly, each and every other point in the article which may also be the subject of scholarly debate be individually indicated as such as well. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I have filed a case with the DRN WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Gospel of the Ebionites in an attempt to facilitate the resolution of this content dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have made comments there regarding why I believe this may be more of a behavior dispute. However, I still believe it not irrational for other editors who have already marked this page for their watchlist to comment on the current and proposed changes to the article. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
While we are awaiting a response from WP:DRN, I have asked User talk:In ictu oculi#Boismard for a WP:3O on the question of the proper WP:WEIGHT for the Boismard content. In ictu oculi is as close as we have to a resident expert on the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis and he is fluent in French. Ignocrates (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Sorry, nothing to hand. To be honest my main problem is with having editorial content in notes: Note "Boismard postulates that two different traditions underlie the Gospel of the Ebionites, a later, more developed, tradition in Greek, and a primitive Semitic tradition which he equates with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew mentioned by Epiphanius" rather than citations. There's no actual link to Évangile des Ébionites et problème synoptique 1966, no citation, cannot locate it in Google Books, so who knows whether it is the case or not. I wouldn't put much scholarly weight on anything Boismard said in 1966. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is a great help. The note is a paraphrase of the summary of Boismard's work on the Gospel of the Ebionites in the ABD encyclopedic article, which is in turn a (hopefully accurate) translation of Boismard's paper in French. His paper on the GEbi is cited in the Oxford Bible Dictionary (2005) and also cited by Klijn (1992), so it can't be written-off as fringe. However, I agree this has not received much scholarly weight at all (other than in the ABD article). That is why I subordinated Boismard's conjecture to a note. It's disturbing that you can't pull up the paper in Google Books. I will look into that. Ignocrates (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I found 6 citations with Google Scholar here, one of them being Klijn's 1992 book. The article in French is cited correctly, but I could not pull it up either. Ignocrates (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is a great help. The note is a paraphrase of the summary of Boismard's work on the Gospel of the Ebionites in the ABD encyclopedic article, which is in turn a (hopefully accurate) translation of Boismard's paper in French. His paper on the GEbi is cited in the Oxford Bible Dictionary (2005) and also cited by Klijn (1992), so it can't be written-off as fringe. However, I agree this has not received much scholarly weight at all (other than in the ABD article). That is why I subordinated Boismard's conjecture to a note. It's disturbing that you can't pull up the paper in Google Books. I will look into that. Ignocrates (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I expanded the ABD citation into a note and added Petersen's direct quotation, instead of summarizing it. I included Boismard's paper as a secondary citation, in case someone wants to track down the original paper in French. If someone else has a different idea, please discuss it here. Ignocrates (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- In reply to Ignocrates's request on my page (I'm sorry I haven'ìt had the time to work on these several pages given the heavy workload at Khazars), I was inclined to accept in ictu oculi's point - we should accept only the most recent work where possible, which Ignocrates generally has done - however the problem for me is that contemporary scholarship over the last few decades still keeps citing Boismard's work frequently (Wolf-Dietrich Köhler (1987);Rudolf Pesch (1989); Édouard Massaux, Arthur J. Bellinzoni (1990); Albertus Frederik Johannes Klijn (1992); Andreas Ennulat (1994);Simon Claude Mimouni (1998);David Neville (2002); Simon-Claude Mimouni (2004); Michael J. Kruger (2005);James Keith Elliott (2005); James A. Kelhoffer (2005);Oskar Skarsaune, Reidar Hvalvik (2007); J. V. M. Sturdy, Jonathan Knight(2007); Guido Baltes (2011) etc., to cite just book length technical studies which cite Boismard's work. This means that he is still regarded as relevant, and therefore, in some form or another, may be included, preferably through a specific secondary source that reliably excerpts his position. I think this has been done.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think we have a talk page consensus among three editors - myself, In ictu oculi, and Nishidani - to include Boismard as a source, but cautiously as a tiny minority view. That being the case, is it time to remove the npov tag and move forward? Ignocrates (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think one challenged minor source on a page is sufficient to raise NPOV issues warranting a tag. It is a small technical issue, easily resolved, and is being addressed. So, if that is the objection, then I think the NPOV tag can be removed, though, as always I would leave it there for a discretionary day or two (if it hasn't already been removed: no time to check!) Nishidani (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the numerous references to Boismard in the academic literature produced by Nishidani above very seriously calls into question the apparently unfounded assertion "I agree this has not received much scholarly weight at all" and think perhaps it might make sense if certain parties were to make an effort to actually consult the academic literature, as he has, before making such apparently unfounded assertions. I also very much agree that there is a very real problem with editorializing in the notes, and other potentially dubious behavior, and think that, in general, most if not all of them really could/should be incorporated into the text or perhaps be changed into citation-type notes which can and in this circumstance easily could incorporate quotations from the sources into the note itself. Unfortunately, on Thursday, my off day, an electrical fire pretty much screwed up connectivity, among other things, for a while, and I wasn't able to do as much as I would like. However, under the circumstances, I can't see any reservations about editors who do not have previously expressed positions which could very easily be taken as substantive cause for POV complaints, editors like Nishidani and In ictu oculi, for instance, to remove such tags, or even add more if they deem it appropriate. I regret to say that I have seen a bit of an effort to not deal with some concerns in the past, but that in general tagging seems to be an effective way to get them addressed, when other matters fail. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- And I think your refusal to offer specific suggestions for improvement of the article while ignoring the input of two WP:3Os and refusing to participate in WP:DRN are all evidence that you are nothing more than a tendentious tag-spammer. Your actions on this article are completely inappropriate and intended to provoke an edit war. Ignocrates (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - "ignoring the input of two WP:3Os" - just lukewarmly on that specific issue, overall I share some of the unease of John Carter about this, I have a twitch that something is off, and, sorry, Ignocrates, what John Carter says about your editing/commenting practices is more than fair. My main problem however is that this summer I don't have access to my own personal library, nor a decent university library, and I haven't studied this area in detail for more than 20 years. Sorry everybody. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is very frustrating to be expected to respond to "I have a twitch that something is off" because that is neither specific nor actionable. Since you don't have access to your library resources, and I do have access to a university library, tell me what you think is wrong and I will track down the sources for you. Ignocrates (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I realise that is indeed a frustrating comment, but honestly given that my name was invoked I couldn't not say anything, but also cannot just go on memory and impressions of study of 20 years ago and intermittent interest since. What can I say. I'm commenting now on overall impression of the friction above, not on the sources, overall I would like to see you get these articles to featured status and think it's a good work. You've also, mainly, been less supportive than before of the "fountainhead" and Papias related synthesis at Gospel of Matthew which seems to come up in the pasture annually like heracleum sphondylium (persistent common hogweed to British/Irish farmers). For this, mainly, thanks. The real problem with this is we really lack a decent pool of SBL-familiar scholarship in New Testament articles, I include myself in the lack. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support. Frankly, this article was a test case to see if any article in this sub-category could make it to FA-class and stay there. If not, I'm not going to waste my time and energy on improving any of the others. With respect to the Papias related content, I have not been opposed to your ends, only the means you have sometimes used to achieve them. Process matters to me. Ignocrates (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I realise that is indeed a frustrating comment, but honestly given that my name was invoked I couldn't not say anything, but also cannot just go on memory and impressions of study of 20 years ago and intermittent interest since. What can I say. I'm commenting now on overall impression of the friction above, not on the sources, overall I would like to see you get these articles to featured status and think it's a good work. You've also, mainly, been less supportive than before of the "fountainhead" and Papias related synthesis at Gospel of Matthew which seems to come up in the pasture annually like heracleum sphondylium (persistent common hogweed to British/Irish farmers). For this, mainly, thanks. The real problem with this is we really lack a decent pool of SBL-familiar scholarship in New Testament articles, I include myself in the lack. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is very frustrating to be expected to respond to "I have a twitch that something is off" because that is neither specific nor actionable. Since you don't have access to your library resources, and I do have access to a university library, tell me what you think is wrong and I will track down the sources for you. Ignocrates (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - "ignoring the input of two WP:3Os" - just lukewarmly on that specific issue, overall I share some of the unease of John Carter about this, I have a twitch that something is off, and, sorry, Ignocrates, what John Carter says about your editing/commenting practices is more than fair. My main problem however is that this summer I don't have access to my own personal library, nor a decent university library, and I haven't studied this area in detail for more than 20 years. Sorry everybody. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- And I think your refusal to offer specific suggestions for improvement of the article while ignoring the input of two WP:3Os and refusing to participate in WP:DRN are all evidence that you are nothing more than a tendentious tag-spammer. Your actions on this article are completely inappropriate and intended to provoke an edit war. Ignocrates (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the numerous references to Boismard in the academic literature produced by Nishidani above very seriously calls into question the apparently unfounded assertion "I agree this has not received much scholarly weight at all" and think perhaps it might make sense if certain parties were to make an effort to actually consult the academic literature, as he has, before making such apparently unfounded assertions. I also very much agree that there is a very real problem with editorializing in the notes, and other potentially dubious behavior, and think that, in general, most if not all of them really could/should be incorporated into the text or perhaps be changed into citation-type notes which can and in this circumstance easily could incorporate quotations from the sources into the note itself. Unfortunately, on Thursday, my off day, an electrical fire pretty much screwed up connectivity, among other things, for a while, and I wasn't able to do as much as I would like. However, under the circumstances, I can't see any reservations about editors who do not have previously expressed positions which could very easily be taken as substantive cause for POV complaints, editors like Nishidani and In ictu oculi, for instance, to remove such tags, or even add more if they deem it appropriate. I regret to say that I have seen a bit of an effort to not deal with some concerns in the past, but that in general tagging seems to be an effective way to get them addressed, when other matters fail. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think one challenged minor source on a page is sufficient to raise NPOV issues warranting a tag. It is a small technical issue, easily resolved, and is being addressed. So, if that is the objection, then I think the NPOV tag can be removed, though, as always I would leave it there for a discretionary day or two (if it hasn't already been removed: no time to check!) Nishidani (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think we have a talk page consensus among three editors - myself, In ictu oculi, and Nishidani - to include Boismard as a source, but cautiously as a tiny minority view. That being the case, is it time to remove the npov tag and move forward? Ignocrates (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- In reply to Ignocrates's request on my page (I'm sorry I haven'ìt had the time to work on these several pages given the heavy workload at Khazars), I was inclined to accept in ictu oculi's point - we should accept only the most recent work where possible, which Ignocrates generally has done - however the problem for me is that contemporary scholarship over the last few decades still keeps citing Boismard's work frequently (Wolf-Dietrich Köhler (1987);Rudolf Pesch (1989); Édouard Massaux, Arthur J. Bellinzoni (1990); Albertus Frederik Johannes Klijn (1992); Andreas Ennulat (1994);Simon Claude Mimouni (1998);David Neville (2002); Simon-Claude Mimouni (2004); Michael J. Kruger (2005);James Keith Elliott (2005); James A. Kelhoffer (2005);Oskar Skarsaune, Reidar Hvalvik (2007); J. V. M. Sturdy, Jonathan Knight(2007); Guido Baltes (2011) etc., to cite just book length technical studies which cite Boismard's work. This means that he is still regarded as relevant, and therefore, in some form or another, may be included, preferably through a specific secondary source that reliably excerpts his position. I think this has been done.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I expanded the ABD citation into a note and added Petersen's direct quotation, instead of summarizing it. I included Boismard's paper as a secondary citation, in case someone wants to track down the original paper in French. If someone else has a different idea, please discuss it here. Ignocrates (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that when John Carter added the POV tag he was objecting to this paragraph?: Epiphanius incorrectly refers to the gospel in his possession as the Gospel of Matthew and the gospel "according to the Hebrews", perhaps relying upon and conflating the writings of the earlier Church Fathers, Irenaeus and Eusebius, respectively.[n 52] His 4th century colleague Jerome remarks that the Nazoraeans and Ebionites both used the Gospel of the Hebrews, which was considered the original Matthew by many of them. Jerome's report is consistent with the prior accounts of Irenaeus and Eusebius.[n 53]
If so, I imagine it's the very categorical way it calls Epiphanius "incorrect" (citing Skarsaune and Koch) - is that right?
I suggest - assuming this is what the dispute is over - that a way to resolve this would be to recast the sentence to it says something like: Epiphanius identified GEb as GM "according to the Hebrews" (so we begin with a nice little statement of fact). Then: "He presumably meant that GEb was the hypothetical Hebrew version of Matthew believed to underlie that gospel on the basis of an ambiguous comment by Papias (dates). If so, the majority of modern scholars (Skarsaune) think he was mistaken, as the GM shows no signs of having been translated from Hebrew, but the case is still argued by some, eg (names - Boismard?)."
Finally: how on earth can you guys get so emotional about something so dry? PiCo (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- PiCo, he is objecting to this sentence: Its relationship to a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew remains a subject of scholarly debate., saying it is far too under-weighted. If you read the whole thread from the top of the page, I initially stated Boismard's conjecture -- that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is an underlying source for the Gospel of the Ebionites -- is fringe scholarship. I did more research and revised my position to state it is a tiny minority view; therefore, WP:WEIGHT applies here, not WP:FRINGE. JC is unhappy because Boismard's conjecture is mentioned prominently in the ABD encyclopedic article on the GEbi (see my analysis above). The ABD stands alone in mentioning it so prominently, but I accommodated JC by including a quotation from the ABD article in a note. He thinks it should be mentioned even more prominently in the main text similar to the ABD. Frankly, that is an absurd thing to do, and it undermines the very concept of WP:WEIGHT. Ignocrates (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Noting once again the reversion to calling me "JC" by the above editor, which has been previously objected to by me on this page already, to apparently little if any attention by that editor, I find it rather amusing that Ignocrates seems to brush off the rather thorough research Nishidani did above, indicating that the Boismard hypothesis is discussed to some degree in all those sources he indicated. The concern was immediately raised because it struck me at the time that this article differed in rather significant ways from the most highly regarded comparatively recent reference sources on this topic in ways which, to the best of my ability to determine, were not so far as I can see ever "rejected" or found less creditable in the interim. I also found a 2005 Oxford reference book which includes both Boismard and the ABD in its very short article, above. And, regarding the emotionality of the editing here, I believe that the evidence I am gathering at User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence preperatory to seeking Arbitration involvement indicates the basis for one party's extreme emotionalism on this topic. Given other concerns, and an electrical fire last week, I am still, unfortunately, preparing it. But the material which I have begun to gather there is probably the best indicator as to why I believe there are extremely serious POV problems with one of the editors here regarding this content, and that based on that likely prejudice it would be very much in the interests of the project if editors who did not share those prejudices to more actively involve themselves more directly to ensure that such POV is not kept in the article. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nishidani did not indicate a problem with my edits, so who are you to claim to speak for him? With respect to your droning on about my prejudice, as though you are somehow plugged into my innermost thoughts, please save your propaganda for arbitration and use this page to discuss improvements to the content of this article per WP:TPG. Ignocrates (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Noting once again the reversion to calling me "JC" by the above editor, which has been previously objected to by me on this page already, to apparently little if any attention by that editor, I find it rather amusing that Ignocrates seems to brush off the rather thorough research Nishidani did above, indicating that the Boismard hypothesis is discussed to some degree in all those sources he indicated. The concern was immediately raised because it struck me at the time that this article differed in rather significant ways from the most highly regarded comparatively recent reference sources on this topic in ways which, to the best of my ability to determine, were not so far as I can see ever "rejected" or found less creditable in the interim. I also found a 2005 Oxford reference book which includes both Boismard and the ABD in its very short article, above. And, regarding the emotionality of the editing here, I believe that the evidence I am gathering at User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence preperatory to seeking Arbitration involvement indicates the basis for one party's extreme emotionalism on this topic. Given other concerns, and an electrical fire last week, I am still, unfortunately, preparing it. But the material which I have begun to gather there is probably the best indicator as to why I believe there are extremely serious POV problems with one of the editors here regarding this content, and that based on that likely prejudice it would be very much in the interests of the project if editors who did not share those prejudices to more actively involve themselves more directly to ensure that such POV is not kept in the article. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I started a discussion at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Gospel of the Ebionites to resolve the dispute over how much to weight Boismard's conjecture. Ignocrates (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- As a result of the discussion at NPOV/N, a summary of Boismard's conjecture was added to mainspace and a quotation from Boismard's paper (in French) was added as a supporting note. Ignocrates (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Proof-reading the lead
Just some comments on the lead:
The Gospel of the Ebionites is the conventional name given by scholars[n 1] to an apocryphal gospel that may have been used by a Jewish Christian sect known as the Ebionites.[n 2] All that remains of the gospel are seven brief quotations found in a heresiology known as the Panarion, written by Epiphanius of Salamis, the only witness for this gospel;[1] he misidentified it as the "Hebrew" gospel, believing it to be a truncated and modified version of the Gospel of Matthew.[2] The quotations were embedded in a polemic to point out inconsistencies in the beliefs and practices of the Ebionites relative to Nicene orthodoxy.[n 3]
The surviving fragments derive from a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, composed in Greek with various expansions and abridgments reflecting the theology of the writer. It is believed to have been composed some time during the middle of the 2nd century[3] in or around the region east of the Jordan River.[n 4] Distinctive features include the absence of the virgin birth and of the genealogy of Jesus; an Adoptionist Christology[n 5], in which Jesus is chosen to be God's Son at the time of his Baptism; the abolition of the Jewish sacrifices by Jesus; and an advocacy of vegetarianism.[n 6] Although the gospel was said to be used by "Ebionites" during the time of the early church,[n 7] the identity of the group or groups that used it remains a matter of conjecture.[n 8]
The Gospel of the Ebionites is one of several Jewish–Christian Gospels, along with the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans; all survive only as fragments in quotations of the early Church Fathers. Due to their fragmentary state, the relationships, if any, between the Jewish–Christian Gospels and a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel are uncertain and have been a subject of intensive scholarly investigation.[4] The Ebionite gospel has been recognized as distinct from the others,[n 9] and it has been identified more closely with the lost Gospel of the Twelve.[n 10] It shows no dependence on the Gospel of John and is similar in nature to the harmonized gospel sayings based on the Synoptic Gospels used by Justin Martyr, although a relationship between them, if any, is uncertain.[4] A similarity between the gospel and a source document contained within the Clementine Recognitions (1.27–71), conventionally referred to by scholars as the Ascents of James, has also been noted with respect to the command to abolish the Jewish sacrifices.[n 11]
- In line 1 of para 1 we have "...may have been used by a Jewish Christian sect known as the Ebionites." Then at the end of para 2 we have: "Although the gospel was said to be used by "Ebionites"..." In other words, two mentions of the community separated by a wide gap. It would be better if they were brought together. I suggest deleting the mention from para 1, like this: "The Gospel of the Ebionites is the conventional name given by scholars to a fragmentary apocryphal gospel extant only as seven brief quotations in a heresiology known as the Panarion, by Epiphanius of Salamis." (Note that I'm taking out the phrase "the only witness for this gospel" - that's already implied in the sentence as I've redrafted it).
- Para 2: "the relationships, if any, between the Jewish–Christian Gospels and a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel are uncertain and have been a subject of intensive scholarly investigation." I have strong doubts about including this at all - the Hebrew Gospel is probably not real, but there's a Gospel of the Hebrews that is, and I think this risks confusing the reader. Cover it in the main article by all means, but not in the lead.
- Para 2 deals with the contents and composition of the GEb, para 3 with Jewish Christian communities and gospels in general. The info about the community of the GEb belongs here, not in the 2nd para. Move "Although the gospel was said to be used by "Ebionites" during the time of the early church,[n 7] the identity of the group or groups that used it remains a matter of conjecture" from the end of the 2nd para to somewhere in the 3rd. Probably the first sentence: "Although the gospel was said to be used by "Ebionites" during the time of the early church, the identity of the group or groups that used it remains a matter of conjecture. It is one of several Jewish–Christian Gospels, along with the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans, surviving only as fragments in quotations of the early Church Fathers." Etc.
- "A similarity between the gospel and a source document contained within the Clementine Recognitions (1.27–71), conventionally referred to by scholars as the Ascents of James, has also been noted with respect to the command to abolish the Jewish sacrifices." Passive voice - this similarity has been noted by whom? Try to avoid this sort of thing, I find it irritating. (Well, I'm old and cranky, I find Korean boy-bands irritating too, but they have their fans).
PiCo (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- PiCo, thanks for all these suggestions and welcome back. I will try to incorporate them in the next few days. The immediate priority is to shepherd the article thru FAR successfully. Ignocrates (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ignocrates, the above comment seems to me to demonstrate a very strong inability to understand what the purpose and nature of FAR is, and could very easily be taken as perhaps yet another in what might be seen as a longstanding habit of refusing to address legitimate concerns on the basis of some other cause. If legitimate concerns are expressed here, they will almost certainly be considered in the FAR. Basic logic would indicate that if there are problems which could conceivably cause it to fail FAR, that those problems should be addressed in the attempt to get this article through FAR. Putting them off for later, in this context, is completely nonsensical, and might easily be taken as an attempt at misdirection, which, in these circumstances, would not be considered sufficient grounds, as refusing to deal with problems such as those expressed above is often one of the leading reasons for an article to fail FAR. I very strongly suggest that the above editor perhaps more thoroughly familiarize himself with the process of FAR before making such almost completely incomprehensible and inaccurate jumps to conclusions as are implicit in the above statement. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- The point is that addressing specific concerns and questions in FAR takes priority because FAR is typically open for a two week period. However, I didn't mean to imply that PiCo's suggestions for improvement of the lead can't be addressed. That being the case: Why don't you
get off your ass andaddress them? Ignocrates (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)- I am really at a loss to respond to the obnoxious, arrogant, somewhat incendiary, and I believe deliberately nonproductive nature of this comment. Let me be honest with you, Ignocrates. Not all editors in wikipedia have displayed the sort of obsessive devotion to a single topic as you have. Some of us are trying to develop other pages as well, such as lists which indicate what topics receive substantial attention in other sources. Also, there are the details of getting together all the instances of misconduct of one other editor for ArbCom, which I believe just got another example of dubious conduct added to it. And, if you can remember back that far, unlike you, I some time ago recused myself from editing the article pages because of the numerous allegations of bias some editors made against me. There are other editors here as well, and they might be willing to weigh in and choose to agree or disagree as per WP:CONSENSUS, which really in general does involve more than just one SPA with possibly very serious issues of POV pushing or religious conflict of interests. Maybe if you could learn to conduct yourself in the manner of a rational adult, and not waste time with such counterproductive, incivil comments as the above, you might be able to do more to improve the article yourself, if actually improving it as per wikipedia guidelines and policies is more important than improving it to support the beliefs of certain non-notable groups. There is I believe a reasonable, well-founded question about the motivations of one editor around here, and some cause to believe that individual might be perhaps willfully behaving in a counterproductive manner, and that is the reason for the request for ArbCom to review the behavior of that editor seems indicated. Once that issue is resolved, however it is resolved, I believe that will make it much easier for others to actively improve the article. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I remember reading this same excuse years ago: "I some time ago recused myself from editing the article pages because of the numerous allegations of bias some editors made against me". When I asked you to produce evidence in the form of diffs for these alleged "allegations of bias", you were unable to do so. I'll give you one more chance to do it now, PROVE IT. Ignocrates (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ignocrates. I( do not believe that this irrational insistence on your part that people are somehow absolutely required to meet your aritrary and irrational demands to provide links to statements they make even remotely rational, and certainly I believe virtually any editor coming to this discussion would very likely find such arrogant, presumptive demands such as the above to almost certainly be a misuse of the article talk page. Despite the all-too-obvious presumptuous arrogance of the above comment, I am aware of no policy or guideline which demands such proof. If you can prove to me that somehow policies and guidelines support such irrational and blatantly arrogant comments such as your own above, I believe that would be more appropriate. Otherwise, please consider this possibly the final warning regarding misuse of the article talk page, completely off-topic comments, and other violations of WP:TPG. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I thought, there were no allegations of bias. Add another knowingly false statement to the long list. However, I'm willing to stipulate that you are too biased to be contributing to article content in the category of religious articles broadly construed, and therefore, too biased to be participating in talk page discussions in the category as well. Ignocrates (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am in the process of reviewing the history of this matter in preparing the request for arbitration. Although I have not yet gotten to reviewing the previous attempts at mediation, it was I believe during the second of them that I first recused myself from editing. I am reviewing user talk pages first, but I think most reasonable editors would understand that someone with over 100,000 edits might have a bit of difficulty finding exactly which edit points is prove. I also believe that it is not unreasonable, given your own previous allegiance with the Ebionite Jewish Community as per the IP comments of its leader, as per User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence that there is more than sufficient basis to question your own bias as per WP:POV as well. Yet, somehow, your history indicates that you do little if anything else. Should I add the template? John Carter (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I thought, there were no allegations of bias. Add another knowingly false statement to the long list. However, I'm willing to stipulate that you are too biased to be contributing to article content in the category of religious articles broadly construed, and therefore, too biased to be participating in talk page discussions in the category as well. Ignocrates (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ignocrates. I( do not believe that this irrational insistence on your part that people are somehow absolutely required to meet your aritrary and irrational demands to provide links to statements they make even remotely rational, and certainly I believe virtually any editor coming to this discussion would very likely find such arrogant, presumptive demands such as the above to almost certainly be a misuse of the article talk page. Despite the all-too-obvious presumptuous arrogance of the above comment, I am aware of no policy or guideline which demands such proof. If you can prove to me that somehow policies and guidelines support such irrational and blatantly arrogant comments such as your own above, I believe that would be more appropriate. Otherwise, please consider this possibly the final warning regarding misuse of the article talk page, completely off-topic comments, and other violations of WP:TPG. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I remember reading this same excuse years ago: "I some time ago recused myself from editing the article pages because of the numerous allegations of bias some editors made against me". When I asked you to produce evidence in the form of diffs for these alleged "allegations of bias", you were unable to do so. I'll give you one more chance to do it now, PROVE IT. Ignocrates (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am really at a loss to respond to the obnoxious, arrogant, somewhat incendiary, and I believe deliberately nonproductive nature of this comment. Let me be honest with you, Ignocrates. Not all editors in wikipedia have displayed the sort of obsessive devotion to a single topic as you have. Some of us are trying to develop other pages as well, such as lists which indicate what topics receive substantial attention in other sources. Also, there are the details of getting together all the instances of misconduct of one other editor for ArbCom, which I believe just got another example of dubious conduct added to it. And, if you can remember back that far, unlike you, I some time ago recused myself from editing the article pages because of the numerous allegations of bias some editors made against me. There are other editors here as well, and they might be willing to weigh in and choose to agree or disagree as per WP:CONSENSUS, which really in general does involve more than just one SPA with possibly very serious issues of POV pushing or religious conflict of interests. Maybe if you could learn to conduct yourself in the manner of a rational adult, and not waste time with such counterproductive, incivil comments as the above, you might be able to do more to improve the article yourself, if actually improving it as per wikipedia guidelines and policies is more important than improving it to support the beliefs of certain non-notable groups. There is I believe a reasonable, well-founded question about the motivations of one editor around here, and some cause to believe that individual might be perhaps willfully behaving in a counterproductive manner, and that is the reason for the request for ArbCom to review the behavior of that editor seems indicated. Once that issue is resolved, however it is resolved, I believe that will make it much easier for others to actively improve the article. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- The point is that addressing specific concerns and questions in FAR takes priority because FAR is typically open for a two week period. However, I didn't mean to imply that PiCo's suggestions for improvement of the lead can't be addressed. That being the case: Why don't you
- Ignocrates, the above comment seems to me to demonstrate a very strong inability to understand what the purpose and nature of FAR is, and could very easily be taken as perhaps yet another in what might be seen as a longstanding habit of refusing to address legitimate concerns on the basis of some other cause. If legitimate concerns are expressed here, they will almost certainly be considered in the FAR. Basic logic would indicate that if there are problems which could conceivably cause it to fail FAR, that those problems should be addressed in the attempt to get this article through FAR. Putting them off for later, in this context, is completely nonsensical, and might easily be taken as an attempt at misdirection, which, in these circumstances, would not be considered sufficient grounds, as refusing to deal with problems such as those expressed above is often one of the leading reasons for an article to fail FAR. I very strongly suggest that the above editor perhaps more thoroughly familiarize himself with the process of FAR before making such almost completely incomprehensible and inaccurate jumps to conclusions as are implicit in the above statement. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I was perfectly happy with Ignocrates' reply to my suggestions. PiCo (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The current article (Gospel of the Ebionites) purports: "The Gospel of the Ebionites is one of several Jewish–Christian Gospels, along with the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans; all survive only as fragments in quotations of the early Church Fathers."
When one reads the collection of testimonies by the Church Fathers in Klijn's momentous work, "Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects," it is easy to see how someone reading these testimonies on a superficial level can be led into thinking that there were three gospels used by the early Jewish following of Jesus when, in actuality, there was only one Aramaic/Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew. Anyone who examines these testimonies with a critical demeanor can't help but come up with the same conclusion. For one obvious reason: Both, the Ebionites and the Nazoraeans made use of the same Gospel, as we learn in Jerome (Commentariorum in Mattheum Libri IV, ch.12, vs.13, ed. D.Hurst): "…In the Gospel which the Nazoraeans and the Ebionites use which we translated recently from Hebrew to Greek and which is called the authentic text of Matthew by a good many, etc."
You can see, then, why some might call this Gospel, "the Gospel of the Ebionites," or conversely, "the Gospel of the Nazoraeans," since it alone was used collectively by both groups. They - being Jewish - made use of a text written in the Aramaic language! Elsewhere, Jerome writes (Dialogus adversus Pelagianos, in: Migne, Patr. Lat. 23, Parisiis 1883, III, 2): "From the Gospel 'According to the Hebrews.' In the Gospel 'According to the Hebrews,' which was written in the Chaldaic and Syriac language but with Hebrew letters, and is used up to the present day by the Nazoraeans, I mean that according to the Apostles, or, as many maintain, according to Matthew, which Gospel is also available in the Library of Caesarea, etc." Here, again, the Nazoraeans were using the same Gospel mentioned earlier, only the Gospel used by them had its own appellation. It was called "According to the Hebrews," which same name is repeated by the Church Fathers in other places as well when describing the Gospel written by Matthew. In short, all of these titles are used to describe the one and the same book. If anyone is interested in seeing other demonstrations of this fact, I will be happy to show him. Davidbena (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- As Klijn stated in his opus magnum: Klijn (1992), pp. 30,41; Klijn, p. 30 – "Our conclusion is that from the various references in Christian authors three Jewish–Christian Gospels can be traced. They belong to three individual Jewish–Christian circles." p. 41 – "The presence of three Jewish–Christian Gospels is an established fact." As far as Klijn was concerned, the debate was over. Aside from his confident assertion, the identity of the Gospel of the Ebionites hasn't seriously been questioned since Schmidtke's (1911) 2GH model was rejected over 100 years ago. For more information on the historiography of the 3GH problem, see my work-page User_talk:Ignocrates/JCGSA. Ignocrates (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)